Hindoos are as white as the English, and amongst those very Jews some of the women are represented as "exceedingly fair."

It is said that black Arabs exist, who have become so by heat and exposure. This cannot be substantiated by sufficient proof. Numerous varieties of Arabs, so-called, are found, from white to black, whose origin is involved in obscurity. Some are mixed with negro blood, and some known as Arabs are most probably of African descent. The genuine Arab is an Arab wherever he is found. "As they are represented," says Count Gobineau, "on the monuments of Egypt, so we find them at present, not only in the arid deserts of their native land, but in the fertile regions and moist climate of Malabar, Coromandel and the islands of the Indian Ocean. / We find them again, though more mixed, on the northern coasts of Africa; and, although many centuries have elapsed since their invasion, traces of Arab blood are still discernible in some portions of Roussilon, Languedoc and Spain." An example of permanency of type, under most unfavorable circumstances, may be found in the Bedouins: they are said to be undersized, of dark complexion, aquiline nose and well-formed features. Their small stature is attributed to "hardships endured through uncounted generations," and there is probably, also, impurity of blood; but it is plain that a hard life, in a hot climate, has had no tendency to transmute them

into negroes: their dark complexion is from African admixture. About one-half of Arabia is in the tropical region, and portions are extremely hot. Why have not the causes that, in Africa, changed, as is supposed, the white man into the negro, had the same effect in Arabia? It is impossible, on the unity theory, to account for the fact that in the same latitude, and under similar conditions, we find the negro in Africa, Indians in America, and the Mongol and Malay in Asia. The only satisfactory explanation of this is that in the beginning the Almighty so created them.

CHAPTER VIII.

LANGUAGE.

SIMILARITY NOT PROOF OF IDENTITY OF ORIGIN.-LANGUAGE SIMULTANEOUS WITH THE CREATION OF MAN.-CORRESPONDS WITH CIVILIZATION AND CULTURE.-LANGUAGE OF AMERICAN INDIANS A PUZZLE TO MONOGENISTS.

IT

T is argued by monogenists that the different languages spoken throughout the world are traceable to one primitive tongue, and from that is inferred one primitive race of a common origin. A common language, it is said, proves a common origin; and, vice versa, distinct and different languages prove a difference of origin! If we take for our guide the Bible, which furnishes the only history of man's origin and language, we must believe that God created the head of the Adamic race a perfect man. As he came from the hand of his Maker, Adam was the perfection of manhood, physically, mentally and morally. God gave him language, and that language was perfect: possibly it was impaired by his fall. Through two thousand years of change and vicissitude, it descended to Noah and his family. During this period, on the supposition of pre-Adamite or non-Adamic races, Adam's posterity was in contact with, and had intermarried with, these races, until the family of Adam

had become utterly degenerate and corrupt, and, unavoidably, the pure, primitive tongue given him by God must have become adulterated and corrupted by the languages of the inferior races, and the latter incorporated into their language much of the language of the superior race. This may account to some extent for similarities between the languages of Adamic and pre-Adamic races.

When language was confounded at Babel, the three families derived from Noah, who had previously spoken the same language, were now divided by different tongues, and separated to their allotted regions of the earth. But, as might be expected, a family likeness existed between the languages spoken by these three Noachic families, and it would be surprising if evidences of a common origin could not be traced. They spoke what is called the "inflectional" languages, and the difficulty of the monogenist is to connect them with the "agglutination” tongues of the lower races. There are now about a thousand different languages spoken in the world, and when we consider how they change in the course of but a few years by travel, intercourse, conquest and other causes, it would seem, at first sight, impossible to trace the different languages now spoken to any remote period in the past; and hence we find the best philologists on the unity side arguing only for the possibility of the common origin of all, the proof being confessedly impossible. On this much dis

puted question, McCausland says: "The theory of the common origin of all languages is one on which a great diversity of opinion has prevailed, and which has given rise to considerable discussion among the most eminent philologists, more especially in Germany." On the question, William Von Humboldt, Professor Pott of Halle, Buschmann and Steinthal of Berlin, and Schleicher of Jena, who contend for a plurality of originally distinct languages, are arrayed against Max Muller, Bunsen and Boeghtlink, who insist on the possibility of a common source of all languages. The former rely on the total failure of proof of a unity of the origin of speech; and the latter rest on the negative circumstance that such a common origin cannot be proved to be impossible. Max Muller, after a critical survey of the Iranian and Turanian languages, winds up with the important conclusion that nothing necessitates the admission of different independent beginnings for the material or for the formal elements of the Turanian, Semitic or Aryan branches of speech. Professor Boeghtlink, after asserting the possibility of two such languages as the Chinese and Sanskrit having the same origin, adds: "I say the possibility, not the historical reality, because all attempts at proving such a common origin ought from the very beginning to be stigmatized as vain and futile." Professor Whitney, of Yale College, in the article "Philology" (Encyclopædia Britannica), says: "In strictness, lan