their taste lead them to desire separate services, it is what the black man universally prefers, so long as he is unbiassed by extraneous influence. Is it fair to make slave-holders responsible for the nature of the negro? The Doctor's second argument is based on the thinness of the population in slave-holding States. Congregations cannot be readily collected. Large land-owners may grudge a minister his support. So he reasons. All this is fallacy. If the Doctor knew the South as well as some know it, he would not, we believe, have made such assertions. The regions of the South are generally well supplied with faithful preaching. Slave-holders feel it to be their duty and interest to support the Gospel. Nowhere is there more liberality, than among them. Had the Doctor paused here, we might have smiled at the mistakes into which he has fallen, but we must acknowledge that our face-muscles grew rigid over this sentiment, viz: "Contemplating these difficulties, we shall come to the conclusion, that if, in any part of the United States, the support of the Gospel by taxation enforced by law, is better adapted to the circumstances of the people, than the voluntary plan, it is in the seaboard counties of Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia." See page 41. We think this very unfortunate language. If the Doctor meant to imply, (as we conceive he did,) that Southerners have not sufficient conscience or sufficient impulse to induce them to support the Gospel, he has committed as egregious a blunder of the intellect, as he has violated the laws of courtesy. We thought the world were agreed, that parsimony belonged to the North. Whatever sins have been charged to the South, we never before heard the sin of illiberality fastened on us, nor did we know that the most fiery abolitionist desired the aid of the civil law to make us attend church. We have ever honored the Gospel for its own sake, we have honored it for our own sakes. We love and cherish it. We are willing to live by it and to be judged by it. If taxation prevailed in the South, few would have to give half as much for the support of the Gospel, as is now given cheerfully and unconstrainedly. Strange that the Doctor should have forgotten, that the voluntary system is a Southern system by birth and maintenance! Štrange that prejudice should have blinded him to one of the elementary facts involved in his subject! If the Doctor were near enough to us, we should like to whisper in his ear, that the state of religion in the South is, in many points, purer than in the North,—that the unevangelical denominations, as he terms them, are not near so extensive, in the ratio of population,—and, finally, that the morbid exhibition of the religious sentiment, as seen in Millerism and kindred doctrines, are the Northern fungi, that disfigure the Tree of Life. L. ART. V.-UNITY OF THE RACES. 2. Two Lectures on the Natural History of the Caucasian and Negro Races. By JOSIAH C. NOTT, M. D. Mobile. 1844. pp. 53. THE Lectures of Dr. Wiseman were originally prepared for private instruction in the College of which he was then Principal. At the request of friends, they were subsequently delivered, with some modifications, before a public audience in Rome, and were received with so much favor, that he consented to their publication. He has since been elevated to the Episcopate, and now resides in England, with the title of Bishop of Melipotamus. Although he has published several works of a polemical character, upon the distinctive tenets of the Roman church, the reader will hardly find in these Lectures an expression which would raise a suspicion that the author was a subject of the Roman obedience. The purpose of the Lectures being to furnish evidences of the truth of Divine Revelation from the discoveries of modern science, he had no occasion to leave the ground occupied by Protestant and Romanist in common, and discuss the subjects which divide them. The topics he has discussed, are of equal interest and concern to Christians of every name. We can go hand in hand with him about the walls which enclose the august Temple of the one God of Nature and of Revelation, and "tell the towers thereof;" or, entering with uncovered heads the sacred precincts, can visit crypt and shrine together, to wonder and adore as we view the gorgeous splendor and awful majesty of works, which reveal the hand of an Almighty Power and a Wisdom that is infinite. These Lectures seem to have been received with no less favor by the reading public, than by the audience to which they were first delivered. They probably present the most satisfactory exhibition of evidence for the truth of Divine Revelation, as derived from science, which is any where to be found within the same compass. Although in some cases obliged to use the language of the learned, the author has so far succeeded in rendering the subjects intelligible, that they will be readily comprehended by readers of ordinary intelligence. He has also succeeded so well in a skilful selection and arrangement of topics, that a perusal of the Lectures can scarcely fail of awakening new interest in the reader, and of strengthening his conviction of the authenticity of the Scriptures. It is no less satisfactory to the inquirer, that all the subjects discussed, having been strongly urged by sceptics as infallible proofs of the falsity of Christianity, are here shown by later and fuller discovery to be valuable supports to the temple of our faith, and striking illustrations of the truth of our holy religion. The first two Lectures are "on the comparative study of Languages," more technically called Ethnography, Comparative Philology, and, by the French, Linguistique. This is a study of modern date, and may be said to be yet almost in its infancy. Still, many and important discoveries have been made, which foster the expectation of more splendid triumphs. By this study, nations which were before supposed to be severed by irreconcilable dissimilarities, have been proved to have originated in a common stock; and every advance in it, diminishes the number of distinct and independent languages and tribes of people. Perhaps the most interesting fact thus far developed, having come within the range of what has probably supplied the most copious materials for examination, is derived from the comparison of what are called the Indo-Germanic languages: "It is clearly demonstrated," says Dr. Wiseman, "that one speech, essentially so called, pervaded a considerable portion of Europe and Asia, and stretching across in a broad sweep from Ceylon to Iceland, united in a bond of union nations professing the most irreconcilable religions, possessing the most dissimilar institutions, and bearing but a slight resemblance in physiognomy and color." p. 31. It is found, therefore, that Hindoos, Persians, Kurds, Affghans, Armenians, and all the nations of Europe, except those belonging to the Biscayan and Finnish tribes, are members of one great family, and are shown, by the affinity of their languages, to have descended from one common stock. When we find, then, that such a variety of nations, so widely separated, geographically, historically and constitutionally, and whose languages were but lately deemed wholly independent of each other, are now proved to be of common origin, we may confidently expect that research and comparison will still more diminish the number of now apparent discrepancies in the languages of the remaining nations. It will not, then, be the utterance of too credulous expectation, if we say with Alex. von Humboldt, "However insulated certain languages may at first appear, however singular their caprices and their idioms,-all have an analogy among them, and their numerous relations will be more perceived, in proportion as the philosophical history of nations, and the study of languages, shall be brought to perfection." Klaproth maintains, that by his investigations, "the universal affinity of languages is placed in so strong a light, that it must be considered by all as completely demonstrated. This does not appear explicable on any other hypothesis, than that of admitting fragments of a primary language yet to exist through all the languages of the old and new world." Herder also contends that "the human race, and language therewith, go back to one common stock,-to a first man,and not to several, dispersed in different parts of the world." Certainly, when so much has been accomplished, in so short a period, it were rank presumption and scepticism to assert that the judgments of these men will not be eventually sustained. No greater marvel remains to be effected in this direction, than has already been realized in the demonstrated affinity of the numerous Indo-Germanic families, the connexion of these with the Semitic through the Coptic or ancient Egyptian tongue,-the affinity of the Malayan with the multiplied dialects of the Pacific Islands, which were once regarded as wholly distinct, as well as their probable relation with the Transgangetic languages,-and the fundamental unity of the numerous American dialects, and their evident derivation from the Asiatic. "In Africa, too," says Wiseman, "the dialects whereof have been comparatively but little studied, every new research displays connex ions between tribes extended over vast tracts, and often separated by intermediate nations; in the north, between the languages spoken by the Berbers and Tuariks, from the Canaries to the Oasis of Ŝiwa; in Central Africa, between the dialects of the Fellatahs and Foulahs, who occupy nearly the whole interior; in the south, among the tribes across the whole continent, from Caffraria and Mozambique to the Atlantic Ocean." p. 43. It will at once be seen, that a demonstration of the common origin of the several languages of the earth, involves of necessity a demonstration of the unity of the human race, and will so far afford collateral proof of the truth of the sacred narrative. At the same time, if the common origin of languages should never be ascertained,-nay, if a radical difference should be demonstrated among them, the fact could never be brought to bear forcibly against the unity of the human family. From what we know of the rapid changes that have befallen some languages, and the extreme differences which exist in others known to have sprung from one source, we should not have a right to infer, nor could we a priori suppose, that the lapse of several thousand years would not have wrought such material alterations in their fundamental character, as would completely destroy every vestige of their original character. Besides, there is no positive proof in the history of the confusion of tongues at Babel, that there was not an entire and radical change of language, which would be no greater miracle than the sudden change of a primitive language into several unintelligible dialects. Let it not be supposed that we are endeavoring to make out a forced case. We only desire to exhibit the true bearing and relations of this subject, and to show in what direction. its advantages lie. There are many facts which afford important evidence upon a subject, the absence of which would not imply its falsity nor an opposite truth. Evident traces of a universal flood upon the earth, might be strong confirmation of the fact of the Noachian Deluge, while the entire absence of such traces would be no proof that it never occurred. The question is merely one of cumulative testimony. Whatever may be the final result of the universal comparison of languages as to a demonstration of their fundamental unity, we are inclined to think that the investigations already made go far to establish the unity of the human race. An affiliation has been traced in the languages of nations so diverse in habit, form and color, that, while we cannot doubt |