What is Truth? An inquiry concerning the antiquity and unity of the human race; with an examination of recent scientific speculations on those subjects

Front matter

What is Truth? AN INQUIRY CONCERNING THE ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF THE HUMAN RACE; WITH AN EXAMINATION OF RECENT SCIENTIFIC SPECULATIONS ON THOSE SUBJECTS. BY REV. EBENEZER BURGESS, A. M., MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY, AUTHOR OF A MAHRATTA GRAMMAR, TRANSLATOR OF THE SURYA SIDDHANTA, etc., etc. PUBLISHED BY ISRAEL P. WARREN, 52 Washington Street, BOSTON. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, By MRS. A. T. BURGESS, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. Stereotyped at the Boston Stereotype Foundry, No. 19 Spring Lane. X to the AMERICAN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR FOREIGN MISSIONS Wsp& Mork IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED, BY THE AUTHOR. TESTIMONIAL. The following testimonial was adopted at the close of the author's twelve lectures, as expressive of the opinions of the auditors respecting their interest and value: — " We, the ladies and gentlemen of the city of Boston, who have attended the valuable and highly instructive course of lectures on the Antiquity of Man, delivered at the Lowell Institute, by the Rev. E. Burgess, do hereby express our hearty thanks and unqualified appreciation of the same.

" We would also express the hope that our worthy and much esteemed friend, the Rev. E. Burgess, will at an early day publish the said lectures, in order that all may have the benefit of the important facts therein contained. " Ordered, That the foregoing resolutions be published in the daily papers in the city of Boston. "Boston, February 23, 1867."

Preface

A distinguished American scholar has recently put forth the following declaration respecting the subject discussed in the present volume : — " It has been supposed that the first introduction of man into the midst of this prepared creation was distant six or seven thousand years from our day, and we had hoped to be able to read the record of his brief career even back to its beginning ; but science is now accumu lating so rapidly, and from so many quarters, proofs that the current estimate of his existence must be greatly lengthened out, — even perhaps many times multiplied, — that universal acceptation of this conclusion is not, it appears, much longer to be avoided." The opinion here expressed is — it may be safely said — that entertained by a large class of professedly scientific, semi-scientific, and literary men of the day ; that is, judg ing from the yearly reports of the meetings of the various scientific bodies, American and European, and papers

PREFACE.

. frequently found in certain prominent quarterlies and other periodicals. The object of the present volume is to show what science does teach in regard to the antiquity of man on earth. Science, in its true sense, is based on actual facts and established principles ; and a scientific conclusion is one that is fairly deduced from such facts and principles, though it is admitted that the words " science " and " scientific " have an appropriate use in connection with supposed facts, or in reasoning about things that are confessedly only probable, or possible. And there is no objection to the phrase " scientific speculation ; " for every science has connected with its true domain a margin — more or less wide — within which all things are, to say the least, not settled, and in which she must be allowed to speculate with the utmost freedom.

It is only by al lowing tbis freedom that the domain of true and real science can be enlarged. But always and everywhere great caution is to be observed in regard to taking a fact or principle belonging to this doubtful margin within the field of true science. The non-observance of this caution, it is well known, has been the occasion of endless and bitter disputes among scientific men. Another caution is needed in this connection. In ad ducing scientific evidence in any discussion, it should be kept in mind that it makes a difference whether the

PREFACE.

. 1 alleged facts are derived from the speculative margin Of the science concerned, or from its positive domain ; e. g., when a demonstrated fact in astronomy or chemistry is brought forward, it should have the weight of scientific truth ; but when the alleged fact is a part us some theory or hypothesis not yet established, it certainly is not en titled to the same weight. Is not this principle, though so very obvious, often overlooked in so-called scientific reasoning ? Has it not especially been overlooked in the discussions of the subject treated of in this volume ? This suggests another important fact, viz., that indi cated by the very common and trite remark, — so common that an apology almost is required for introducing it, — that all the sciences harmonize among themselves ; that one science can not conflict with another ; that a truth in one of her departments is consistent with all trutii in every other department.

Science ! Scientific Knowledge ! Not supposition ! Knowledge of things in heaven above, in the earth be neath, and the waters under the earth ! Knowledge of God, of angels, demons, and men ! Knowledge of matter and spirit I Knowledge, in short, of whatever can be Known in this wide universe, whether connected with matter or mind, 01 the abstract principles of things ! It is true that there are things in the universe — or it is proba ble there are — respecting which so little is known that

PREFACE.

. they have not yet been assigned their tine place in the realm of science. But in general, it may be said that the realm of science embraces the whole universe. But this universe is one, having one Author, and all its parts constituting one harmonious whole ; and these parts, as represented in the various sciences, properly understood, perfectly harmonize with each other. When Alexander's generals first saw the river Indus in the far east, they supposed it to be identical with the Nile, with which they were familiar in the west. This was in accordance with the well-known principle of the human mind to generalize all its knowledge. It was well enough, only they were a little hasty in their generalization. It is true the Nile and the Indus belong to the same system, as we may say, the facts connected with them being discussed by the same science.

Does not this incident often find a parallel in the scientific speculations that have been recorded since the time of Alexander to the present day? How often is the gap between a meager premise and the conclusion as wide as that between the Indus and the Nile ! — the interval being unexplored, and as unknown as was that which separated those ancient rivers. The literature of the subject discussed in the present volume abounds in such cases. In order that the importance, drift, and application of these general remarks may be appreciated, a few specifi cations are called for.

PREFACE.

. 9 It has been said that all the sciences are parts of one whole, and consequently must harmonize together ; that the facts of one science, rightly interpreted, can not conflict with those of another. This being the case, it follows that no one science has a right to decide a point, or regard a point as decided, — though it be clearly within her domain, — until she has obtained the concurrence of all her sister sciences. As illustrative of this principle, let us take one or two obvious cases. Philology, according to some of her students, says the great diversity of languages proves that these languages could not have had a common origin, or that the great diversity in the languages spoken by mankind proves the plural origin of the human races ; and with a parade of facts makes out a plausible argument.

But here other sciences, as ethnology, mythology, physiology, and natu ral history in some of her departments, step in and claim a right to have a voice in the discussion. Ethnology and mythology prove, or render highly probable, e. g., the common origin of the Semitic nations with those called Indo-European, and the same with other peoples speaking diverse languages, affording strong analogical ground for extending the argument to all mankind ; and physiology and natural history claim that they prove the common origin of the human race. On whichever side the weight of argument may be thought to be by the opposing advo-

PREFACE.

. cates, it is evident tnat all the sciences named above, and perhaps others, have a right to be heard in the discussion. Other illustrations of the principle here contended for might be adduced. The author is deeply sensible of the imperfections of his work. As the reader sees these imperfections, he is asked to call to mind that the field traversed in the argu ment is very wide, and that one mind, unless it be of uncommon grasp, could not be expected to be equally familiar with every part of it, and do equal justice to all the points that are discussed. The author does not profess to have done justice to any point, but hopes, imperfect as it is, his work will be found of some value as a part of the literature of the subject under discussion, and especially in the presentation of the facts upon which a correct decision must be based.

With these remarks, and with great diffidence, the work is submitted to the judgment of the candid public. NOTE BY THE EDITOR. The excellent author of this work was called to his rest before he had completed its preparation for the press. It was a work which had occupied his attention more or less for many years, and believing it called for by the growing skepticism of the times, — a belief confirmed by the opinions of many scholars and divines whom he had made acquainted with his plan, — he ardently desired that it might be given to the world, as the last labor of a life which had long been devoted to the service of divine truth. It was in accordance with this desire that the manuscripts were placed in the hands of another for revis ion and publication. It was not the expectation of the author to offer the fruits of his own independent investigation, except, per haps, when discussing the literature and religion of India, where he had spent many years of missionary service.

He aimed only to gather up the results which had been reached by the best authorities on the various branches of the subject, and present them in a popular form for the benefit of those who have not time nor opportunity to study it for themselves. His book, therefore, is a book for the people, rather than for savants. We believe it will be very valuable to clergymen, teachers, and others, for that purpose. NOTE BY THE EDITOR. The work was left by the author in its original form, comprising Twelve Lectures, with copious materials de signed to be placed in an Appendix. So great, however, are the inconveniences of that form for tlie discussion of such a subject, compelling a reduction of the most im portant topics within the single hour of the lecture, and involving repetitions and recapitulations not needed in a written work, that, with the approval of his family, the lecture form has been dropped, and the subdivisions arranged in chapters, as i"5 customary.

Many of the ma terials which had been designed for the Appendix have been brought forward and incorporated into tlie body of the work. This has, of course, necessitated some re arrangement and some revision of the language of the lectures. In some instances ampler citations from author ities have been given, and in a very few cases, a fuller elaboration of the positions taken has been ventured on, to give more completeness or clearness to the discussion ; but in no case has anything been advanced differing from the author's well-known views. For those views, of course, he would hold himself alone responsible. The editor regrets that he has not in all instances been able to verify the quotations introduced into the work. They are from a very wide range of reading, and many of the books referred to are not within present reach.

He has done what he could to secure entire accuracy, both in form and language ; but it is possible that some errors exist which have been overlooked. W. CONTENTS. Pagb Preface, 5 Note by the Editor 11

Chapter I. Introductory

The Subject recently come into Notice, .... 19 Former general Assent to the Bible Chronology, . . 20 Origin of recent Doubts on the Subject, .... 21 Modern Geological Discoveries, ...... 22 Ethnology and Comparative Philology, .... 23 Systems of Chronology, ....... 24 System of Bunsen, 24 System of Boeckh 25 System of Rodier, . 27 Call for a new Consideration of the Subject, ... 30 View of the Scripture Chronology, .... 31 The three Versions of the Pentateuch, .... 32 Period I. From the Creation to the Flood, 33 Period II. From the Flood to the Birth of Abraham, . 34 Period III. From the Birth of Abraham to the Exodus, 35 Period IV. From the Exodus to the Foundation ofthe Temple, 36 Period V. From the Foundation of the Temple to its Destruction, -38 Period VI. From the Destruction of the Temple to the Birth of Christ, 40 Dates according to various Authors 42 Testimony of Megasthenes, 45 Testimony of Abu-Mashar, 45 Testimony of Demetrius Phalereus, .... 46 Testimony of Eupolemus, 47

Chapter II. The Argument From History

I. EGYPT; Sources of our Knowledge of Egyptian Antiquities, . . 49 1. The Temples and Monuments, 49 2. Literary Remains, .;..... 50 3. Greek Historians, 50 I. Testimonies relating to Pre-historic Times, . 52 Diogenes Laertius, ...... 52 Diodorus Siculus, CONTENTS. Herodotus, 53 Pomponius Mela, 53 The Old Chronicle, 53 Eusebius, ........ 53 Julius Africanus, -54 Castor, 55 Practical Value of this Testimony, ... 56 The Accounts not to be taken literally, . . 56 The Accounts inconsistent with each other, . 56 Months reckoned as Years, 57 The Zodiac of Denderah, ..... 61 Stobart's Wooden Tablets, 65 II. Testimonies relating to Historic Times, . . 67 Egyptian Chronology without Dates, . . . 67 Manetho, his History and Writings, . . 68 His Lists of Dynasties, ..... 69 I. Their Sources unknown, .... 71 2.

Their present Form corrupt, ... 71 3. Internal Evidence against them, ... 72 4. They are contradicted, ..... 73 a. By the Old Chronicle, .... 73 b. By Eratosthenes, ..... 74 c. By Josephus, 77 d. By the Monuments, .... 79

Chapter III. The Argument From History

(Continued.-) II. Greece and Rome. Identity of Origin between the Greeks and Romans, . . 85 Practical Character of the Greeks. . .... 86 The highest Date in Grecian History B. C. 776, ... 86 The Siege of Troy mythical, ....... S7 The alleged Date'of it, SS Its Value as an Era in Chronology, ..... 88 The Greeks did not claim a remote Antiquity, ... 89 Date of the Founding of Rome uncertain, .... 89 Three principal Theories, 90

Chapter IV. The Argument From History

{Continued.) III. The Chaldeans. Extravagant Claims of the Chaldeans, 91 Berosus, his History and Writings 92 His Annals of an Antediluvian Kingdom, .... 05 The ten Kings, Ji The Account mythical, qj Elements of true History contained in them, . . . qr Chaldean Measures of Time, .' QC Earliest Historical Dynasty B. C. 2458, . . . CONTENTS. 15

Chapter V. The Argument From History

{Continued.) JV. The Hindus. Importance of the Discovery of the Sanskrit, . . . 103 View of the Sanskrit Literature, ...... 104 The Vedas, 104 The Upavedas, .......... 105 The Vedangas, ........ 105 The Upangas, ......... 105 This Literature has no historical Value, .... 106 Comparison between the Hindus and Greeks, . . . 109 Origin of the Vedas, in Contents of the Vedas 112 Antiquity of the Vedas, . . . . . . . . 113

Chapter VI. The Argument From History

(Continued. ) V. The Chinese. First Explorers of Chinese Literature, 118 Jesuit Missionaries, . . . . . . . .118 Protestant Missionaries, ....... 120 I. View of the Chinese Chronology, .... 120 Trie Ante-historic Period, 121 The Semi-historic Period, ...... 122 The Historic Period, 122 2. How far is this Chronology reliable, .... 123 Views of Pauthier, ....... 124 Views of Amiot, 124 Views of Williams, ....... 126 Examination of the Elements of Computation, . . 126 The Chinese Year, 127 The Cycle of Sixty Years, 129 Statements of Rev. J. Chalmers, .... 130 Statements of Dr. Legge, 132 The Cycle of Sixty borrowed, 133 Chronology dates only from the Christian Era, . 134 The Materials of it unreliable, .... 13. Portions of it mythical, ...... 136 The Shu-king, how compiled, .... 137 Its Destruction and Recovery, .... 139 Earliest historical Date B. C. 2637, . . . -142

Chapter VII. The Argument From Ethnology

Descent of all known Nation^from Noah, .... 144 The tenth Chapter of Genesis 145 Descendants of Shem, CONTENTS. Descendants of Japheth, ..••••• x47 Descendants of Ham, .....-••• J49 Agreement of this Account with History, .... 151 The so-called Aboriginal Races, . ■ • • ■ I52 Scripture Language not to be pressed too literally, . • 153 Earlier and later Departures from original Seats, . . 155 Alleged Aborigines of Egypt, IS8 Evidence from Names of the Country and People, . 159 Evidence from Physical Characteristics and Language, 160 Evidence from the Monuments, 162 Alleged Aborigines of India, . • • • . • • I(53 Of Northern India, l64 Of Southern India, 165 Alleged Aborigines of Western Europe, .... 166 Historic Times but little before J. Cæsar, .... 167 These Aborigines were of Celtic Origin, .... 167

Chapter VIII. The Argument From Physiology

Rise of the Doctrine of a Plurality of Origin, . . . 170 La Peyrere, his Character and Writings, .... 170 Voltaire and Rousseau's Espousal of it, .... 172 Its supposed Bearings on Slavery, ..... 173 Agassiz's Theory of Natural Provinces, .... 174 Theory of Unity of Species, 177 Estimate of this Theory, 179 I. It is a mere Theory, ....... 179 II. Alleged Inconsistency with the Bible not real, . 180 The Case of Cain, 180 The Case of Cain's Wife, . . . . . 1S1 Diversities among Races, ...... 1S2 1. Man is of a single Species, .... 1S3 a. Identity in Mental and Phj sical Characteristics, . . . . . . . 1S4 b. The single Head ofthe Animal Kingdom, 1S6 c. Intermixture of Races fertile, . . . 1S9 d. Unity of Species proves Unity of Origin, . 193 2. Changes are now constantly taking place, . 195 3.

Analogous Changes among Animals, . 202 III. This Theory contrary to Analogy, .... 202 IV. Is opposed by Theological and Moral Science, . . 206 All Men possess the same Moral Nature, . . . 207 All Men sustain the same Moral Relations, . ' . 208

Chapter IX. The Argument From Language

The Hebrew once thought the Prjpaitive Language, . . 209 Discovery of the Sanskrit, . . . . . . .210 Views of Stewart, ......... CONTENTS. 17 Views of Lord Monboddo, 211 Labors of Sanskrit Scholars, 213 Key to the Classification of Languages, .... 214 Three great Families of Languages, 215 I. The Aryan Family, 215 II. The Semitic Family, 216 III. The Turanian Family,. 218 Classification according to Structure, 221 I. Monosyllabic Languages, ...... 222 2. Agglutinative Languages, 222 3. Inflectional Languages, 223 Bearing of the Diversity of Languages on the Argument, 223 1. The Miraculous Confusion of Tongues, . . . 224 2. Languages have still much in common, . . . 225 3. Differences diminish as our Knowledge increases, . 227 4. Languages subject to rapid Changes, . . . 229

Chapter X. The Argument From Tradition

Traditions of Primitive Ages to be expected, . . 235 Such Traditions exist, 236 Independent Traditions only valuable, .... 237 1. Traditions of one God, 238 2. Traditions of the Creation, 239 3. Traditions of the Garden of Eden, .... 243 4. Traditions of the Temptation and Fall, . . . 244 5. Traditions of a Sevenfold Division of Time, . . 245 6. Traditions of the Deluge, 246 Among the Mexicans and Peruvians, . . . 246 Among the Greeks, 247 Among the Phrygians, 249 Among the Chaldeans, . . . • • • 250 Among the Chinese, 252 Among the Egyptians, 253 Among the Hindus, 254

Chapter XI. The Argument From Mythology

Mythology, its Nature, • • 2^J All Myths founded in Fact, 262 Examples of modern Myths, . . • 264 Characteristics of Greek Writers, 266 Specimens of their Mistakes, . * 2°7 I. All Mythologies had a common Origin, . . . 270 The Roman and Greek Mythologies, . . • .271 The Egyptian, 27x The Phœnician and Chaldean, 272 The Hindu, 272 CONTENTS. II. That Origin in the Bible Narrative, . . . ' . 273 Myths of the Creation, 274 Myths of the Flood, 27 5 Myths of the Antediluvians, 276 Myths of Noah 277 Myths of the Ark, 280 Myths of the Dove, 282 Myths of the Rainbow, 284 Myths of the eight Persons saved, ..... 2S6 Myths of Noah's three Sons, 288

Chapter XII. The Argument From Geology

Alleged Facts proving a Remote Antiquity, . . . 287 I. Fragments of Brick and Pottery from Egypt, . . 287 The Data not verified, ...... 290 Changes in the Nile Valley, ..... 291 Burnt Brick unknown to the Ancient Egyptians, . 292 2. Human Fossil in Mississippi Valley, .... 293 3. Skeleton found near New Orleans, .... 295 4.- Remains in the Florida Coral Reefs, .... 300 5. Flint Implements in the Valley of the Somme, . . 300 Geological History of the Valley, .... 302 No Proof that the Remains were contemporaneous, . 304 No Proof of their extreme Antiquity, . . . 306 Geological Changes in the Valley, .... 3CS Assumed to be wrought by existing Agencies, . . 311 The Assumption rejected by various Authors, . . 312 6. Human Remains in Peat-bogs, etc., .... 320 The Stone, the Iron, and the Bronze Age, . . 321 The Remains belonged to the Celtic Race, . .

Appendix

. A. Chronology of Bunsen, -j2y B. Chronology of Boeckh, 3 ,s C. Chronology of Rodier 3.Q D. Manetho, -,-- E. Manetho's Lists, f-g F. The Old Chronicle,* . . . . . . . -,'-- G. Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, .... 3-s H. Manetho, according to Josephus, .... 3S2 I. Chinese Astronomy, -.gi J. Superficial Character of Diversities between Races, -^93 K. Varlmtons in Species among Domestic Animals. 401 L. Visit of Dionusos to India, ,l2 M. Chinese Theology, ,,^ N. The Celts in Europe, ....... .j- THE HUMAN RACE.

Chapter I. Introductory

— VIEW OF THE BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. The Subject recently come into Notice. — Former general Assent to the received Chronology of Man's Creation. — Testimony of Hitchcock and Lyell. — Origin of recent Doubts concerning it. — Geological Discoveries. — Ethnology and Comparative Philology. — Systems of Chronology. — System of Bunsen. — System of Bofickh. — System of Rodier. — These Systems never critically examined. — Call for a new Discussion of the Subject. — View ofthe Scripture Chronology. — Three Versions of the Pentateuch. — Period I. From the Creation to the Flood. — II. From the Flood to the Birth of Abraham. -- III. From the Birth of Abraham to the Exodus. — IV. From the Exodus to the Founding of the Temple. — V. From the Founding of the Temple to its first Destruction. — VI. From the Destruction of the Temple to the Birth of Christ. — Statements of heathen Writers.

The Antiquity of Man is one of those subjects which have very recently come into prominent notice among learned men. It is scarcely a fourth of a *9 century since the apparent teachings of the Bible chronology, which fix his creation at less than six thousand years ago, were generally received with out question. For a little time, indeed, the discov eries of the new science of geology had disturbed the commonly received views on this subject, as astronomy in the days of Copernicus and Galileo had so greatly modified the ancient theories of the physical structure ofthe universe. But a re-examination ofthe sacred text, with the aid of a broader phi lology, soon demonstrated that there was no necessary discrepancy between it and the new science ; nay, even derived fresh evidence from the very facts adduced by the latter in support ot its own correct ness.

It was seen that the first verse of Genesis, " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," would permit the date of the creation to be carried back to any indefinite antiquity, leaving the subsequent account to cover successive periods in which the earth was fitted for human abode, stocked with the present species of vegetable and animal life, and lastly, crowned with the introduction of man, the destined lord and proprietor of all. In this fact of the comparatively recent origin of man, Genesis and geology were entirely agreed. Says Dr. Hitchcock, " As to the period when the creation of such a being by the most astonishing of all miracles took place, I believe there is no diversity of opinion. At least all agree that it was very recent ; nay, although geology can rarely give chronological dates, but only a succession of events, she is able to say, from the monuments she deciphers, that man can not have occu pied the globe more than six thousand years."

Sir Charles Lyell also, in his "Principles of Geology " (vol. i. p. 240), a work published before the recent discoveries of fossil human remains, remarks, " I need not dwell on the proofs of the low antiquity of our species, for it is not controverted by any ex perienced geologist : indeed, the real difficulty con sists in tracing back the signs of man's existence on the earth to that comparatively modern period when species now his contemporaries began to predom inate. If there be a difference of opinion respecting the occurrence in deposits of the remains of man and his work, it is always in reference to strata con fessedly of the most modern order ; and it is never pretended that our race co-existed with assemblages of animals and plants, of which all, or even a great part, of the species are extinct."

Until very recently, therefore, the researches of science, and the supposed teachings of the Sdriptures respecting the age of man on the earth, had been in entire accord. But within the last twenty years a series of investigations has been made which to some extent have again awakened doubt on this subject. Human bones and implements of labor and defense, together with domestic utensils, and even rude attempts of art, have been found in ancient peat beds, in bone caverns, and in the shallow lakes of Europe, in such geological connections as seem to demand for them a much higher antiquity than has hitherto been claimed for the race. Professor H. D. Rogers, of the University of Glasgow, writing in 1860, remarks, " Geologists and archæologists have recently somewhat startled the public by announcing the discovery, in the north-east of France and the adjacent corner ofEngland, of supposed indications of the existence of the human race in the remote age when these tracts were inhabited by the extinct elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, and other animals whose bones are preserved in the diluvium, or great superficial deposit attributed to the last wide geological inundation." * These researches have been pursued with great industry and zeal, and are already giving us a new science, not yet twenty years old, called "prehistoric archæology."

"It is," says Lenormant.f " like all sciences which are still in their infancy, pre sumptuous, and claims, at any rate in the case of ** Blackwood's Magazine, October, 1860, p. 422. t Manual of the Ancient History of the East. Vol. i. pp. 24, 25. some of its adepts, to overturn tradition, to abolish all authority, and to be the only exponent of the problem of our origin. These are bold pretensions which will never be realized. Prehistoric archæology, moreover, is yet but in its infancy ; it still leaves great gaps, and many problems without solution. There is too often a desire to establish a system, and many scholars hasten to build theories on an insuf ficient amount of observations. Finally, all the facts of this science are not yet established with perfect certainty." These claims for the high antiquity of man, derived from his fossil remains, have been fortified by similar claims deduced from the related sciences of ethnology and comparative philology.

It is argued that the present races of men, with their great diver sities of feature, color, and language, could not, according to any known rate or law of change, have descended from a single pair within the period that has elapsed since the received date of the creation, or rather ofthe deluge of Noah. Some, indeed, go further, and deny altogether the Bible doctrine of the unity of the race, insisting both upon its plurality of origin and its vast antiquity. As these views will be considered hereafter at length, it is only necessary to remark here that they are advo cated with great zeal, and a display of learning which is well calculated to confound, if it does not convert, the believers in the Mosaic narrative, especially those whose time and attainments will not permit them to examine the subject for themselves.

In accordance with these claims of recent scientific research, numerous elaborate systems of chronology have been constructed, all of enormous reach. Some of these systems, indeed, are not new ; but inasmuch as they never before acquired any credit beyond that of mere speculation, they did not seriously disturb the faith of mankind in the chronology ofthe Bible. It may not be inappropri ate to give an outline of these speculations in this place, partly because they will not need any ex tended consideration further, and partly since they will serve to show us, at the outset, the extravagance of those speculations, as contrasted with the mod erate and reasonable teachings of the Scriptures. It has been remarked * that not less than ninety seven systems of chronology have been put forth, some*of them professing to be derived from the Bible, but most of them avowedly and irreconcilably differing from it.