Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

"Thus far," says he, after a residence of fifty years in Charleston, “we have found them (mulattoes) equally, if not more prolific than the whites. We have, according to the last census, 405,751 mulattoes in the United States. The experiment, therefore, for good or for evil, has been conducted on a large scale. We have in Charleston a large number of respectable families of free mulattoes. They have received good English educations, and some of their daughters have even been taught drawing and music. Their sons are mechanics. Many of the members of this community of mulattoes are upright and virtuous, and are professors of religion. They have intermarried for several generations. We have ascertained that they continued to be, through every generation, on an average, fully as prolific as either the whites or blacks."*

The argument drawn from the psychological conformities of the various human races is equally conclusive as to their spe cific unity. "We contemplate," says Dr. Prichard, “among all the diversified tribes, who are endowed with reason and speech, the same internal feelings, appetencies, aversions; the same inward convictions, the same sentiments of subjection to invisible powers, and, more or less fully developed, of accountableness or responsibility to unseen avengers of wrong and agents of retributive justice, from whose tribunal men can not even by death escape. We find everywhere the same susceptibility, though not always in the same degree of forwardness or ripeness of improvement, of admitting the cultivation of these universal endowments, of opening the eyes of the mind to the more clear and luminous views which Christianity unfolds, of becoming moulded to the institutions of religion, and of civilized life in a word, the same inward and mental nature is to be recognized in all the races of men. When we compare this fact with the observations which have been heretofore fully established as to the specific instincts and separate psychical endowments of all the distinct tribes of sentient beings in the universe, we are entitled to draw confidently the conclusion, that all human races are of one species and one family."+ If this conclusion appear startling, in view of the reports

* Charleston Medical Journal. July, 1855, p. 524.

+J. C. Prichard. Natural History of Man. London. 1848, p. 545.

given by travellers, of those degraded forms of humanity to be found in Southern Africa and in Australia, it may, perhaps, lessen the force of the objection to point to parallel cases existing in nearly all the great cities in the heart of civilized Christendom. This parallel between the most brutalized savages and the "dangerous classes" of our large cities, was suggested by Dr. Carpenter in the Edinburgh Review for October, 1848, and has since been extended in his notice of the "Varieties of Mankind," to which reference has been already several times made.

This conformity as to the fundamental elements of moral nature between the different races of mankind, is entirely consistent with a very large degree of diversity in moral and intellectual manifestations; and the extent to which such a moral and intellectual diversity may, under the influence of causes common to a whole people, become the common heritage of a tribe, and thus ultimately characterize the race, is a legitimate subject of curious, and it may be, very profitable study.*

The evidences of this close conformity in the elements of psychical nature among all the races of men, is regarded as so significant of their "moral brotherhood" as to have commanded the assent of a large majority of even that class of naturalists who, like Agassiz, consider these races as distinct in their origin, and as having been originally marked with the same physical peculiarities which now characterize them respectively. “We recognize,” says this eminent zoologist, "the fact of the unity of mankind. It excites a feeling that raises men to a most elevated sense of their connection with each other. It is but the reflection of that divine nature which pervades the whole being. It is because men feel thus related to each other, that they acknowledge those obligations of kindness and moral responsibility which rest upon them in their mutual relations. Where the relationship of blood has ceased, do we cease to acknowledge that general bond which unites all men of every nation? By no means. This is the bond which every man feels more and more the farther he advances in his intellectual and moral culture, and which in this development is continually placed upon higher and higher ground,

*See "Moral and Intellectual Diversity of the Races," by Count Gobineau.

so much so, that the physical relation arising from a common descent, is finally lost sight of in the consciousness of higher moral obligations. It is this consciousness which constitutes the true unity of mankind."*

These are noble thoughts, expressed in eloquent words. We can not, then, but own our surprise that the distinguished writer has permitted his honored name to appear on the titlepage of a work the tendency, and we might, perhaps, without injustice add, the undisguised object of which is to revolutionize the practical moral convictions of mankind which he has thus so eloquently vindicated.

So too the Westminster Review (April, 1856) while advocating the plurality of origin, and the primeval diversities of the principal types of men, yet asserts their "strict unity, a unity manifested physically, intellectually, and morally, a sameness from the beginning in instincts, propensities, feelings, and faculties, hopes and fears, and everywhere the like reverent looking upwards to a great unseen Cause, and constant adumbration of a future heritage."

We might now, we think, reasonably challenge the assent of our readers to the doctrine of the unity of the human species, but inasmuch as that doctrine has been assailed of late from quarters of attack not yet noticed in this article, which has been already extended to an inconvenient length, we propose to resume the subject in the succeeding number of this journal, with the view, especially, of examining the grounds on which Prof. Agassiz, while recognizing the "unity of mankind," yet contends for primordial diversities of type. We hope to show that the very grounds on which natural zoological provinces are established, suffice to refute the idea of a multiple origin for identical species, and that there is no difficulty in accounting for the actual distribution of man over the face of the earth by natural agencies, while the theory of Agassiz involves the idea of a needless repetition of the miracle of creation. Inasmuch, too, as he is the most conspicuous assailant of the argument in favor of the common origin of mankind, derived from a consideration of linguistic affinities, we shall attempt to vindicate the validity of the philological proofs of such origin,

* Christian Examiner. Boston. Jan., 1850.

and after again adverting to the actual moral and intellectual diversities of the races, we shall present a comprehensive summary of the conclusions which we regard as having been satisfactorily established, and shall prominently indicate the difficulties that beset every attempt to evade the simple doctrine which asserts the specific unity and the common origin of all the coheritors of that Nature one touch of which "makes the world kin."

ART. II. THE GREEK ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORIANS.

Eusebii, Socratis, Sozomeni, Theodoreti, Evagrii, Philostorgii, Historia Ecclesiastica, cura Gal. Reading Gr. et Lat. Cant. 1820.

The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians, Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Evagrius, translated from the Greek Bagster and Sons. London, 1844.

Socratis Scholastici Ecclesiastica Historia, Libri Septem, ex pecensione Henrici Valesii. Oxonii, 1845.

The Ecclesiastical History of Philastorgius as epitomized by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, translated by EDWARD WALFORD. Henry G. Bohn. Lond., 1855.

THE sacred writers bring the history of the Church down to the time of St. Paul's first visit to Rome, A.D. 62, and here they seem to have closed their labors in this department. We gather, it is true, some intimations of the state of ecclesiastical affairs of a later date from the writings of the apostles, but they are few and brief. The historians whose names are at the head of this article, are the only successors of St. Luke whose works are still extant. There is a wide interval between them and the sacred historian; but as "Time's effacing fingers" have obliterated the historical records which were drawn up by those who lived nearest to the days of the apostles, we must

be content to draw our knowledge of the early history of the Church from these ancient sources. These historians record the events which occurred from the time of Christ down to A.D. 594. The earliest of these historians was Eusebius. He has generally been called "The Father of Ecclesiastical History," and his claim to the appellation can not be called in question. Eusebius was born at Cesarea A.D. 270. He was elected Bishop of the Church in his native city, but the precise date of his elevation to the episcopal office is not known. From certain notices of him given by contemporary writers, it seems that he held the see of Cesarea as far back as A.D. 320. His death occurred about A.D. 340.

We gather but few notices from the works of the Bishop of Cesarea which cast any light on his personal history, and these refer chiefly to his opinions on the great controversy of the day, and to the course which he pursued in the fierce contest which then agitated the Church. The history of the Bishop was an eventful one. His opinions and conduct have in modern times furnished a theme for many a controversialist. Eusebius, like his friend Pamphilus, suffered persecution during the reign of Dioclesian, but unlike his friend, he did not obtain the crowning honor of martyrdom. Indeed it is significantly hinted by his contemporaries and opponents that his escape from martyrdom was effected by means unworthy of a Christian. The Bishop of Hierapolis publicly accused him at the Council of Tyre of having compromised his religion in order to regain his liberty. But as the charge was not sustained by facts, it was soon suffered to sink into oblivion. In modern days the Benedictine editors of Athanasius, who harbored a grudge against Eusebius, attempted to unearth the fossil remains of the forgotten scandal, but they were signally unsuccessful. The accusation was manifestly a groundless one.

But the charge of Arianism brought against the Bishop of Cesarea, can not be so summarily disposed of. It is still a controverted matter. The weight of authorities on each side is so nearly balanced that the scales are still vibrating. The dictum of Pagi is, "Sed prorsus incertum, an Arianis vel orthodoxis, annumerandus sit." At the Council of Nice, Eusebius at first warmly contended against the admission of the

« ElőzőTovább »