characteristics, more remarkable than any that could be effected by climate, education, and all other causes combined. Now, if the differences before us for investigation are the most remarkable differences we know of in men,-and if, beside, they have that partial distribution to place and climate which induces the belief with some of these circumstances being their cause, while we see that the miracle of old was intended expressly to scatter them over all the earth, and as certainly as God is a provident being, and the race survived the dispersion, to adapt them to all the climates and circumstances of the earth-seeing this so plainly, how can we avoid the conclusion, that it was at this time and by this miracle, that those varieties of the race, or a portion of them at least, were created, which we now see in the world?

It is about the time of this confusion of tongues, and the consequent dispersion of the race, that we hear first of the distinction of color in the race. The information is then given us of the existence of black men, by profane history; and if we believe the distinctions of race to have been created at that time, we then add one more to the remarkable verifications of Scripture which are derived from uninspired history. But the entire absence of all mention of any such distinctions in the record preceding that of the confusion of languages, is good presumptive evidence of the Scripture itself in favor of our opinion, in addition to that derived from the account of that event. Had there been the present variety of men living together in the families of Adam and Noah, prior to that time, it must not only have been mentioned as a matter of interest by the historian, but it could hardly have been excluded by actual design, so as to have left a faithful and intelligible history. Moses has thought proper to inform us, that God made woman beautiful;-that the "daughters of men" were so "fair" as to attract the love of the "sons of God;"-that there were differences in physical stature and strength; has explained to us the peculiarities of certain people,-informed us of the mode of living, occupation and kind of property of some,—and it seems to us now impossible that had distinctions existed, which of necessity must exercise such remarkable influences on the characters, social and civil relations, and pursuits of men, that he should have designed or forgotten its mention. And had he done so, still we are certain that the differences would have told their own story by their regular propagation into the family of Israel, or had a separation previously taken place, would have descended in the traditions of the house.

It may be said in reply, that had such a change as is mentioned occurred, it would have been mentioned by Moses, as being even more remarkable than the confusion of tongues. But we do not mean to assert that this change was effected at once. It is not the usual plan of God to effect important constitutional changes, either in men, animals or worlds, by immediate, single acts. We see changes, of a less magnitude, true, than the one in question, but indicating how great changes could be made, going on around us by a gradual progress of natural operations. We suppose, therefore, that the rudiments of the change, only, at first appeared, perhaps in no noticeable degree, and were gradually elaborated to their perfection along equally with the progress of the dispersion they were intended both to occasion and to fit men for. We do not incline at all to believe that the tired workers of Babel, after viewing the upward

extension of their tower at the close of some day, retired to their beds, and awoke in the morning to astonish each other with a motley of black, yellow, and red faces, in place of the former universal white; or that even after parting with an intelligible "good night," they horrified each other by mutually bidding their morning salutations in an incomprehensible gibberish. It may be said there is, then, no miracle. We are not strenuous about the word, although we cannot think the introduction of the principle by which the change was effected, which introduction could be made only by the direct power of God, is unworthy of the name. God performs miracles in all ages, and many that are unnoticed by man. Thus far the suggestive testimony of Scripture.

The book before us labors very little to explain the origin of the particular varieties of the race, although it is so much its great aim to show that they all came out from a common source. The author seems aware of the weakness of the theory on that point, and rather seeks to establish the unity of races as an independent fact, without reference to the cause of division. As a first step, he adduces the opinions of Dr. Prichard, Dr. Lawrence and others, "that all the varieties of men can be accounted for by natural causes." We agree fully with the opinion, but as we shall show, the difference is not for that reason any the less wide and permanent. It is then stated, "that the differences of physical organization, and of moral and intellectual qualities, which characterize the several races of our species, are analogous in kind and degree to those which distinguish the breeds of the domestic animals; and must, therefore, be accounted for on the same principles;" and that the most powerful circumstance favoring this production of varieties, "is the state of domestication." "That external or adventitious causes, such as climate, situation, food, or way of living, have considerable effect in altering the constitution of men and animals; but that," it is yet admitted, "this effect, as well as that of art or accident, is confined to the individual, not being transmitted by generation, and therefore not affecting the race. Here the whole ground seems given up-and we cannot understand how the inference is immediately drawn," that the human species, therefore, like that of the cow, sheep, horse and pig, and others, is single; and that all the differences which it exhibits are to be regarded merely as varieties." But we shall see, again, that Dr. Smyth does not, at other times, remember this concession, but asserts a very large, permanent, and transmissible effect for climate, food, &c. Indeed, immediately following, he quotes Prichard, who, stating that the physical differences of color, form, &c., between the Arian race in Persia and Hindostan, says, "The cause which has given rise to this diversity can apparently be nothing else than the influence of the hot climate of Hindostan." He then goes on to quote Prichard further, to the effect that the variety of complexion in Africa is according to the temperature of its various regions, the "limits of Negroland" being assigned as the tropics on either side. The same circumstances are then traced to Asia and Oceanica, and it is here positively asserted, that "we perceive among them actual and undoubted TRANSFORMATIONS INTO THE MOST EXTREME VARIETIES, and that among the inhabitants of the same place are found also a great variety both of features and complexion, which can only be explained by the difference of food, exposure, and other peculiarities of condition." He then goes on to quote from different authors, who attribute all the varieties to climate, food, &c. ; and one of

them, Dr. Bachman, endeavors to show the analogy between the operation of these causes upon vegetables and animals, and their operation upon men. Dr. Carpenter is quoted as saying, "that none of the variations which have been pointed out as existing between the different races of mankind, have the least claim to be regarded as solid, specific distinctions, being entirely destitute of that fixity which is requisite to entitle them to such a rank," and that "there is a tendency to the fusion of all these varieties, and a return to a common type." The last authority quoted is "a very curious traditionary legend" of the Tonga Islands, which we are willing, if Dr. Smyth insists, to receive as having equal pretensions to a foundation in truth with the opinions of the writers he quotes. To refute the theory here laid down, we would really need but to place different parts of the book in juxtaposition: thus, before, it is asserted that the differences of climate, &c., affect only the individual, not being transmissible, while in another place he quotes approvingly the same author, Prichard, that all these effects are propagated, and "thus even the smallest varieties once produced are never again obliterated." Which of the contradictory assertions is to be admitted? If the latter, it admits all our theory. If the smaller varieties are never obliterated, how can the larger ones ever be, and how is the alleged transition of race to occur?

Again, he quotes Dr. Wiseman, "that we can find sufficient proofs in the languages and in the characteristics of larger bodies, or entire nations, compared, of their transition from one race to another." If the smallest varieties are not obliterated ever, how can a white be transformed to a black, or a black to a white, or either to a red or deep yellow tint? Or can a man be both black and white, or red and white, or black and yellow

at once.

The next argument we notice, is the attempt to prove the black race the earliest race of men, and that man was at first created highly civilized, and fell away from that state. This argument is designed to enhance the dignity of black men-but so far as regards their superior age, it can be no more a proof of their dignity, either as the superior or equal of the whites, than the same is proved for all the lower orders of animals, who existed in regular scale of descent according to their distance in advance of the epoch of man's creation. This idea also adds another to Dr. Smyth's frequent inconsistencies, as we know man was created in the temperate regions of Asia, and for a long time remained there, gradually spreading abroad. If, therefore, the first men were negroes, and lived in that region, and came out from it over the rest of the world, the foundation of the theory relating to climate is wholly pulled away. Again, if the argument is true, the reluctant truth is forced upon us, that black men had a different origin from the white race-they did not derive their paternity from Adam. There can be no other result, all unconscious of it as our author appears. We have every proof that can exist in the nature of things, that Adam, the original of the white races, (whether he was or was not of the black,) was not a black man. The nation of Israel was white, and the patriarchs, through whom that family descended directly from Adam, were most certainly like their descendants on one hand, and their progenitor on the other. Had a change of color and features occurred at any time from Adam to Abraham, or from Abraham to Jacob or David, the sacred oracles, and cer

tainly the Jewish traditions, so full, so zealously preserved, would have informed us of the remarkable event. These remarks apply with still greater force to the secondary head of the race, Noah, from whose time the period was less to the establishment of the house of Israel, and the records more full. We may be certain that neither Adam nor Noah were black men, and that the patriarchs, as they had one form of religion, one mode of life, one system of education and of opinions, and were of a selected blood, were men marked by common physical and mental characteristics. We may add, also, that Adam, as is universally acknowledged, coming fresh from the hand of his Creator, was physically the glory of his race-a perfect man-while to our senses, and in his own judgment, the negro is in this respect vastly the inferior of the white.

The other condition assumed, the primeval civilization of the blacks, forces the same results again upon its authors, with equal certainty. Adam certainly was not created in a civilized state, nor did he attain it by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When he first became aware of his nakedness, the garment he invented gives no equivocal evidence of a totally undisciplined ingenuity; and so poorly did his skill serve his convenience, that the Almighty himself made "coats of skins" for the clothing of the untutored pair. The gradual progress of invention to the construction of tents to dwell in-the gradual aggregation of power in the hands of a chief or ruler, the embryo of empires-these, and the whole history of which these instances are parts, show the same slow but constant advance from barbarity to civilization which other history everywhere records, and which is consistent with all our own observations of man as he is before us at this day.

If, therefore, Dr. Smyth and his authorities succeed in proving the negro the earliest race, and civilized in its first state, they infallibly prove that it was created at another and far different time from the white, and is an entirely distinct species. We dislike to consider this argument, for the theory urged, beside not being entirely without support in the arguments offered, is very consistent with the observed order of progress in nature-a continual advance from lower to higher orders of being. If we assume that the negro race preceded the white, it will be difficult to avoid the inference that it is a distinct and permanently inferior order, doomed by the inviolable laws of progress, revealed to us by geology, to sink toward its utter extinction, as the powers of the white race expand toward their highest development.

[To be continued,

THE USURY LAWS.

THE writer of the following pages would not have attempted thus publicly to treat a subject which, from its importance and complex nature, might give employment to a more able pen, but for the appearance and extensive circulation of a pamphlet entitled, "Importance of Usury Laws," and the complimentary notices it has received from respectable sources, as containing a triumphant vindication of the justice and policy of those laws. This pamphlet contains the argument of Hon. John Whipple, of Providence, Rhode Island, first published in 1836, with introductory remarks by the editor of the Bankers' Magazine.

The subject discussed is one upon which the opinions of mankind seem never to have been fully at ease, at least within the memory of the historian, and for several years past, it has been attracting increased attention amongst American statesmen and economists. The spirit of liberty, ever restive under conscious and unnecessary restraint, is beginning to demand, in tones which brook no evasion, the reasons why a man should not enjoy the same liberty in respect to the terms upon which he may obtain the use of another man's capital in the form of money, that he has in obtaining it in any other form.

These reasons are not, as all must confess, entirely obvious; and yet, such is the inquisitive spirit of the age, and especially of American freemen, that they must be clearly presented and firmly established, or the distinction must be laid aside. To punish such reasons is the task which Mr. Whipple has reluctantly imposed upon himself in the pamphlet alluded to-we say reluctantly-for he more than intimates an opinion, that time-honored usage upon this subject should so excite our tion, as to render reasons unnecessary; and to inquire into the soundness of the reasons he has offered, is the object of the present essay.

venera

Mr. Whipple begins by giving a tolerably fair synopsis of the positions and arguments of Mr. Jeremy Bentham, in his little work, entitled, "A Defence of Usury," published in 1787. He quotes Mr. Bentham's general propositions thus:

66

That no man of ripe years and sound mind, acting freely, and with his eyes open, ought to be hindered, with a view to his advantage, from making such a bargain in the way of obtaining money, as he thinks fit; nor (what is a necessary consequence) anybody hindered from supplying him upon any terms he thinks proper to accede to.

66

That contracts in general ought to be observed, is a rule, the propriety of which no man was ever yet found wrong-headed enough to deny. If this case is one of the exceptions (for some, doubtless there are) which the welfare and safety of society require should be taken out of the general rule, in this case, as in all others, it lies upon him who alleges the necessity of the exception, to produce a reason for it."

"This," says our author, "would have been a fair statement of the question, had the exception contended for been a new one." But claiming that the exception is as old as the general rule, he proceeds to upbraid