On the Diversity of Origin of the Human Races [pp. 603-642]

Prof. Agassiz New Hypothesis
foundations of the social relations of the race, they require us
to prove the most elementary propositions, even though they
may have formed unquestioned portions of the universal belief
of mankind in all ages. And when we produce the explicit
declarations of cotemporary records, we are coolly told that
language has changed its meaning, and we are expected to
believe, without proof, that when Moses, born in Egypt and
educated "in all the learning of the Egyptians," Uses the name
of a prominent country, he means an entirely different country,
inhabited by a totally distinct race of beings, from that which
the same name uniformly designated among the Egyptians at
the same period, and for centuries before.
The force of these considerations is all the greater from
the undisputed fact, that the coloured races of men certainly
were known to the sacred writers, even if we grant that they
were not included in their historic narrative. The silence of
the scriptures with regard to them, especially in view of the
concession that "they were men equally endowed with the
same superior nature," strikes us as a most violent and unaccountable supposition, while using language so comprehensive
and particular. In view of the admitted unity of the races of
mankind is it not incredible that such studied language should
be intended to be restricted to a single division of that race
in defiance of " that general bond which unites all men of every
nation," so strongly that " the physical relation arising from a
common descent is entirely lost sight of, in the consciousness
of its higher moral obligations." If such was the clear consciousness of unity pervading mankind, we ask whether such
language and such statements would not have been so liable to
misapprehension, as to call for a caution or a limitation. If
the interpretation now set up be the true one, have they not
in point of fact been misunderstood in all ages, and by those
most, who have most studied them. Is it credible that a revelation from God covering such great and momentous themes,
would be couched in a phraseology, which it requires the comparative physiology of a few naturalists in this remote age of
the world, to interpret to us, by applying the disputed hypotheses of natural science? We really can hardly refrain from
replying to those grave inquiries by the belittling but expres
618
[OCTO.B.Blt