which they chose." How then could they be kept separate. The blessings, promises and curses, must have been followed by some physical change of the parties, or intermarriages would soon obliterate the individuality of each, and make them all of a like nature, and of similar descent. Nor would it answer the purpose to depend upon the memories of the parties, at all times, to know,-nor their fidelity to observe, if they should know,-the descendants of each progenitor. Nothing less than a physical change,—a change of color,-of features,-of manners, habits and mental qualities,-could with certainty operate as an effectual separation. A mere geographical separation, if there were no physical distinction, would only amount to a temporary sepation; because the migratory habits of man would soon bring them together. But a geographical separation, together with a physical distinction, would make, as it has made, an almost perfect barrier to an amalgamation of the different species. Thus the promises, curses, and blessings, upon the patriarchs, as types of the several species of mankind, could be literally fulfilled in the descendants of each typical patriarch.

Thus is the question of the species of men as fully open to philosophical inquiry, as any subject of natural history can be. We might almost say that Revelation has decided that there are several species of mankind, and that to believe to the contrary, is to disbelieve the power of God to modify specifically, by the word of his power, beings whom he created by no greater effort. When we reflect that these

specific differences have prevailed from the earliest traditionary, as well as historic period (excluding Revelation), we must suppose the specific modifications to have taken place about the time the occurrences related by Moses took place. Noah and family must have been white, because the Israelites, who are known to have descended in a direct line from him, are so; and as the different species, precisely as they now exist, can be traced up by tradition and profane history very near to the period of the lives of the typical patriarchs, we are bound to believe that these, together with a geographical separation, which was afterwards made, were the great barriers which God made instrumental in carrying out his designs in regard to his creatures.

This subject will receive frequent illustrations in the progress of our investigations, which we do not wish to anticipate; but we thought it due to our readers to state distinctly the ground upon which our investigations rest, which, if not solid, will not support the building we have constructed.

There is yet another view of the subject, which is conclusive. Merely as a zoological subject, the Natural History of Man is wholly disconnected with his origin. The single questions for the consideration of the naturalist are, whether he has certain specific, generic, or other zoological characteristics; and whether they have been preserved from generation to generation, for a time sufficiently long to justify a reasonable conclusion that they are permanent in the race. If it could be proved that the whole feline family sprang from a single pair of cats, preserved

with Noah; which. soon after having been set at liberty from the ark, by the operation of some causes then prevalent, but long since exhausted, improved, or degenerated into all the known species of history, we apprehend it would not disturb a single zoological family, as now established.

This view of the subject will be noticed more particularly hereafter. We only mention it now to put the reader in possession of the whole ground upon which the liberty to discuss the question rests. We have not adopted this view as the basis of our history; not because we think it untenable, but because we think we can sustain ourself upon Scriptural ground, with benefit to some sceptics; and that some kindred sciences may be benefited by taking Scriptural names for classification.

CHAPTER III.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF MAN AND THE PROPER NAMES OF THE SPECIES.

THE names by which things are designated are of much importance. Not that the name must always signify, by the clear etymological import of the word, the thing to be designated,-a thing always desirable when it can be done; but that it should desig nate the thing distinctly from others, even if the name should be arbitrarily chosen. The importance of a clear distinction of things, by the names applied to them, cannot fail to have impressed every one familiar with the violent contests which have taken place in the learned world, which might have been avoided if the word expressing the idea had been clearly understood between the parties.

The names hitherto used by philosophers in treating of the Natural History of Man, are not sufficiently distinct in their significations to avoid a confusion of ideas, and are therefore objectionable. Cuvier's and Blumenbach's divisions and names are generally followed. Cuvier divides all mankind into three varieties, and calls them Caucasian, Mongolian, and Ethiopian; Blumenbach retains the Caucasian and Mongolian, but subdivides the Ethiopian into the American, Negro, and Malay, making five varieties of mankind. If authors had used these words

technically, to express the single idea that these geographical names were only to be understood as typi cal of the races, they would not be objectionable. Such has not been the fact; for they either directly say, or leave an unavoidable inference on the mind, that, by the use of these words, they desire to be understood that the different races sprang up, or origi nated in the countries the names of which are given to them. In this sense these geographic names are objectionable; because they take for granted that permanent races of men may originate from other causes than by the creation of God,-by climatic influences, or accidental generation,-as though it was an ascertained fact that such things had taken place. Besides they are either too limited or too extensive. Too limited in referring all the white varieties of men to a Caucasian, all the yellow varieties to a Mongolian, and all the black varieties to an Ethiopian, origin; and too extensive, by embracing all the Africans as blacks, Blumenbach's division of the Ethiopian race into three varieties, while it obviates the objection to Cuvier's Ethiopian division, takes for granted what is not yet settled,-that the Americans and Malays are distinct races. Whether the aborigines of America are of one or many races, or a distinct race at all, is a contested matter. Whether the Malays are a distinct race, a variety of the Negro, or of the yellow race, is not yet settled. Besides, the reasons which governed Blumenbach in dividing the Ethiopian, should have directed him also to divide the Caucasian variety; because a latitude has been. given to this name, by which it has been made to