ART. V. DR. NOTT'S REPLY TO "C."-Southern Quarterly Review, April, 1845,-Art. V., on the "Unity of the Races."

[NOTE.-The Editor must be permitted a word here. There is not, in the whole range of science, a subject of more importance than the one to be discussed. The parties engaged are of the highest literary reputation. In the opinion of the Editor, they are eminently qualified to conduct the discussion, notwithstanding their mutual accusations to the contrary. In the pursuit of truth, and in the advancement of science, the Southern Review ever opens its pages to them. Science must be pursued for itself. It must be discussed calmly and dispassionately. It must lose sight of personalities as irrelevant and intrusive, and be occupied alone with its own high themes and conceptions. "Attic salt” may have a place,-but sparingly. Sprinklings of it-too many, perhaps, have been already permitted in this discussion. The permission will not be drawn into precedent. In the allowance of discussion, the usual custom is departed from, on the single condition that it be for the advancement of science.-ED. REV.]

WHEN, in the introduction to the "two lectures" which are the subject of this review, Dr. Nott stated that "false issues" would be raised, and that he was prepared for them, it was not from such quarters as the reviewer, and the educated class to which he belongs, that he looked for the senseless objection, that in the pursuit of scientific truths to results which might conflict with certain versions of the Mosaic history, the veracity of Scripture is impeached, or the truths of Divine revelation brought wantonly into doubt.

Fortified by the example of the most learned divines of the day, who teach and believe that Bible history and Bible language have been variously construed at different times, and their popular construction modified, as new facts in science throw clearer light upon chronology, geology, natural history and astronomy,-it was not from a gentleman who has (as it is understood) some reputation at home for intelligence and research, and who is of the sacred profession himself, that the accusation could be looked for, of "doing needless violence to the faith of those who have implicit confidence in the veracity of Scripture," by dispassionately following up the facts of science to what was conceived to

be their necessary results,-particularly with the author's disclaimer of any such intention.

There is no opinion too extravagant for ignorance or blind fanaticism, and we can well understand how persons under such influences, should be shocked at any approach to an examination of the grounds of their faith. But amongst those whose faith has been fixed upon Revelation by reason and evidence,-especially amongst those whose lives are pledged to maintain it as the pure word of God and the sure hope of man, and whose privilege it is to teach its noble moral precepts,-a broader grasp of understanding is looked for, and a healthier spirit of confidence, that could investigate the facts and follow the deductions of science,-the venerable laws and acts of God,-with the calm assurance that no discord can be established between truths emanating from the same supreme intelligence.

In the opening of these strictures, the charges put forward of "unfairness," "injustice," "disregard to truth," etc., shall not provoke a retort, as a better ground will be afforded further on for exchanging compliments; but the very first paragraph of the critic leads to a wrong inference, which does no little injustice. He says, "the two lectures of Dr. Nott, as we are told in the preface, were delivered as a part of a course," leaving the reader to infer that Dr. N. had delivered a course of lectures.

The facts are simply these. It was proposed to get up a course of popular lectures, with a view of exciting a taste for literary and scientific pursuits in Mobile, leaving the choice of subjects to such gentlemen as might be disposed to unite. Some fifteen or twenty, of different professions, consented; and being requested, Dr. Nott also agreed to take part, though never before a popular lecturer, public speaker, or at all ambitious of this kind of celebrity. Dr. Nott consented, because unwilling to stand back when others thought him capable of doing "the State some service." He accordingly selected the subject before us, and delivered these two lectures, and two only. Yet, under all these circumstances, Dr. Nott is taken rudely to task, for not explaining, at large, difficulties in chronology, natural history, geology, etc., when it is known perfectly well that it would take volumes to do all this. Pritchard has written five heavy octavo volumes on the "Physical History of Man," and still the great fault of the book is that he has condensed too

much. There is, however, enough in it to have taught our reviewer much more than he has learned from the twelve Lectures of Dr. Wiseman,-the only work he seems to have read on this subject. All that was expected to be done in two lectures, was to throw out some material for reflection, which might stimulate investigation, and this, it would appear, has been done marvellously well.

Though the lectures were hastily and carelessly written, there was more method in the madness than the reviewer supposes. There may be food for the carping critic, who has not the manliness to hunt for larger game; but the au thor of the "Lectures" has nothing to regret and nothing to retract on the important facts of the question,-of which he thinks to be able to convince even the captious reviewer himself.

The plan which the reviewer has adopted is novel, for one who "desires to do no injustice," for (though no doubt unintentionally, being a divine,) he has misplaced sentences, garbled and perverted meanings, in a manner which does not comport altogether with notions of "justice" and "fairness." By way of illustration, take the first paragraph of Dr. Nott's introduction :

"The question of the unity of the human race is a grave one. It has elicited a vast deal of talent and research, and is deserving of the profoundest study. Most candid men have acknowledged its difficulty, and that all past time has afforded no data, by which it can be definitively settled. My object is to place before the world new facts, which may assist in forming a rational conclusion on this vexed question." p. 3.

This paragraph, which any one will see was intended to convey distinctly the idea, that no pretension was made to "have settled the question," but that the object was to assist in forming a rational conclusion,-has been thrown out of its proper place, and brought in at the close of the introduction, with the following "fair," "just," etc., comments. Mr. "C." says:

"We might here raise a question about the modesty of the writer, his qualifications will be considered hereafter,-in supposing that he can himself 'definitely settle,' what has hitherto baffled such a 'vast deal of talent and research.' He does not appear, in his treatment of the subject, to regard it as encompassed with any kind of difficulty, although 'most candid men have acknowledged it.' He affects to have proved his positions by positive, indisputable, scientific facts."

These two lines:

"My conclusions may be disputed, but they cannot be disproved in the present state of the science of natural history." p. 4: are then cut from the middle of the following paragraph,—

"My object is truth, and I care not which way the question is decided, provided the decision is a correct one. I have accumulated a number of curious and interesting facts, some of which are new, and I have interpreted them dispassionately. My conclusions may be disputed, but they cannot be disproved in the present state of the science of natural history. New facts must be brought to light before certain conclusions to the contrary are arrived at.”

Positive language was used, because (laying aside certain readings of Scripture) truth was considered to be spoken, or what is considered to be so by the best authorities on natural history; and because many of the audience were ignorant. of the established facts of geology, and denied these and every thing else which seemed to go behind the Mosaic ac

count.

It will be seen throughout, that the reviewer has certainly disputed, though he has not disproved, a single one of the conclusions arrived at, if authorities be of any value. That Dr. Nott ever "affected to have proved" the plurality of species in the human race, is a groundless assumption of the reviewer.

Dr. Nott is also done injustice in the eyes of those who have never seen his lectures, and perhaps never will, by the gross charge of having deliberately attacked the "veracity of the Scriptures," a charge entirely supported by miscon struction and misrepresentation. The reviewer says:

"We think the author has done needless violence to the faith of those who have implicit confidence in the veracity of the Scriptures, and whose feelings or prejudices deserve to be respected when honestly and sacredly cherished, in that he has thrown confusion into the chronology, and cast some doubts upon the facts of Scripture." p. 386.

Now, all this is denied, and the charges are not made good. "Violence to the faith" of a Jew might be done, by asserting that Christ was the Son of God,-but he would have no right to charge the expression with a want of respect for his "feelings", though perhaps for his "prejudices." The investigation was of a scientific question, which has nothing to do with the "veracity of Scripture"; and there

ought to be but little respect for the "prejudices" of such sensitive creatures as our critic, or many of those who will not believe in the "facts" of geology, (which are as much the work of God as the Bible,) or any thing else which does not coincide with their own peculiar notions. An extract here from the learned reviewer, touching the "confusion of chronology" and the "facts of Scripture," it is hoped will do something towards relieving Dr. Nott from the awful dilemma in which he has been placed. The reviewer continues:

"The author does not seem to be aware of the reasons for such diversity of computations,-that the dates of Scripture events have frequently to be determined by plausible conjecture, and with little, often no aid from contemporaneous history,-that there is not a perfectly corrected and well-defined series of dates in the Biblical history, blanks sometimes occurring which chronologists must fill up by conjecture, that through the carelessness of transcribers, and perhaps wilful alteration, and from occasional obscurity of manuscripts, palpable errors have crept into the text; all which render it quite difficult, if not impossible, to attain precision, and which leave abundant scope for varying computations. Nor does he seem at all aware, that the present state of the Hebrew text affords ample means for a far higher chronology than that of Usher." p. 395.

Now, there can be little doubt that there have been others before him, who could be guilty of "wilful alterations," and the reviewer deserves acknowledgment for this full reply to the "confusion thrown into the chronology" by Dr. Nott. Whoever has read the "two lectures" under discussion,the extract from Sears' History of the Bible at their close,— and the reviewer has,-must know that there was no ignorance of these facts on the part of the author, though it might suit their purposes, perhaps, to pretend it. The critic has here given the very reasons why Dr. N. did not attempt to fix any point, or express any opinion, on a "higher chronology." He never denied that the Septuagint date afforded time enough for succeeding events, although he thought it extremely probable that even this date may yet have to be extended a few hundred years.

Usher's date was attacked, because his opinions had nothing to do with the "veracity of Scripture,"-because the date was clearly wrong, and like every other falsehood tacked on to the Bible, is calculated to do harm instead of good to its "veracity," and because it is all important, in writing the physical history of man, to trace back the varieties of the races to the remotest date possible. Here, per