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 centuries, in almost all countries of the globe, are flagrant exceptions to the law upon which this novel doctrine professes to rest. 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. 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 perpetuation 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.”1 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."! 2 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 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. Thus, without designing it, I am become the head of a denomination, which has since greatly increased, in which thousands are included, ministers and others, who, I believe, are the most sound and consistent Calvinists.” In the year 1796, Dr. Hopkins says again: "About forty years ago, there were but few, perhaps not more than four or five, who espoused the sentiments which have since been called Edwardean and New Divinity, and still later (after some improvements made upon them), Hopkinsian sentiments. But these sentiments have so spread since that time, that there are now more than a hundred ministers in the United States, who espouse the same sentiments; and the number appears to be fast increasing."1 Some have doubted whether President Edwards had much to do in originating the Hopkinsian peculiarities; but we have here the testimony of Dr. Hopkins to this effect. We have also the testimony of his own published writings, and of his son. The late Dr. Edwards has an entire Article entitled, "Remarks on the Improvements made in Theology by President Edwards."" The topics mentioned by Dr. Edwards, on which his father was supposed to have shed new light, were the following: The ultimate end of God in creation; liberty and necessity; the nature of true virtue or holiness, as consisting in disinterested love; the origin of moral evil; the doctrine of atonement; Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness; the state of the unregenerate, their use of means, and the directions proper to be addressed to them; also the nature of regeneration, and of true experimental religion. Some of these topics were very fully discussed by Edwards himself; others were treated more at large by his followers. Previous to the time of Edwards, the subject of moral agency had not been thoroughly investigated, and was not understood. Certain things were supposed to be involved in freedom of will, which are not involved in it; and from this mistaken supposition resulted consequences unfavora 1 Autobiography, pp. 96, 102. 2 Works, Vol. I. p. 481. |