to maintain an inconsequential inference from an imperfect and altogether misplaced analogy. He will no longer, therefore, pervert and profane Scripture by speaking of the negro race as still “maintaining his integrity," that is, his color, or of the Israelites as God's "peculiar people," on account of physical peculiarities. Far better for Dr. Barratt to maintain his integrity as a Christian, and believe as he appears to do, (see p. 43,) that "man was not diversified in his original creation, the law of physical change, and moral fitness being passed on the Babel throng at the dispersion, to occupy the earth's dissimilar surface." On this basis we are happy to assure him "there is no tendency to skepticism, but on the contrary, it is nature harmonizing with revelation."

D.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

On the tradition of Noah and the flood as found in the fable of Osiris and Menes, see Noland's Egyptian Chronology, p. 389, &c., &c. On the traditions of Joseph in the account of Hermes as the reformer of the Calendar, do., p. 402.

This subject will be seen discussed in a comprehensive and interesting manner in Barrington's Treatise on Physical Geography. New-York. 1850. pp. 294-310.

See also a valuable presentation of the Unity of the Human Races as founded on Natural History, in Reischenberger's Natural History, Elements of Mammalogy, pp. 28-31.

On Egyptian Mummies as connected with this subject, see Prichard's Natural History, pp. 576-583; 3d edition.

E.

REVIEW OF NATURAL HISTORY OF MAN IN THE DEMOCRATIC REVIEW FOR APRIL, 1850.

This is substantially an outline of the work of Mr. Van Amringe, alluded to in this volume. In accordance with that author, the Reviewer takes the Scriptural account as correct, and feels, therefore, bound to believe that all mankind descended through Noah from a single pair. He believes, therefore, that the present diversities of the races are the result of "the interposition of the Almighty in changing one type into another," and that Dr. Nott has overlooked all the evidence bearing upon this point.

Like Mr. Amringe, he admits, that in contrariety to the law of the animal kingdom, every known fact proves an original single centre of distribution or creation of man in Asia, and "that there is no analogy between man and animals which can assist us to classify man, or to understand his history."

When, therefore, these writers make the present differences among men specific, they controvert the unvaried usage of Naturalists, who have never hesitated to regard admitted unity of origin as conclusive proof of unity of species; and when they make social and political differences, which can be otherwise accounted for, criteria of species, they transcend all the just limits of natural science. Neither can it ever be shown that polygamy, the low condition and barbarous treatment of woman, and the substitution of lust for love, are peculiar to the lower races of men, since they have prevailed among many branches of the Caucasian race, and are found practically to characterize many of the most civilized and christianized nations.

The whole enormity of unchristian inference practically consequent upon the theory of a diversity of races of men, is perpetrated by these writers when they declare that the differences among men "cannot be changed by advanced civilization, or any other means". "that the philanthropic world for the last fifty years (by missionary

efforts) has been proceeding entirely upon a false assumption "—and "that the effects of these efforts is to degrade the white species, and to destroy the dark species," whose destiny it is to be “finally swallowed up."

This is nothing short of an impeachment of the truth, a rejection of the authority, and a Cain-like denial of the charity of the Bible, which makes every man the keeper of his brother man, and the guardian of his dearest blessings.