important and exclusive characteristics; that man, while he forms a class, and psychologically a kingdom apart, is subject to the same physiological laws with the animal creation; that the organic and physiological differences observed in different varieties of men, are analogous to those which exist under every species of domestic animals, and which, being neither primitive nor permanent, do not invalidate the unity and continuity of the species itself; therefore, there is but one single species of man. After this elaborate and masterly discussion, the author takes up the theory of Agassiz, and replies to it as follows (II. 408-412):

"Zoological geography, whose testimony is invoked in support of this theory, proves, as it seems to us, quite the contrary of that which it is brought forward to establish. If some authors deny that all men belong to one and the same species, there is no one who would refuse to admit that all human varieties form one, and only one, natural genus. But what genus of mammifers is met with, all at once and originally, in every country of the globe? Of two hundred genera of mammifers there are one hundred and sixty which have their habitat limited to a single country and under a single zone. There are twenty that inhabit both the torrid and the temperate zones, but which are excluded from the northern zone. There are twenty, however, which are spread over all zones, and which seem to constitute an exception; but this exception is only apparent; for these genera are not indigenous in every place where we find them, and they consist of domestic animals, or of small mammifers, such as rats, mice, etc., which man unwittingly has everywhere introduced with himself. It is not only as species that the mammifers of Australia differ from those of other continents; it is as genera, and even as families. Whence we should conclude, with as much reason as the advocates of the opinion we are combatting, that the Australian man ought to be of another genus from ours, if he was really autochthonous.

"It is true, indeed, that wild animals have geographical limits, clearly defined for each species; limits which they do

not pass over, at least not of their own accord. This stability is a law applicable to wild animals, which, following only the impulse of their natural instincts, have no motive to leave the places of their birth; and yet it is necessary to except several species that perform regular migrations. But this law does not apply to domestic animals, now spread over all parts of our planet, a great number of whose species are certainly not indigenous. It is by the agency of man that the ox, the goat, the sheep, the horse, the ass, the hog, the dog, the cat, the hen, have been disseminated in all inhabited lands. But if man has been able to modify the laws of zoological geography in that which respects the animals subject to his dominion, why may he not have done this in that which concerns himself? The laws of zoological geography could not fetter the will and the liberty of man, nor hinder the workings of his adventurous spirit. History and tradition have preserved the memory of great migrations of people, and the colonies established within three centu ries, in almost all countries of the globe, are flagrant exceptions to the law upon which this novel doctrine professes to The reasoning upon which its advocates rely, is based entirely upon the idea that all parts of the earth were primitively and originally peopled by the nations now found upon them, an hypothesis which should first be transformed into a rigorous demonstration. To prove that the American man is primitive in the new world, that the Australian had in New Holland his special centre of creation, that the Polynesian is autochthonous in his islands, it is at least necessary to prove that the presence of man in these countries is not the result of migrations, which have taken place in all ages. The instinct which attaches the animal to the soil, in man is conquered by intelligence, by the passion for discovery, by the desire of wealth, by the need of procuring, more easily, the means of subsistence; in fine, by some imperious necessity." From this point Godron gives the evidence of human migrations, and concludes that the whole earth was peopled from a common center.

rest.

The scientific reader will be interested in a recent essay

upon the permanence of species, by the Bavarian naturalist H. Wagner, published in the Sitzungsberichte of the Royal Academy of Munich for 1861 (I. Heft. III., pp. 308 -853). The writer discusses at length the views of Nathusius, Darwin, Geoffrey St. Hilare, and Agassiz; and gives his conclusion in favor of the commonly-received doctrine, that in the idea of species are included all those individuals that are derived from their like, and that reproduce their like. Or, defining the term somewhat more sharply with reference to organized beings, "the collective total of individuals. which are capable of producing, one with another, an uninterruptedly fertile progeny, constitutes a species." Wagner repudiates the views of Agassiz, and declares his hearty agreement with Godron, especially upon the important question of the unity of mankind. The theory of Agassiz, in the twelve years in which it has been before the public, has signally failed to receive the suffrages of leading men of science. Indeed, the principles laid down by Prof. J. D. Dana, in his Thoughts on Species (in the Bib. Sacra, vol. xiv. p. 866), seem conclusive upon the whole subject. The grounds upon which Agassiz denies community of origin to mankind, would compel us to regard the different races of men as distinct species. But, says Dana: "Man, by receiving a plastic body, in accordance with a law that species most capable of domestication should necessarily be most pliant, was fitted to take the whole earth as his dominion, and live under every zone. And surely it would have been a very clumsy method of accomplishing the same result, to have made him of many species, all admitting of indefinite, or nearly indefinite, hybridization, in direct opposition to a grand principle elsewhere recognized in the organic kingdoms. It would have been using a process that produces impotence or nothing among animals for the perpetuațion and progress of the human race."

It remains only to say a word touching the cavilling tone in which Professor Agassiz has seen fit to speak of the evidence that language affords of the unity of mankind. In his essays in the Christian Examiner, in his letter to Nott and

Gliddon, and more recently in his Articles in the Atlantic Monthly, Agassiz speaks of " the evidence adduced from the affinities of the languages of different nations in favor of a community of origin," as having no scientific value. He compares such affinities to the resemblances in the notes or cries of birds and animals of different species. "Similarity of vocal utterance among animals is not indicative of identity of species; I doubt, therefore, whether similarity of speech proves community of origin among men." He thus ignores the intellectual characteristics of language as the vehicle of thought, and its philosophical structure in the various and often complicated systems of grammar, — in a word, all that makes it language, and reduces this most marvellous creation of the human mind to a merely instinctive and physical process of vocalization! In reply to such a view of language, it is enough to quote the noble, the inspiring words of one of its greatest masters: "However much the frontiers of the animal kingdom have been pushed forward, so that at one time the line of demarcation between animal and man seemed to depend on a mere fold in the brain, there is one barrier which no one has yet ventured to touch, the barrier of language. . . . . .. We cannot tell, as yet, what language is. It may be a production of nature, a work of human art, or a divine gift. But to whatever sphere it belongs, it would seem to stand unsurpassednay, unequalled in it- by anything else. If it be a production of nature, it is her last and crowning production, which she reserved for man alone. If it be a work of human art, it would seem to lift the human artist almost to the level of a divine creator. If it be the gift of God, it is God's greatest gift; for through it God spake to man and man speaks to God in worship, prayer, and meditation."!

Atlantic Monthly, April, 1862.

* Max Müller, Lectures on the Science of Language, Introduction.

ARTICLE VI.

HOPKINSIANISM.

BY REV. ENOCH POND, D.D., PROFESSOR IN BANGOR THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY.

HOPKINSIANISM is Calvinism, in distinction from every form and shade of Arminianism; and yet not Calvinism, in precisely the sense of Calvin, or of the Westminster Confession of faith. It is a modification of some of the points of old Calvinism, presenting them, as its abettors think, in a more reasonable, consistent, and scriptural point of light. These modifications originated in New England, more than a hundred years ago. They commenced with the first President Edwards, and were still further unfolded in the teachings of his pupils and followers, Hopkins, Bellamy, West, the younger Edwards, Dr. Emmons, and Dr. Spring.

The name "Hopkinsian" is derived from Dr. Samuel Hopkins of Newport, R. I., and was fastened upon those who sympathized with him, not by himself, but by an opponent. It originated, as Dr. Hopkins tells the story, in this wise: "In the latter part of the year 1769, Mr. William Hart of Saybrook, published a dialogue, under the following title: 'Brief Remarks on a Number of false Positions, and dangerous Errors, which are spreading in the Country; collected out of sundry Discourses lately published by Dr. Whittaker and Mr. Hopkins.' Soon after, there was a small pamphlet published, which was doubtless written by the same Mr. Hart, in which the doctrines which I, and others who agreed with me, had published, were misrepresented and set in a ridiculous light; and with a particular design to disgrace me before the public, he called them Hopkintonian doctrines. This is the origin of the epithet; and since that time, all who embrace the Calvinistic doctrines as published by President Edwards, Dr. Bellamy, Dr. West of Stockbridge, and myself, have been called Hopkintonians or Hopkinsians.