It was on the ever-memorable plains of Marathon, that the old precedents of Persian valour were destroyed. A few tribes, they can hardly be called nations, dwelling on the coasts of Greece, speaking a common language, and mutually engaged in essaying every form of government which the independent spirit of man can suggest, fearlessly met the all-conquering Xerxes, and wrested from his wavering grasp the destinies of earth. Until then, mankind had lived beneath hierarchical thraldom, and were fitted to play no higher part than that of subjects to a despot. Greek philosophy first broke the rusted fetters of antiquity, and taught man his true dignity. It led him to aspire after the nobler estate of a citizen in a selfgoverned community, where the prevalence of a spirit of free inquiry would tend to multiply the individual resources whence flow intelligence, wealth, and morality; and thus provide for posterity the glorious heritage of imperishable principles, for their guidance and support. These elements of popular enfranchisement, have succumbed neither to time, accident, nor the vicissitudes of human character, but, after the lapse of ages, are still to be found engrafted upon the constitutions of every free government upon the earth.

[To be continued.]

SCRIPTURE AND SCIENTIFIC ETHNOGRAPHIES COMPARED.

AMONG the subjects with which science is attempting to deal in these days, there is no one more important or interesting. than Ethnology, or the Natural History of Man.

The subject readily divides itself into two parts, under the one or other of which all questions naturally arrange themselves, and find their answer. These are (1), Unity; or Diversity of Origin; and (2) Migrations; the latter of which we propose to discuss chiefly in the present paper, although what we have to say on that branch of the general subject will presuppose something of the former. We will, therefore, make a few preliminary remarks on the Unity of Origin.

That there is a presumption in favor of unity, arising not only from the common belief on that subject, but also from the many and marked characteristics which all men and tribes of men have in common—as reason, intelligence, will, an erect stature, a biped and bimanous form, &c.,-is readily admitted by all persons.

On the other hand, it is as readily admitted that the diversities in colour, features, &c., are sufficient to raise the question of unity of origin, even if it does not entirely silence the presumption in favour of the unity just spoken of, and raise the counter presumption in favour of diversity of protoplastic pairs, from which these various races have descended.

We are free to admit that we do not think that these diversities in the present appearance and condition of men have been sufficiently accounted for by a reference to the influence. of climate and mode of life. Nor do we think that the present state of the science affords any ground to expect that these diversities can ever be accounted for in that way. Still, however, we state this rather as an admission than as a point which we wish to prove, or care to fortify with arguments and facts.

We shall, however, content ourselves by stating the broad principle which we think will cover and meet the force of all arguments that can be derived from the diversity in present appearances, against the doctrine of unity of origin, namely: That wherever there is sufficient congeniality of nature to allow of

interproduction, there is all that is required for unity of origin; so that whatever species will now intermix and produce offspring, may have sprung from the same proto-plastic pair, as is shown by the very fact of interproduction.

Now that all the varieties of men will intermix and produce a prolific offspring is undeniable. And the cases of hybridity among animals, which have been so much quoted as neutralizing the force of this argument, may as well be explained on the hypothesis that the species which thus mix are descended from the same pair, as on the hypothesis that they are not. We certainly have no proof, historic or otherwise, that all the species in the genus canis or equus, for example, are not descended from the same pair. The objection to the doctrine of the unity of man, based on the hybridity of animals, has nothing but a hypothesis or assumption-the merest hypothesis or assumption in the world-for its basis.

On the other hand, it is a well known fact that in all species and varieties of the animal kingdom, abnormal individuals frequently make their appearance, as albinos and the porcupine man in the human species. We can offer no explanation of the peculiarities of such cases. But we do know that when such abnormal individuals occur, their peculiarities are transmissi ble, and may thus become, and in fact often do become, the constituent peculiarities of a new variety, or species, within the genus to which the parents belonged.

The second point to which we will refer is the fact that man, from having a language stored with memories and traditions of the past, cannot, with propriety, be subjected to those tests. of unity and variety which constitute our only guide in regard to the rest of the animal kingdom. Language is not the inven tion of a day. It is not like the inarticulate cries of the animals, a mere natural sound, but it consists of arbitrary signs, adopted by mutual consent and agreement to express ideas for which there is no natural expression, such as are the cries of animals in relation to their emotions.

If, now, we regard man not as a mere dumb animal, but as an intelligent being, and take into the account his vocabularies, and the marks he has left behind him, wherever he has been in his migrations, we are at once in possession of facts totally

inconsistent with any theories of indigenous origin in several different localities or habitats, like those which Agassiz and others have referred us to. Every where do we find common elements in the languages spoken by men, and in those arbitrary sounds which constitute their written or spoken language, and which, therefore, imply an early connection and intercourse among them. Every where also do we find marks and monuments, which point out the path along which the various races and nations have passed on their way to their present abodes. The existence of such monuments admits of no denial. And it is manifestly unscientific to attempt to account for man's diversities and migrations without taking them into account.

It is a recent theory, proposed by Agassiz, that in the race of men there are eight distinct species, each with a protoplastic pair and a habitat of its own. In this view there have been in fact no migrations, but each race or variety of men originated where they now live, and the only comparison that can be made between the scientific and the Scripture ethnologies is simply one of contradiction-the one contradicting the other in every important particular.

If, now, we treat man, in the investigation of his natural history, as we do the mere brute animals, ignoring the monuments of his history, his traditions, and the common elements of his language, the theory of Agassiz might be true. But, on that theory, no satisfactory account can be given of those monuments and marks of men's past condition and migrations. Every where man has written his history on the earth's surface in monuments more perennial than even brass, and these records come down to us over all the intervening ages of time, to show where and what man has been in ages of which we should otherwise have had no record or intimation.

Now it is a fact eminently worth considering, that whether we take the Scripture account, the indications of comparative philology, or the monuments of migrations as they are left on the earth's surface, or contained in the usages and traditions of nations-whether, I say, we take the one or the other, or all of these indications, we are referred to a threefold division of the races of man at a very early period of his existence, although these divisions do not, as they have thus far generally been made, altogether coincide.

Thus, in the Scripture view we have three sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japhet. From Shem are descended the heroic races of Mesopotamia and Southwestern Asia, including the Assyrians, the Syrians, the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, and the modern Arabs. From Japhet we have the Indo-European nations, including the ancient Pelasgians, the Celts, the Gothic nations, and the more modern Sclavic. From Ham descended the dark races of Southeastern Asia, and of Africa, though the Scriptures are quite silent with regard to the Asiatic Ethiopians, or the dark races of Africa, except, perhaps, the single allusion made to them in the account of the building of Babel.

The Scriptures represent these three races as having proceeded from some highland in the regions of Asia to the Northeastward of the present Persian empire, and North of the ancient Mesopotamia. From this central spot it would appear that the descendants of Ham went first to the southeast, thence a part of them, at least, returned westward to the banks of the Euphrates, and thence still further West to Egypt, and then overspread Africa generally. The descendants of Shem passed to the southwest at once, and we first hear of them in Mesopotamia, and on the banks of the Euphrates and the Tigris. Of the descendants of Japhet, we find that they went West by a more northerly route, and spread over Asia Minor and Europe.

If, now, we turn our attention to comparative philology, we see at once three great families of languages, which, however much they may differ in their subordinate dialects, have strongly marked characteristics. Of these, the one is known as Shemitic, including the ancient Hebrew, the Chaldee, the Syriac, the Phoenician or Punic, and the modern Arabic, coëxtensive in fact with the descendants of the biblical Shem. The other, known as the Indo-European, including the ancient Latin and Greek, and the modern languages of Europe, as well as the learned languages of the peninsula of India. To this we add a third, including, as their normal type, the monosyllabic languages of Asia, the Chinese, &c.

Now, so far as the Shemitic and the Indo-European or Javonian languages are concerned, we have a perfect and entire coincidence between the ethnography of the Scriptures and that of philology. But the Scriptures say nothing of the

j