A BIBLE
DEFENCE OF SLAVERY,
Dy Boiro CNotiche
AND
The Unity of Mankind
,
By Ran G. b. Mitchell
By
h
BY
Rev. J. C. MITCHELL,
PASTOR OF 2D PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, MOBILE.
MOBILE:
J. Y. THOMPSON, 26 NORTH WATER STREET.
1861.

[The following lectures, for substance, were delivered in the
regular course of Sabbath evening lectures on the Book of Genesis.
A copy of both lectures was requested for publication by a number of
the Pastor's own congregation, with several other names subscribed.
As the subjects of both discourses are nearly related, it was thought
best to present them together; the last as an inference from the
first. The writer acknowledges his indebtedness for several
authorities quoted in the scientific argument for the unity of the
races, to Professor Cabell's work on the Unity of Mankind.]

A BIBLE DEFENSE OF SLAVERY,
AND
THE UNITY OF MANKIND
By REV. J. C. MITCHELL, Pastor of 2d Presbyterian Church, Mobile.
5. GEN. IX. 24-27.-
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his
younger son had done unto him:
And he said, cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his
brethren.
And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his
servant.
God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and
Canaan shall be his servant.
These verses enunciate one of the most remarkable prophecies
contained in the sacred record. It may not be improper to state
that there has been some difference of opinion concerning the
precise import of the words : " He drank of the wine and was
drunken." If the wine spoken of was the unfermented juice of
the grape, then the act would have been one of surfeit, rather than
of ebriety: disposing, like excessive eating, to sleep. If, however,
it was fermented wine, possessing intoxicating qualities, it is proba-
ble that Noah was ignorant of the fact that, in a few days, the

4
juice of the grape would ferment, and acquire new and surprising
properties. It is impossible to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion
in this matter. When the word of God is silent it is in vain to
speculate. The fact is here recorded by the sacred penman in the
characteristic simplicity of style which affirms neither censure nor
apology.
Before speaking of this remarkable prophecy in reference to the
three great parents of the human family, we should not omit to
remark that even the names of these sons seemed prophetic. SHEM
signifies name, and doubtless points to his superior distinction,
especially from his being the progenitor of the Messiah, who in-
herits a name that is above every name. HAM signifies heat, pro-
bably in allusion to the hot and sultry regions which his descend-
ants were to inhabit. JAPHETH imports enlargement, as if fore-
shadowing the increase, spread and prosperity of his offspring.
Canaan, the son of Ham, means to humble, to depress, to cause to
stoop or bow down.
We come now to consider the important prophecy uttered by
Noah, and fulfilled in the case of all the offspring of Shem, Ham
and Japheth. Infidelity has affected to sneer at this prediction ;
to regard it as the ebullition of private passion, caused by the out-
rageous conduct of Ham. Such a conclusion is simply absurd.
No honest inquirer after truth could harbor such a suspicion for a
moment. Noah had no direct or special agency in entailing a
curse on Ham's offspring, nor good on the offspring of Shem and
Japheth ; nor did Noah, when he uttered the language under con-
sideration, entertain the idea that he was himself fixing or affecting
the destiny of his descendants. We are forced to regard this
whole transaction as the expression of God's everlasting and im-
mutable purpose. Noah here acted as the prophet of the Lord.
Ham's wickedness was the occasion, not the cause, of the predic-
tion against Canaan. It is quite possible to be the occasion of a
thing, and yet not to be the cause of that thing. The evidence
that Noah did not express his own private feelings, but was the
medium of God's purpose, is found in the fact, that what he prophe-
sied has been literally fulfilled. Can we suppose that, if Noah had
given vent to personal spite, God would have sanctioned such con-
duct by fulfilling the prediction. The fact of its fulfillment then

is a sufficient refutation of all the carpings of sceptics. Noah
became on this occasion the organ of prophecy; the instrument of
a blessing pronounced upon the descendants of Shem and Japheth,
and of an awful and a solemn judgment inflicted upon the posterity
of Ham. We regard him as occupying the same position as did
the Patriarch Jacob, when he said "Gather yourselves together ye
sons of Jacob, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in
the last days." He spoke as he was moved by the Holy Ghost.
He predicts a grand and distinctive condition, domestic, social, and
national, that should ultimately be, and has really been. The
whole paragraph, containing this prophecy, short as it is, contains
a germ which, like the acorn to the oak, comprehends the spirit of
the respective histories of the three great branches of mankind.
The chapter following presents to us the incipient unfolding of this
prophecy. “ Cursed be Canaan ; a servant of servants shall he be
unto his brethren." This, though said directly in reference to
CANAAN's posterity, evidently includes Ham's descendants in the
other branches. CANAAN, as being prominent, representing the
whole, as EPHRAIM, for the same cause, not unfrequently represents
the ten tribes. Now compare this prophecy with the developments
of history. What does history testify concerning the character and
consequent destiny of large portions of Ham's descendants ?
What, moreover, respecting various other lines of Ham's posterity ?
About 800 years after the utterance of this prediction, the Israel-
ites, the descendants of Shem, subdued the Cananites, took posses-
sion of their land, drove some of them off, and made bondsmen of
the others. At à subsequent era, the scattered remnants were ex-
pelled by David and settled in those parts of Africa which first fell
under the dominion of the Romans, the undoubted descendants of
Japheth ; and in later times we know that the descendants of Ham
have been more or less the slaves of the descendants of Japheth.
It is a historical fact that Africa has been, for ages,
the
nursery
of
slaves for the descendants of portions of Europe, Asia and America.
How true the prediction " a servant of servants shall he be unto his
brethren."
Let us now look at the prediction in reference to Shem: There
is no difficulty in determining who were Shem's descendants.
They were the Jews and Asiatics. The import of the expression

6
“ Blessed be the Lord God of Shem," is that Shem shall have God
for his covenant God. We need not say that this was literally
fulfilled. The very first promise made to Abraham was, “ I am
thy God, and I will be a God unto thy seed." The worship of
God was established and perpetuated among the Jews who were
his chosen people.
“Who are the Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory,
and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and service of God, and the
promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ
came, who is over all. God blessed forever. Amen.''-ROM. IX. 4-5.
To them pertained the covenant and the promises. Unto them
were committed the oracles of God. They basked in the light of
God's favor while the rest of the nations were enveloped in hea-
thenish darkness. This state of things continued until the coming
of Christ. We have already noticed the fact that the Cananites
became the servants of Shem. In Joshua ix. 23 we have another
distinct recognition of this fact in the case of the Gibeonites.
They endeavored to avoid the curse denounced against their race,
by practicing deception, pretending that they came from a far off
land. But they were detected and Joshua thus addressed them :
“ Now therefore ye are cursed ; and then shall none of you be
freed from being bondsmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of
water for the house of my God.” Let us now notice the prediction
respecting Japheth, and see how far it has been fulfilled. "God
shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem."
Some suppose that he in this passage relates to God, i. e., that
God shall dwell in the tents of Shem: others, and with greater
propriety, think that it relates to Japheth, i.e. that Japheth shall
dwell in the tents of Shem. It is remarkable that whatever inter-
pretation be put on the passage, it has been strictly fulfilled.
Does it mean that God shall dwell in the tents of Shem? Hear
the Psalmist exclaim : “In Judah God is known; his name is
great in Israel. In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling
place in Zion.” Again, “The word was made flesh and dwelt
among them.” But if it means that Japheth shall dwell in the
tents of Shem, then it implies that the great blessings of the de-
scendants of Shem, shall be shared by the descendants of Japheth.
It is probable this prophecy was before the mind of Isaiah when
he exclaimed: “Enlarge the place of thy tent ; stretch forth the

7
curtains of thy habitations; spare not, lengthen thy cords, and
strengthen thy stakes.” But is this prediction in reference to Ja-
pheth verified by history ? It is a fact notorious, that the Gospel
has made the greatest progress in Europe, and in those parts of
Asia which were first settled by the posterity of Japheth. The
great mission of the Apostle Paul was to the descendants of
Japheth. Very early in his mission he planted the Gospel on the
soil of Europe. Almost all of his epistles were addressed to
churches which he had established among Japheth's descendants.
And this Apostle teaches the Jews that the Gentiles, the descend-
ants of Japheth, shall so dwell in their tents as, temporarily at
least, to take their place. So that in every sense this promise has
been most signally fulfilled. What shall we say of that other part
of the prediction, “God shall enlarge Japheth"? As a temporal
promise, referring to an increase both to the progeny and territories
of Japheth, it has been most remarably fulfilled. Which of the
three nations has been most enlarged? The descendants of Japheth
peopled Europe, a considerable portion of Asia, and nearly all of
North America. It is a fact that the most powerful and polished
nations now on earth are his descendants. The Russians, Prussians,
Poles, Finns, Danes, Swedes, Germans, Swiss, Belgians, Dutch,
Greeks, Italians, French, Scotch, English and Irish. It is also a
fact that every attempt made by the descendants of Ham or Shem
to take the land of Japheth has signally failed. On the other hand
Japheth has been continually making conquests. We hear in this
our day men speaking of the indomitable energy of the Saxon
race, and of the destiny of the world to be peopled and subdued by
them. What is this but the 19th century proclaiming by its facts
that the prophecy uttered 4,000 years ago is true? This subject
suggests some important reflections. 1. A consideration of this pre-
diction in reference to the descendants of Ham brings us face to face
with the abolitionist. We can see in the light of this prophecy the
wickedness and the madness of those who say that slavery is a
malum in se, and “the sum of all villainies.” Surely they who
bring such a charge against their brethren are either ignorant of the
teachings of the Bible, or scout it as of divine authority. Are we
not here taught that slavery was fastened upon a portion of the
race by the Divine Legislator himself? Was this Noah's work, or

God's work? If slavery be an institution of God, then, they who
denounce it as an evil in itself, denounce the divine legislation.
They set up their infidel French republican principles not only
against the Bible, but against God's living providence, and against
all the facts of history. It is not by argument that these fanatics
have produced the present state of things in this country. Argu-
ment has not been the characteristic of their publications. Denun-
ciations of slaveholding, as man-stealing, robbery, piracy, and
worse than murder ; passionate appeals to the feelings of the in-
habitants of the Northern States; gross exaggeration of the moral
and physical condition of the slaves, these have constituted the
warp and woof of their addresses to the public. They seem to
have been led by the mere impulse of feeling and blind fanaticism.
These misguided men have succeeded effectually in rousing the
public mind to the highest pitch of excitement. They have forced
the South, in self defense, to a thorough examination of the whole
subject. The subject of slavery is no longer one on which men are
allowed to be of no mind at all. The question is brought up be-
fore all our public bodies, civil and religious. It has divided most
of our churches. It has rent into fragments this once glorious and
prosperous Union. Under these circumstances, it is surely the
duty of every man to seek for truth, and to give expression to the
truth. In discharging this duty, it is proper to remark, that we
recognize no authoritative rule of truth but the word of God. In
searching for the truth on such a subject we want an authority much
more imposing than that of our own opinions and arguments. We
want a “thus saith the Lord.” We start then with this divine
prediction in reference to Ham's descendants. We are aware that
our opponents endeavor to destroy the force of this argument by
saying, as does Dr. Cummings, of London, that no prediction on
God's part justifies an act of ours against which there is a positive
precept. Now we are prepared to receive this statement in full.
Observe the qualifying clause, “against which there is a positive
precept." It is evident the Doctor did not intend that this saving
clause should afford any comfort to the slaveholder. For, he places
the prediction in reference to Ham in the same category with the
prediction in reference to the crucifixion of Christ; and by parity
of reasoning, the slave owner in the same category with the cruci-

9
а
fiers of Christ. Did the prediction that the Jews should crucify
their Messiah justify their conduct ? Surely not; and simply be-
cause their conduct was outrageously wicked. It was nothing
short of cold blooded murder. And does the Bible contain no
positive precepts against such characters? Is not the conduct of
these men condemned on almost every page of the Bible? The
prediction that Christ should be crucified did not justify his mur-
derers, because their own Scriptures contained many positive pre-
cepts against them. But can any positive precept against slavery,
and slave owners, be produced either in the Old Testament or in the
New? We can trace its existence at least as far back as the flood.
Is there one syllable against it from Genesis to Malachi? But
though the Bible contains not one word against slavery, it does con-
tain many positive precepts in its favor. It is incorporated in the
moral law; that law which was written by the finger of God on
two tables of stone. Look at the 4th Commandment. Slaves are
included there as a part of the household; for the original word
translated man-servant and maid-servant, is the same, as that “
servant of servants.” In the 10th Commandment the Lawgiver
not only recognizes slavery but throws a shield around it as proper-
ty. Will any one contend that this law is not still binding ? Does
it not come to us with the same authority as it did to the Jews ?
Turn to Leviticus 25: 44-46: "Both thy bond-men, and thy bond-
maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that
round
about you, of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids.
Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among
you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you,
which they begat in your land : and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you,
to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be your bond-men for-
ever ; but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not
rule one over another with rigor.” It is not denied that slavery
existed among the ancient people of God. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob
and Job were slave owners. “ Moses enacted laws directing how
slaves were to be treated; he also recognizes the distinction be-
tween slaves and hired servants; he speaks of the way by which
these bond-men might be procured ; as by war, by purchase, by the
right of creditorship, by the sentence of a judge, by birth.” Now
are

10
the argument from this acknowledged fact is simply this, that if
God allowed slavery to exist, if he directed how slaves might be
lawfully acquired, and how they were to be treated, it is in vain to
contend that slaveholding is a sin, and yet profess reverence for the
Scriptures. Many other passages from the Old Testament might
be adduced in proof of our position. But we pass on to an exami-
nation of the New Testament. Does the New Testament condemn
slavery or ostracise slave owners ? Is there one single passage
either in the teachings of Christ or his Apostles condemning the
institution? The abolitionisis, as far as I know, do not pretend
that there is. But are the New Testament Scriptures silent on the
subject? If this were so, their very silence would be a powerful
argument in our favor. Why were they so silent in reference
to this sin, while they unhesitatingly condemned all other sins?
Were they fearful of the consequences ? So intimates Dr. Way-
land. But they did not hesitate to array against their religion
the strongest passions of men. They did not content themselves
with denying sin in the mass; they condemned its special man-
ifestations. They arrayed themselves against every form of evil.
Had slavery no existence in their day? It entered into the ar-
rangements of every family; of every city and province, and of
the whole-Roman Empire. Why then, we ask, did they not raise
their voice against this “sum of all villainies ? Why did they not
hurl their anathemas against the slaveowner? The only reason
that can be assigned is, that Christ and his Apostles did not con-
sider slavery a sin. No other solution of their conduct is consist-
ent with their truth or fidelity. But, have we nothing in our favor
but their silence? Did they simply abstain from preaching against
slaveholding? Is it not true that they both recognized it, and
legislated for it as they did for other domestic relations ? Our
Savior commended a slaveholder as the best of men.
His Apos-
tles speak of them as Saints, faithful in Christ Jesus, believers,
brethren, dearly beloved. Ephesians vi. 5-9—"Servants, be obe-
dient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with
fear and trembling, in the singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
not with eyeservice, as men pleasers; but as the servants of Christ,
doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service,
as to the Lord and not to men; knowing that whatsoever good

thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord,
whether he be bond or free. And ye masters, do the same things
unto them, forbearing threatening," etc. I. Corinthians vii. 20-24-
“Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
Art thou called being a slave? care not for it; but if thou mayest
be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord,
being a slave, is the Lord's freeman; likewise also he that is called,
being free, is Christ's slave. Brethren, let every man, wherein he
is called, therein abide with God.” The interpretation put on this
passage by most of the Fathers and some eminent critics, makes
it still stronger : “ Care not for being a slave, but even if
you can be free, prefer to remain as you are.” Dr. Hodge ad-
mits that this interpretation is plausible. Other eminent critics
contend that it is REQUIRED by the context. I will cite one other
passage from the Apostle Paul's writings. In I. Timothy vi. 1-
5—we have these words: “Let as many slaves as are under the
yoke, count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name
of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have
believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are
brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and
beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words,
even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine
which is according to Godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but
doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy,
strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of cor-
rupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is God-
liness: from such withdraw thyself."
Now, we ask, could a plainer or more pointed deliverance on this
subject have been penned ! Here we have, not simply a recogni-
tion of slavery as an existing institution in the Church, but an au-
thoritative decision as to how slaves were to treat their own mas-
ters. They were to regard them as entitled to all honor, “because
they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.” The
CONDUCT of our Apostle was in keeping with his expressed opin-
ions on this subject. Instead of attempting to facilitate the es-
cape of Onesimus, a runaway slave, he promptly sends him back
to his master, Philemon. Surely the Apostle had no sympathy

12
with Abolition preachers and lecturers of the present day. He
does not hesitate to pronounce all such as traitors to the Lord
Jesus Christ. They teach a doctrine contrary to Christ. They
consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” Finally, he instructs Timothy to withdraw himself from
such heretics. They are anti-christian, and are to be excommuni-
cated.
Are we not-forced to the conclusion that if the present course of
the Abolitionists is right, then the course of Christ and his Apos-
tles was wrong?. If they are wiser, better, more courageous than
Christ and his Apostles, let them say so; but it is perfect folly,
under a paroxysm of benevolence, to attempt to tear the Bible to
pieces, or to extort, by violent exegesis, a meaning foreign to its
obvious sense.
We have seen thus far in our investigations, that the Scriptures
do sanction slaveholding; that under the Old Dispensation it was
expressly permitted by Divine command, incorporated in the moral
law, and under the New Testament is no where forbidden, but on
the contrary, acknowledged to be consistent with the Christian
character and profession. We are now prepared to advance a step
further in the argument, and show from the teachings of God's
Word, that slavery will be perpetuated to the end of time. The
first passage I shall adduce is found in Revelations, vi. 12–17—
" And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and lo, there
was a great earthquake, and the Sun became black as sackcloth of
hair, and the Moon became as blood. And the stars of heaven fell
ynto the Earth; even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when
she is shaken by a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a
scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island
were moved out of their places. And the kings of the Earth, and
the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the
mighty men, and every bond man, and every free man, hid them-
selves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and said to
the mountains and rocks, fall on us, and hide us from the face of
Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to
stand." The ancient expositors of this passage, and some of the
best modern critics—even those of Abolition proclivities--admit

13
that this refers to the Day of Judgement, with all its tremendous
accompaniments. And yet we find from this and other passages
in this book, (see Rev. XVIII. 13 and xix. 18,) that slavery will be
in existence up to the time of the end. The conclusion therefore,
is, that slavery in some form, and to some extent, will continue unto
the end of the world.
But if the opinion which is so rife at the present day, and so po-
tent in its influence, that slavery is an evil in itself, is not to be
found within the lids of the Bible; if it is contrary to the Divine
legislation, whence did it emanate? We strongly suspect that the
father of all evil had much to do with it, if he is not its legitimate
parent. If we are to judge Abolitionism by its fruits, it is evil,
only evil, and that continually. We might point to its effects on
the pulpit in many parts of New England. But why should we
speak of the effects of this abominable ism? Are they not patent
to every one? Do we not all see and feel its blighting and with-
ering influence. Abolitionism, like the deadly Sirocco, has swept
over this fair land of ours, withering and scorching every thing with
which it comes in contact. But though it may be ranked among
the most potent of Satan's offspring, it is by no means his oldest
child. The doctrine that slavery is in itself sinful, is comparatively
of recent date. It was unknown a half century ago. Did it orig-
inate with the framers of the Federal Constitution ? Did they
dream that there was an “irrepressible conflict” between free
labor and slave labor ? Did they think that slavery must be
placed in a condition of ultimate extinction ?" It is a fact that
up to the present time slavery exists in some form, almost over the
habitable globe. It is a fact that England, since her emancipation
act, has, from 1847 till now, imported in the West Indies not less
than one hundred thousand Coolies, who are slaves to all in-
tents and purposes. England has also doomed to fourteen years
of involuntary servitude, one hundred and fifty thousand captured
Africans. By the recent treaty with China, England and France
have secured the legalization of the Coolie slave trade, which is
to supply their demands in Algeria and elsewhere, at the rate of
four hundred children to a single ship; and so far from regarding
this as a sin, they speak of it as the inauguration of a great mis-

14
sionary enterprise. Moreover, the statesmen of England are just
beginning to open their eyes on this subject. They acknowledge
their inability, with all their wealth and power, to extinguish
slavery. They are beginning to recognize the fact, so patent to
all who are not blinded by prejudice, that the finger of God is in
this whole matter; that He will order and control the affairs of all
nations in such a manner as to subserve the interests of his king-
dom.
Another question of great importance suggested by this subject
is, have all mankind descended from these three sons of Noah?
In other words, have all mankind a common origin?
66
This is a question which, a few years ago, was hardly consid-
ered debatable. Voltaire was one of the first to observe that,
none but a blind man can doubt that the Whites, Negroes, Albi-
nos, Hottentots, Laplanders, Chinese and Americans are entirely
distinct races.” With a very few exceptions, the most distin-
guished naturalists both in this country and in Europe are, accord-
ing to Voltaire, “blind,” for they are firm believers in the unity
of the human race. It is only a few persons at the present time,
of any eminence at all in the walks of science, who openly main-
tain the diversity theory.
In discussing this subject we shall appeal, in the first place, to
the teachings of the Bible; and secondly, to the results of scien-
tific investigation. We shall endeavor to demonstrate that Reve-
lation and science are both beams of light emanating from the
same Sun of Eternal Truth. We are aware that an appeal to the
Bible as authority on this subject has been ridiculed by our oppo-
nents. They tell us that this is a question of science, on which the
Bible was not intended to pronounce; that the Bible is not a text-
book of natural history. But this rejoinder is stale, and besides,
has nothing to do with the subject. We are not surprised at the
unwillingness of these gentlemen to be confronted with the Bible.
We do not, however, claim the Bible as a text-book in natural
history, nor in any purely human science. The question at issue
in this discussion is not purely a question of science, at least not
of natural science. It is partly an historical question; and in a
still higher and more commanding sense it is a religious question.

15
It must be conceded that the great object of a divine revelation
was to clear up the history of man's origin and fall, to explain the
condition in which he is found, and to reveal a plan for his recov-
ery. Does not this object then, cover the question in debate ?
Surely the question before us does not involve simply the anotom-
ical and physiological structure of the several races or varieties of
men, but their moral character and condition. It is not whether
they all have the same number of bones, muscles, or organs, as
naturalists have demonstrated, but, are they all sinners. Are they
all embraced in the call of the Gospel, and in the offer of mercy ?
Surely, such questions as these are not to be settled by naturalists
on the principles of pure science. We wish to know how mankind
originated in point of fact, not how they originated in accordance
with the laws of science. We demand facts, not hypotheses. Can
philosophers or naturalists, however eminent or honored, make
facts? What well established fact in science has been produced
at variance with the Holy Scriptures on this subject? We are
treated with a great many theories and hypotheses which they
adopt to explain these facts. But when they wish us to adopt
their inferences, as being of the same authority as facts, we beg to
be excused. The facts we receive, their inferences we reject as un-
warranted. We think it will be seen, at the proper time, that so
far from being disposed to ignore the facts of science, it can be
shown that they are all on our side of the question.
There is no conflict between the deliverances of the Bible on
this subject, and the teachings of science. We shall proceed at
once then, to ascertain whether Revelation has spoken at all on
this subject, and if so, what is the purport of its teachings.
It
may be well here to state that Professor Agassiz, who is the
most eminent naturalist on the side of the diverse origin of men,
recognizes the authority of the Bible in this controversy by claim-
ing it as indirectly teaching his views. “We challenge," says he,
“those who maintain that mankind originated from a single pair,
to quote a single passage in the whole Scriptures, pointing at those
physical differences which we notice between the white race and
the Chinese, the New Hollanders, the Malays, the American Indi-
ans and the Negroes, which may be adduced as evidence that the

16
sacred writers regarded them as descended from a common stock."
This is certainly a frank and open challenge to produce the doctrine
of the Scriptures. As such, we accept it.
In appealing to the Scriptures for proof on this subject, it can-
not be expected that we notice all those passages which indirectly
affirm the unity of the human race, because the doctrine underlies
and pervades the whole Bible. Time will allow us to select only
few of the passages which affirm the doctrine, and treat them as
specimens of their class. We shall begin with that passage in
Acts xvii. 26: “God hath made of one blood, all nations of men
to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times
before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation, that they
should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him and find
him.” If the Apostle was a believer in the diverse origin of men,
he certainly had a very strange way of expressing himself. If he
understood the force of language, and was an honest man, he has
certainly settled this question beyond the reach of debate. The
phrase "of one blood,” in the Greek language denotes, with idio-
matic precision, the very idea which Agassiz repudiates, viz: a
congenital connexion by natural descent. The Apostle is address-
ing the idolatrous Greeks, and declares in explicit terms, that God
has made of one blood, not only them, but all nations of men to
dwell on all the face of the earth. Again, in Genesis iii. 20, it is
said Adam called his wife's name Eve, “because she was the mother
of all living." Can the meaning of such a statement be made
plainer ? Can it be tortured to mean that Eve was the mother
simply or the white race? This interpretation may be put on the
passage when it can be shown that no other races were known to
Moses when he penned this passage. But would not this be a
hopeless undertaking? Moses, who was born in Egypt, and edu-
cated in all the learning of the Egyptians, could not have been ig-
norant of the fact that African races existed in Egypt and Ethio-
pia in his time. That the Negro race were no strangers to the
Egyptians, is clearly proved from the paintings and inscriptions of
the pyramids and temples. Indeed, our opponents do not question
its truthfulness. Now, I would ask, is not the language which
Moses here employs—"she was the mother of all living,"-suffi-
ciently comprehensive to embrace the African race? Admit that

17
they had sunk very low in the scale of civilization, and were a
very degraded race, might they not be classed among the living ?
To reason on such a passage looks like an attempt to prove that
2 and 2 make 4.
But the sacred historian not only asserts this doctrine, in naked,
general statements, but he expressly undertakes to trace down the
re-peopling of the earth after the deluge, from the sons of Noah,
to his own time. After stating in the most explicit terms that all
in whom was the breath of life, perished by the flood, except eight
souls, we are informed that of them was the whole earth over-
spread. The Apostle Peter in alluding to this historical fact,
speaking of the Ark, says, “wherein few, i. e., eight souls were
saved by water."
In Genesis x. 6, the sacred writer gives the sons of Ham. They
were Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan. That Mizraim is Egypt,
is not disputed, for it is still called by that name. That the term
Cush, uniformly rendered Ethiopia, describes the home of a col-
ored race, will not be questioned; nor can be doubted that this
race is expressly declared to be descended from Ham. In this
sense it is used by the prophet in the proverb, “Can the Ethiopian
change his skin ?" What disposition can Prof. A. make of this
passage
e ? Is not this one passage, at least, which points at those
physical differences which we notice between the white race and
the colored races ? Surely the color of the skin denotes a physi-
cal difference. Psalms xiv. 2. The Lord looked down from
Heaven upon the children of men, (original sons of Adam) to see if
there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all
gone aside, they are all together become filthy; there is none that
doeth good, no, not one.” Now, does this comprehensive declara-
tion of Jehovah apply to the white race alone, or to the whole race
of man? That it is applicable to man, wherever found on this sin-
stricken earth, no one can question for a moment. The testimony
which reaches us from all quarters of the habitable globe is uni-
form ; • All have sinned and come short of the knowledge of God."
But how comes it to pass that all are sinners? Why are all
involved in one common ruin? The Bible gives but one answer
to this question: “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall
<<

18
race.
all be made alive.” “As by one man's disobedience many
were made sinners, so, by the obedience of one shall
many
be made
righteous." In the first place, then, we learn that we are all in-
volved in one common ruin, because we all have one common ori-
gin. Sinfulness and suffering come to us through our descent from
Adam. Deny that all have descended from Adam, and how can
you account for the fact that all are sinners ! But this is not all.
Deny that all have descended from Adam, and how can you ac-
count for the fact that all men die? We are expressly told that
all die on account of their connection with him as the parent of the
This is not all. Deny that we are all the offspring of
Adam, and where is our warrant for offering salvation to the Afri-
can? The benefits of Christ's redemption are restricted in the
Bible to the descendants of Adam. Our relation to Adam and
our relation to Christ stand on the same footing. It is eivdent that
the doctrine of Agassiz utterly breaks down here. We must either
repudiate the Scriptures entirely, or boldly avow that there is no
provision in them for the salvation of any of the colored races.
If we take the position that the Scriptures make no provision for
the salvation of the colored races, what interpretation shall we put
upon
the express command of the Son of God, •Go
ye
into all the
world, and preach the Gospel to every creature"? If the Gospel
were restricted in its saving power to the white races, would not
such a command be unmeaning; would it not be trifling with his
creatures ? But what say facts on this subject? Have not thou-
sands and hundreds of thousands of negroes been brought under
the saving power of this Gospel ? Do we not find that the Gos-
pel is adapted to man, as man, wherever found, and whatever may
be the color of his skin ? Surely these are facts which cannot be
set aside by the hypotheses of these gentlemen. It is thus evident
that the question whether all mankind descended from a common
origin, is not a mere theoretical one; it involves the moral charac-
ter and condition of the human race. Is it not passing strange
that any one who professes to helieve the Bible should not feel the
force of this? Are these men ignorant of the plain teachings of
God's Word, or are they determined to force the Bible to utter a
language in contradiction to the uniform interpretation of the
Christian world?

19
Some who hold to the diverse origin of men, may smile at our
credulity in supposing that they are believers in the inspiration of
the Scriptures. They are not, forsooth, so weak minded as was
Sir Isaac Newton, Bacon, Locke, Boyle, and a host of others who
might be named. They have a much more comprehensive grasp
of mind, and can see much deeper into a subject than all who have
gone before them. Still, we are not sufficiently awed by their pre-
tensions to learning and deep research, to give up our Bible, our
religion, our hopes and our immortality, or compromise those of
half the race, for the sake of a hypothesis in natural history; a
hypothesis, be it observed, which has been repudiated, and is still
rejected by the great majority of the naturalists themselves.
Having shown, as we think, that the doctrine of the unity of
the race underlies the entire system of religion taught in the Bible,
we propose to show that the leading authorities in science, so far
from contradicting the doctrine of the Bible with respect to man's
unity of nature and parentage do, in point of fact, arrive at the
same conclusion on principles purely scientific.
We have disposed of one of the main positions of Agassiz, that
a diverse origin of the races is indirectly taught in the Bible.
Let us notice his other two main positions on this subject. 1. That
the diversities of men are too great to be explained on the suppo-
sition of their unity of origin. 2. That the doctrine of diverse
origins is indicated by the analogies of the animal and vegetable
kingdoms.
We might reply to this first position, that the result in question
was supernatural, and thus cut this imaginary Gordian knot. In
thus arguing we have the authority of Dr. Morton, who is claimed
by our opponents as being on their side of the question. He thinks
it “consistent with the known government of the universe to suppose
that the same omnipotence that created man, would adapt him at
once to the physical as well as to the moral circumstances in which
he was to dwell upon the earth.” Although we believe this view
of the subject to be just and unanswerable, yet we feel no necessity
for relying on it in this discussion. We contend that the result in
question can be accounted for by the analogies of existing agencies
and laws. If diversity as to configuration and complexion known

20
to exist among the human races be a proof that they are not of the
same species, what shall we say of the lower animals? Do we not
find marked differences as to features, form, color and hair existing
among the lower animals, analagous, in every particular, to those
which distinguish the colored from the white races of men? Look
at the dog, the hog, the horse, the sheep, the cow.
There are sup-
posed by Zoologists to be some fifty different varieties of dogs, and
yet it is a settled fact that they are all of one species. What a
difference as to form, color, size, hair, and we may add, intelligence,
is to be found in this one domestic animal. The same is true of
all the rest. The varieties observable in these domestic animals is
much greater than what exists between the different races of men,
and if they can all be traced to one common stock, why should it be
supposed that man is an exception? That climate has a great
deal to do in causing diversity of color in the inferior animals is
obvious. For as we approach the poles, we find bears, foxes, hares,
&c. white, while some animals, as the ermine, weasel, squirrel, &c.
change their color to gray or white even in the same country, as the
winter season advances. From a vast array of facts recorded by
himself and others, Dr. Prichard deduces the following conclusions,
the accuracy of which cannot be successfully contested. 1. That
when certain animals are transported to a new region, not only
individuals, but also races, require to be harmonized in physical
constitution to the climate. 2. This acclimitization consists in
certain permanent changes produced in the constitution of animals,
which bring it into a state of adaptation to the climate. 3. A
restoration of domestic animals to the wild tribe causes a return
towards the original characters of the wild tribe. 4. Permanent
changes or modifications in functions of life, may be effected by
long continued changes in the habitudes which influence these
functions. 5. Hereditary instincts may be formed, some animals
transmitting to their offspring acquired habits, and thus the psych-
ical as well as the physical character of the races undergo varia-
tion through the influence of various causes on the breed.
We have here the results of the patient investigation and research
of the most distinguished naturalists both in this country and in
Europe. What then becomes of the position of Prof. Agassiz and

21
those who think with him, “that the diversities of men are too
great to be explained on the supposition of their unity of origin?
If such great and marked changes as to form, color, size, &c. is
to be found among the lower animals, known to have proceeded from
the same stock, is it surprising that we find great changes among
men? The geographical range of the lower animals is contracted
compared with that of man. Man is eminently a cosmopolite.
He is so through the physical susceptibilites and the reason with
which his Creator has endowed him. Everywhere a domestic
animal—he leaves his footprints on the snows of the polar regions,
he basks on the burning plains of the torrid zone, as well as flour-
ishes in temperate climes. His geographical range is no less than
the broad earth; he can move literally everywhere on the surface
of this planet. It is remarked by Dr. Paley that the human animal
is the only one which is naked, and the only one which can clothe
itself. This is one of the properties which renders man an animal
of all climates and of all seasons. He can adapt the lightness of
his covering to the temperature of his abode. There is no essential
connection therefore, between any one portion of the globe and the
men who occupy it. The geographical distribution of man is one
of the most interesting problems in history; and history, if we
exclude the Mosaic account, affords no data for determining the
great problem of man's origin. If we allow ourselves to speculate
on this subject, we will, at first view be inclined to adopt the opin-
ion of Agassiz, that every part of the world had originally its
indigenous inhabitants. We might in this way cut the Gordian
knot of many difficulties which present themselves in the investiga-
tion of the physical history of mankind; for instance, the remark-
able diversity in figure and complexion observed among different
nations—their difference of moral and intellectual character and
their peculiarity of language, observed as far back as the days
of Jacob and Laban. We might thus explain the fact that the
oldest records, ever since Cain went into the land of Nod, seldom
allude to an uninhabited country; or the no less surprising fact,
that in many parts of the world, as for instance Central America,
or even the very soil now pressed beneath our feet, we discover
vestiges of a primeval population, who, having dwelt there for
ages, and brought the civil arts to a comparatively high degree of

22
לל
cultivation, were swept away before the dawn of history. But
many of these obscurities will be made to disappear before the light
of science like mist before the morning sun, thus reconciling, in
many points, science and revelation. But to return to the geograph-
ical distribution of man: Professor Agassiz says " there are cer-
tain facts connected with the geographical distribution of the
races which are not explicable on the hypothesis of a common
origin, and that they require us to suppose that men were created
in nations, distributed over the face of the earth as we now find
them distributed, with the exception of the known migration of
a few races.” Again he says: “Men must have originated in
nations as bees have originated, in swarms, and as the different
social plants, have at first covered the extensive tracts over which
they naturally spread." This is very ingenious, to say the least.
But is it consistent with facts ? Is it true that the inferior animals
of the same species are confined to one zoological province ? Dr.
Bachman, who is good authority on this subject, says: “The com-
mon wolf has been found as far north as the foot of man has
trodden. It is found in Kamschatka, the Kurille Islands,
Japan, and China. It inhabits the whole of the Russian Empire,
Tartary, Austria, France, Germany, Italy, and, indeed, the whole
of Europe down to the tropics. It exists in America, from the
farthest north, through Labrador and Canada, in the whole United
States, in Oregon and California.” The same, he says, is true of
the ermine. Do not these facts greatly damage the Professor's
doctrine of the zoological provinces? Is man, confessedly a cos-
mopolite, to be restricted to a narrower range than the wolf, the
ermine, and many others that might be named? But what shall
we say of the American Indians, actually occupying all latitudes.
It is a fact admitted by Agassiz, that all the Indian tribes on this
continent had a common origin, with the exception of the Esqui-
Now, in reference to the Indian tribes found on this conti-
nent, Dr. Bachman has well said that Prof. Agassiz has rather too
positively conjectured that the Esquimaux had been created in the
snow-clad, cold, and dreary climate in which he now resides, and
that his projenitors never possessed a southern home. We contend
this to be an utter impossibility, from the organization of the Es-
quimaux or any other variety of man; the artificial means by
maux.

23
which he must supply himself with food, clothing, and a shelter,
and the intensity of cold against which he must necessarily be
protected. In like manner, Dr. Pickering argues: “In a district
exposed to extremes, whether of heat, cold, moisture, or aridity,
the indigenous animal or plant has the means of avoiding them, or
else is protected against them in its outer covering. It will follow
that if Europe were the proper home of the white man, he would
be born with natural clothing, with, at least, some inherent pro-
vision securing the maintenance of life, without aid from art. Man,
then, does not belong to cold and variable climates. His original
birth-place has been in a region of perpetual summer, where the
unprotected skin bears, without suffering, the slight fiuctuations of
temperature. He is, in fact, essentially a production of the tropics,
and there has been a time when the human family had not strayed
beyond these geographical limits. In reference to our Indian
tribes, there is strong presumptive proof of their Eastern origin.
Among the ornamental carvings on some of the monuments seen
by Mr. Stephens, in Central America, he was struck by the repre-
sentations of the elephant's trunk; and in one place he discovered,
near the base of an Obelisk idol, a colossal stone head of a croco-
dile. We know that neither of these creatures, at the age of the
discovery, belonged to the American continent. Again, another
experienced traveler affirms that in the west of America, the na-
tives look to the west as the place from which they came, and bury
their dead towards the west (placing them towards the spirits of
their ancestors, as they say), while the natives of the east coast of
Patagonia point to the eastward as the quarter whence they came,
and then bury their dead on the highest hills to the eastward, for a
similar reason. It is remarkable that none of them derived their
origin from their present localities in America. In Africa, the
natives point to the north as the place of their origin; and, briefly,
all Aboriginal tribes have been found, by travelers and the learned,
to derive their origin, more or less, directly from the central regions
of Asia. Are there no diversities existing among them? Is it
not a fact that the widest diversities appear as to the capacity of
the cranium, shape of the head, stature, color, and character of
the hair.

24
Catlin, in his work on the North American Indians, speaking of
the tribes in upper Missouri, says there are a great many of these
people whose complexion appear as light as half-breeds; and
amongst the women, particularly, there are many whose skins are
almost white, with the most pleasing symmetry and proportion of
features, with hazel, with grey, and with blue eyes. Their hair is
generally as fine and as soft as silk. There are many, however, of
both sexes, and of every age, with hair of a bright silvery grey.
This has been ascertained to be a hereditary character, which runs
in families. The American Indians, then, admitted by all to have
sprung from the same stock, exhibit every shade of color, from the
almost black Charruas, on the southern shores of the Rio de la
Plata, and some of the California tribes, to the fair Mandans of
Upper Missouri, represented by Catlin as being almost white.
What, then, becomes of the theory that a diversity of form, color,
&c., proves the diverse origin of men ? Among the Arabs, accord-
ing to the country they inhabit, we discover the extremes of com-
plexion. As the Arabs on the Nile do not intermarry with the
natives, the blackness of their complexion can be ascribed to
climate alone. Variety of color is found among all the races. It
is a notorious fact, as shown by Dr. Prichard, that some portions
of the Caucassian race are as black as any Guinea Negro. The
diversities of color, therefore, cannot be claimed as an inseparable
barrier to the unity of the races. Color, both in animals and men,
is among the most variable qualities of species, even when the
unity of origin is undoubted. Baron Humboldt, as quoted by
Professor Cabell, says: “Whilst attention was exclusively directed
to the extremes of color and of form, the result of the first vivid
impressions, derived from the senses, was a tendency to view these
differences as charactaristics, not of mere varieties, but of originally
distinct species; but, in my opinion, more powerful reasons lend
their weight to the other side of the question, and corroborate the
unity of the human race. I refer to the many intermediate grada-
tions of the tint of the skin, and the form of the ill, which have
been made known to us by the rapid progress of geographical
sciences in modern times." But we are met with a specious objection
just here. If it be true that the color of the skin—of the African,
for instance is to be ascribed to climatic influences, why do they
25

man:
66
לל
not lose their characteristic hue, by living for many successive
generations in temperate climates? To this we reply, that it is a
well established fact that a variety once acquired is apt to be per-
petuated by hereditary transmission, and is, therefore, not lost by
the mere withdrawal of the influences under which it was origi-
nally formed.
A remarkable case, in illustration of this, is furnished by the
Hon. J. R. Poinsett, in the following statement, made to Dr. Bach-
“I saw," says he, “ in the Capital of Mexico, a regiment
of six hundred men, who were all spotted with blue spots in some
part of the body. These persons were all in fine health, and
propagated their varieties from generation to generation." What,
there was in the food or the climate to produce this strangely
colored variety, we are unable even to conjecture. It was certainly
not disease, as Mr. Poinsett testifies. Here, then, we have a va-
riety as permanent as a distinct species.
** If our opponents," says Dr. Bachman, “who are busily en-
gaged in making new species of men, should, on this hint, begin to
speculate on the position this new species of homo maculatus
should occupy in our nomenclature, we would just remind them that
they have originated since the discovery of America, inasmuch as
they are a mixture of Spanish and Indian blood."
A great deal has been said in this discussion in reference to
the varieties in the conformation of the skull, as a proof of di-
versity of origin. That this is no characteristic mark of distinct
species, has been demonstrated by Dr. Carpenter. In his able
article on the varieties of mankind, he gives figures of skulls of
Englishmen, preserved in the Museum of the Royal College of
Surgeons, some of which present the characteristics of the pyra-
midal or Mongal type, and others those of the Negro type. Any
man may recognize similar deviations in any large and mixed crowd
of persons, all of whom may be of pure Caucassian blood. That
the coloring principle in the skin and hair is of a common nature,
is evident from the fact, that among the white races every grada-
tion, from the fair to the dark, is accompanied by a corresponding
alteration in the tint of the hair. This remark applies equally to
the colored varieties of men, for all these have black hair; but

26
among the spotted Africans, we are credibly informed, the hairs
growing out of a white patch on the head are white. These facts
prove sufficiently that a distinction of species cannot be estab-
lished on the mere difference in the hair. Upon this point, Dr.
Prichard very happily remarks: “That if this cuticular excrescence
of the Negro were really not hair, but a fine wool-if it were pre-
cisely analogous to the finest wool—still this would by no means
prove the Negro to be of a peculiar and separate stock, since we
know that some tribes of animals bear wool, while others of the
same species are covered with hair. It is true that in some
instances this peculiarity depends immediately on climate, and is
subject to vary when the climate is changed; but in others, it is
deeply fixed in the breed, and almost amounts to a permanent
variety."
But it has been proved, by microscopic observation, that the so-
called woolly hair of the Negro is not wool in fact, but merely a
curled and twisted hair. Some of the tribes near the Zam-
besi, according to Prichard, have hair in rather long and flowing
ringlets, notwithstanding the complexion is black, and the features
have the Negro type.
Time will allow us to notice but one more argument from
science, in proof of a common origin of the race, and we can do
little more than allude to it. We mean the argument from Eth-
negraphy:
99
In Genesis xi, we are informed by the sacred historian that,
prior to the dispersion, the whole earth was of one language and
of one speech. Can we, by analyzing the structure of the different
languages spoken by all the nations of the earth, trace them back
to one common origin? If so, it must be admitted that this would
furnish a most conclusive argument in favor of the common descent
of mankind. If we can find, in the tongues of the different tribes,
the same words to express the same ideas, and similar grammatical
constructions, we cannot avoid the conclusion that they must have
had a common origin. We are not here speaking of the identity
of intonation, nor the power of making similar articulate sounds,
but the common agreement in making, by a purely arbitrary system,
certain sounds to represent the same ideas.

27
Dr. Prichard makes the following remarks on this subject: “If
we learn from history that any two nations have been remotely
separated from each other from a very distant
age,
and have never
been brought into intercourse, we may hence argue that the marks
of resemblance discovered in their languages can bear no other
explanation than that of unity of descent. On this ground, we
infer, without doubt, the common origin of the Polynesian Islanders,
and that of the Greeks, and Germans, and the Arian race of Hin-
dustan.” He then proceeeds to point out the particular classes of
words which resemble each other in a common origin, and to show
that they are generally different in kind from those which one
nation borrows from its neighbors : “For even where one people
has derived from another a considerable proportion of its entire
stock of words, there generally remains an indigenous or aboriginal
vocabulary; or, if I may use the expression, a home-bred speech, ,
consisting of such words as children learn in early infancy, and in
the first development of their faculties. This domestic vocabulary
consists of the words of first necessity, such as those denoting family
relations-father, mother, child, brother, sister; (2) words deno-
ting various parts of the body; (3) names of material and visible
objects, and the elements of nature, the heavenly bodies, etc.; (4)
names of domestic animals; (5) verbs expressive of universal
bodily acts, such as eat, drink, sleep, walk, talk, etc.; (6) personal
pronouns, which are found to be among the most durable parts of
language; (7) numerals, especially the first ten, or at least the first
five, for
many
nations
appear
to have borrowed the second five in
the decade. Tribes and families, separated from each other, have
been known to have preserved such similar words for thousands of
years, in a degree of purity that admitted of an easy recognition
of this sign of a common origin.”
The following is from that illustrious savan, Baron Alexander
Von Humboldt:
"The comparative study of languages shows that races, now
separated by vast tracts of land, are allied together, and have
migrated from one common primitive seat; it indicates the course
and direction of all migrations." "From these considerations, and
the examples by which they have been illustrated, the comparative

28
study of languages appears an important rational means of assist-
ance, by which scientific and genuinely philological investigation
may lead to a generalization of views regarding the affinity of
races, and their conjectural extension, in various directions, from
one common point of radiation.”
Another eminent scholar, Dr. Max Müller, says: “The evidence
of language is irrefragible, and it is the only evidence worth listen-
ing to, with regard to ante-historical periods. It would have been
next to impossible to discover any traces of relationship between
the swarthy nations of India and their conquerors, whether Alex-
ander or Clive, but for the testimony borne by language. What
authority would have been strong enough to persuade the Grecian
army that their gods and hero ancestors were the same as those of
King Porus, or to convince the English soldier that the same dark
blood was running in his veins and in those of the dark Bengalee?
And yet there is not an English jury now-a-days which, after ex-
amining the hoary documents of language, would reject the claim
of a common descent and a legitimate relationship between Hindoo,
Greek and Teuton. Many words still live in India and in England
that have witnessed the first separation of the northern and south-
ern members of the Arian family; and these are witnesses not to
be shaken by any cross-examination. The terms for God, for
house, for father, mother, son, daughter, for dog and cow, for heart
and tears, for axe and tree-identical in all the European idioms-
are like the watch words of soldiers. We challenge the seeming
stranger, and whether he answer with the lips of a Greek, a Ger-
man, or an Indian, we recognize him as one of ourselves. Though
the historian may shake his head, though the physiologist may
doubt, and the poet scorn the idea, all must yield before the fact
furnished by language."
We will close this discussion with a short extract or two, from
Bunsen, as quoted by Professor Cabell :
“ We disclaim the savage, as the prototype of natural, original
man; for linguistic inquiry shows that the languages of savages
are degraded, decaying fragments of nobler formations. The lan-
guage of the Bushman is a degraded Hottentot language, and this
language is likely to be only a depravation of the noble Kafre
29

race.
tongue." “ All the nations which from the dawn of history to our
days have been the leaders of civilization in Asia, Europe and
Africa, must consequently have had one beginning. This is the
chief lesson which the knowledge of the Egyptian languages
teaches."
Before closing this already protracted discussion, we feel com-
pelled to notice the insidious appeal made to the prejudices of
slaveholders, by some of those who deny the unity of the human
The argument is, that the Negro, being of a different and
vastly inferior origin, we have a right to keep them in servitude.
This is an argument ad captandum, which, we think, no man of
science, and surely no Christian man, can countenance for a mo-
ment. And we feel assured that this argument has no weight with
the great masses of our Southern people, notwithstanding the
slanderous reports of the Abolitionists. Nor are we, as a people,
drifting in that direction, as has been ungenerously insinuated.
We have too much reverence for our Bibles to take such a position.
being entirely satisfied with its teachings on this subject. Besides,
we feel no inclination to bolster up our right to hold slaves by
resorting to this infidel ad captandum argument. We do not feel
it necessary to prove that our servants are mere beasts of burden,
to establish our right to their services. We regard them as per-
sons, not as chattles; as moral and responsible beings, not as des-
titute of souls. We pretend no claim to anything but their services.
We recognize our duty to provide for their temporal and spiritual
welfare. Were we to deny that they were the descendants of
Ham, upon whom was entailed the curse of slavery, we would not
only array ourselves against the Scriptures, but, at the same time,
cut ourselves off from their support in this discussion. And we
value that support too highly to be guilty of any such folly and
wickedness. There certainly, then, can be no temptation, were we
ever so much disposed, to avail ourselves of the argument drawn
from the theory of a diverse origin of the race.
We need not say,
therefore, that the fears expressed by some of our brethren in the
North, on this subject are entirely groundless.
But while we condemn as unscriptural, and contrary to the
teachings of science, the ad captandum argument deduced from
the theory that the African is not from the same parentage as our-

30
selves, we must also protest, with equal emphasis, against the
absurd, and, in their consequences, wicked doctrine which modern
fanaticism strives to erect upon the admitted truth of the unity of
mankind. They say that if it be admitted that all mankind de-
scended from a common ancestry, we certainly have no right to
hold them as slaves. They also talk a great deal about all men
being created free and equal, as if this were a doctrine distinctly
taught in the Bible, or, at least, as if it were a legitimate inference
from the unity of the races.
Now, there is a short but satisfactory way of deciding this mat-
ter, and that is by a direct appeal to the Bible itself. Were those
whom the Bible recognizes as slaves, the undisputed descendants of
Ham? If so, we have the statement of a fact which perfectly an-
nihilates all their inferences. What, then, becomes of the doctrine
that all men are created free and equal? May we not appeal
with confidence to the teachings of Scripture for a doctrine entirely
contrary to the sense intended by these fanatics, when they tell us
that all men are created free and equal ? Is it true that all men
are created equal in personal endowments, and in their relation to
providential arrangements? Is not their inequality in these respects
one of the boldest and most stubborn facts on the records of all
time? The Scriptures declare, not only that there exists an
inequality, but that this inequality is permitted to exist for wise
and good purposes. Is not one thus saith the Lord' worth a
thousand inferences, especially such inferences ?
66
But I would ask, can we not recognize the hand of God in this
whole arrangement? Are not His wisdom and mercy manifested
in bringing the African race in contact with the white race in this
Southern country? Who, that is not deeply prejudiced, can fail
to see the happy influences which have already been exerted upon
the black man ? Has not his condition-mentally, morally, and
physically-been greatly improved by the very relation which he
sustains to the white man? If it be an established fact that the
inferior races cannot come into competition with civilized man, as
Hugh Miller forcibly argues; if it is the fate of the race, after a
few generations, to disappear, having fallen too hopelessly low to
be restored, may we not ascribe the singular growth of the black
34623-D
Pam

31
population in the South, and their marked improvement in physical
and moral characteristics, to the fact that they have been brought
in contact with the white race, in the only relation that could ex-
clude a fatal competition ? Look at the numerous Indian tribes in
this country who have melted away before the white races. A few
years ago, and they were the proprietors of this vast domain.
Where are they now? They were unable to compete with the
dominant race. And who cannot see that a similar fate, in a few
years, would befall the Negro in this country, should Abolitionism
triumph. But we entertain no fears on this subject. We do not
believe that God in his providence will ever allow this vile heresy
to triumph. The time is not far distant, we trust, when these mis-
guided men will be led to see the error of their ways, and bring
forth fruits meet for repentance.
D

VYUL
contrary to the sense intended by these fanatics, wnen they tell us
that all men are created free and equal ? Is it true that all men
are created equal in personal endowments, and in their relation to
providential arrangements? Is not their inequality in these respects
one of the boldest and most stubborn facts on the records of all
time? The Scriptures declare, not only that there exists an
inequality, but that this inequality is permitted to exist for wise
and good purposes. Is not one thus saith the Lord” worth a
thousand inferences, especially such inferences ?
66
But I would ask, can we not recognize the hand of God in this
whole arrangement? Are not His wisdom and mercy manifested
in bringing the African race in contact with the white race in this
Southern country? Who, that is not deeply prejudiced, can fail
to see the happy influences which have already been exerted upon
the black man! Has not his condition-mentally, morally, and
physically-been greatly improved by the very relation which he
sustains to the white man? If it be an established fact that the
inferior races cannot come into competition with civilized man, as
Hugh Miller forcibly argues; if it is the fate of the race, after a
few generations, to disappear, having fallen too hopelessly low to
be restored, may we not ascribe the singular growth of the black
34623-D
Harper
Pam
Mitchell, J.C.