Page images
PDF

very passages adduced above, in proof of the origin of the first human pair. In reply to this objection it is only necessary to say, that in this, as in other instances of the sacred narrative, the difference in these items of history are merely apparent, arising from the difference between a general and a particular account of the same transaction. But the objector further urges: — Moses places in the geneological table of Adam only three sons, Cain, Abel, and Seth; whence then, he asks, came the wife of Cain, if Eve, his mother, was the only woman living at the time of his marriage 2 Upon this was predicated the hypothesis of Isaac de la Peyrera, A. D. 1655, of the existence of the pre-Adamites. To solve this difficulty, it is only necessary to be reminded that the direct design of Moses, in the above narrative is, merely to furnish us with the geneology of the sons (not of the daughters) of Adam, link after link, down to the second original family of the world, NoAH and his sons, and with whom Cain's posterity had no connevion. This is ordinarily the case in all history, as well profane as sacred. The male line only is important in matters of geneology. The mere circumstance of an omission of any reference to females, is no proof that if there were any, that they must have belonged to a family other than that of Adam. In addition to this we add, that so far as reliance can be placed upon a tradition prevalent among the Jews to this day, to the family of Adam belonged many children, both male and female. Finally, Moses declares, that “Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of ALL living ;” and St. Paul expressly calls ADAM the first man, twice over. (See first Corinthians, xv., forty-fifth, and forty-seventh verses.) Admitting, then, the infallible accuracy of sacred history, to what conclusion have we arrived ? Certainly this, that whatever races of men do belong to the human family, we can and must trace their origin back to the one first great progenitor, ADAM. Still, one important part of our subject remains unanswered. The question, you will recollect, is, are all who claim to belong to the human race, of the same genus or species 2 in other words, have they a common origin 2 Now, there are two Scriptural marks, by which such a claim may be preferred. The first is, the erect posture of the species. “God made man UPRIGHT.” But does it hence necessarily follow, that all animals who can walk erect are entitled to the above claim? We wait not a reply. By what other mark, then, is the line to be finally drawn 7 Answer, — By the endowment.of intellectual and moral powers. Man, by the inspiration of the Almighty, “became a living soul;” i.e., he was constituted an intellectual, a sentient being, and capable, also, of volition. Again, “God created man in his own image and likeness;” or, in other words, he was endowed with moral qualities, which, however debased and degraded, were never, and can never be, destroyed. * We have thus referred you to two Scriptural marks, by which the above claim may be preferred ; not, however, because they do not find their analogy in the works of nature. Physiologically, we may argue the justness of these claims to a common origin, in the anatomical organization and structure of the human frame. Not so certain, however, is the argument founded upon the hereditary transmission of changes to which the human system may be subject; and we further venture the assertion, that if reason, if intellect, if thought could be ascertained to be lodged within the brain of an Ouran Outang, it would be justly entitled to the above claim, though possessed of a different anatomical structure from that of the human frame; while, on the other hand, with all the advantages of such anatomical structure, totally dispossessed of reason, of intellect, and of thought, there would be just grounds for a demial of said claim. How, then, will you dispose of the idiot 2 To what genus or species does he belong? Has he reason, intellect? Can he think With all the anatomical organization, symmetry, and beauty of the human frame, it is said he is a perfect block. Ah, and how did you arrive at this fact? We will dispose of the idiot thus: we will leave him in the hands of that Almighty Being who has been pleased to consign to perpetual imprisonment, during natural life, reason, intellect, thought, within the narrow cell of some millioneth part of a cubic inch of his brain. But, there is another case to which some may allude — it is that of a being in human form, by some strange casualty, torn, in infancy, from the parents of its common nature, and left to an uncertain fate in the

midst of a dense forest, where it finds protection and nourishment for years from creatures whose native instinct has moved to succor rather than devour. This secluded being passes thus through the period of childhood and becomes a youth; and, to all human appearance, upon its first recovery by its own native species, it furnishes indications of a total assimilation (except in anatomical structure) to its brutal protectress. But, is the original nature of the child, mental or physical, absolutely changed? totally changed? No — in every known instance among the few, where there has been a temporary suspension of the aliments naturally adapted to the nourishment of the human body, or the advantages of mental culture; a restoration to its native atmosphere, and to the influence, physical and mental, of beings of a kindred nature, have never failed to rekindle the latent spark of reason, of intellect, of thought, which has long remained dormant. — Like the point of the magnet, it seeks af. finity with spirits of a common origin; and, being brought in contact with these, you are led to a discovery of emanations of intellect, like fire from the ignited steel — of intellect, we say — not of instinct. Instinctive refinements are limited in their developement, according to the various degrees of sagacity prevalent among the various tribes of “the brutes that perish.” You talk of learned dogs, and hogs, and rib-nosed apes. All their astonishing feats, however, can by demonstration be shown as limited to the disciplinary legerdemain of their catch-penny masters. There is nothing then in history—nothing in the physiological structure of animals of the brute creation, assimilated as they may be in anatomical form, and in feats of instinctive legerdemain, to the erect posture and mental endowment of the human being: —nothing in those strange casualties which, in a few instances may have befallen our nature, that, by any show of consistency can prove either an amalgamation of natures of the lower with the higher order of created being, or assign to any of the latter an existence prior to that of Adam. “God, that made the world,—hath made of one blood ALL NATIONs of MEN for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” " All therefore who claim to belong to the human race are of the same genus or species; and, Adam and Eve are the original progenitors of all mankind. With these general remarks, we proceed now to the inquiry, what period of time are we to assign to God's saEBATH of REST When did it commence 2 When will it terminate 2 We now answer briefly, that it commenced, when “the heavens and the earth were FINISHED, and all the host of them,”” at the close of the sixTH demiurgic day. As to its termination, we reply, first, negatively, that it did not, because it could not possibly have closed with any supposed resumption of the Creator's labors on the eighth natural day: otherwise how are we to reconcile the declared completion (Gen. ii., 1) of the whole Ex

1. Acts xvii., 24, 26. 2. Gen. ii., 1.

« PreviousContinue »