The following contains a beautiful thought, happily expressed:

"More than
my
brothers are to me,'-
Let that not vex thee, noble heart!
I know thee of what force thou art,
To hold the costliest love in fee.

But thou and I are one in kind,

As moulded like in nature's mint; And hill and wood and field did print The same sweet forms in either mind.

For us the same cold streamlet curled

Through all his eddying coves; the same
All winds that warm the twilight came
In whispers of the beauteous world.
At one dear knee we proffered vows,
One lesson from the book we learned,
Ere childhood's flaxen ringlet turned
To black and brown on kindred brows.

And so my wealth resembles thine,
But he was rich where I was poor,
And he supplied my want the more
As his unlikeness fitted mine."

We have quoted sufficient to give our readers some idea of the peculiar vein of the author, and of the character of the work. We might adduce other stanzas that are obscure, exceedingly fanciful, and, as they seem to us, weak and prosaic. But what modern book of poetry does not contain such? Nor should we judge too harshly poems which the author doubtless wrote rather for his own solace, than for the eye of the public. Perhaps he hesitated long ere he gave them to the world. We might infer this from their appearance seventeen years after the death of the friend they so abundantly lament. Sacred unto us be ever the voice of sincere grief. Notwithstanding all their imperfections, and we have applied to them tests which few modern poems could endure, they contain much of pathos and simple beauty, a vein of tender and pleasing though melancholy sentiment throughout, and much, also, of the distilled wisdom of life. The philosophy of experience is the highest of all philosophy, because it is applicable to our present needs; and nowhere can we study this to better advantage than in the revelations of a true poet. Let us close these brief and hasty remarks by a sentiment, in which all who have been rightly taught either by their own or the experience of others, will fully agree with the author:

THE LOVED ONE EVER NEAR.-GOETHE.

I THINK of thee, whene'er the sun's bright shimmer
Streams from the sea;

I think of thee, whene'er the moon-beams' glimmer
In fount I see.

I see thee on my way, when, worn and weary,

Dust-clouds arise;

THE VARIETY IN THE HUMAN SPECIES.*

THE theory that all men are of one nature and one descent, finds in Rev. Dr. Smyth a very earnest, but not always a judicious advocate. A fraternal sympathy towards all men-a world-embracing charity—is alleged as a part motive for the preparation of this work-and the author does not forget to give his philanthropy a sufficient expression; but the great object to which all his sympathies for man, and all his impatience to vindicate true science are made entirely subservient, is the defence of the Bible. Had not this watchful divine seen, or fancied he saw in the advancing idea of a multiplicity of distinct families of men, a corresponding progress of disbelief in the Sacred Volume, we doubt if the book on "The Unity of the Human Races" would ever have received birth. We must therefore regard him, not as the philosopher, or man of science, but as the spiritual champion, clad in the complete Christian mail, and going forth to assail the rebuilt walls of Doubting Castle, and to cut off the head of rejuvenant Infidelity with the sword of the Faithful. Not content with the lighter warfare of the lyceum and the public journals, which he had before waged, he now falls upon the enemies of the faith with the weight of a tome of four hundred pages, in which he seeks to turn all phases of the subject to one point, and combine such an overwhelming flood of evidence, that the authority of the Holy Book shall be rescued from all disrespect, and with it the incident of the infusion and propagation of but one blood in man made a demonstrated truth. But this very reach of his aim, has in part proved fatal to his object, (so far as regards the incident,) by causing the lack of unity in his arguments. The inconsistencies of Dr. Smyth's reasoning and evidence will be noticed in the progress of this article.

In our humble opinion, Dr. Smyth has greatly misjudged the nature of the case, in supposing there was any need of his championship of the Bible. We cannot see how the truth of the Bible is involved in the issue, until the advocates of a divisibility of the race dispute its history. We know of no one of them, at present, who does not only fully acknowledge the authority of that history, but who does not even depend on it for a portion of the proof of his theory. The only occasion, then, that Dr. Smyth has for bringing the Bible so prominently into the discussion, is to vindicate his own private interpretation of the sacred writings. He supposes, indeed, that the constructions put upon certain texts by his opponents, if established, would be fatal to the consistency of the whole book, and would sap the whole foundation of the Christian faith; but this is no more than an opinion, to be weighed against the opinions of those, some of them learned divines, like himself, who hold to the opposite theory. The assumption, therefore, of defending the Bible

* THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN RACES, Proved to be the Doctrine of Scripture, Reason, and Science, with a Review of the Present Position and Theory of Professor Agassiz. By the Rev. Thomas Smyth, D.D., member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

doctrine, is purely gratuitous, and the ardor which the author manifests on this portion of his subject, is exactly that kind of zeal which prompted the church, centuries ago, to reject with horror the great truths relating to the order of the solar system, because they were totally at war with what they considered the doctrine of the Bible. The Bible did not then need such protection-and if it ever did, it has certainly long outgrown the necessity of that kind of guardianship. The Book was not sent into the world to limit and restrain men in the search for truth-to bind up their minds in ignorance, and perpetuate the reign of old errors; its mission is the very opposite-to set free the human mind-to relieve it of the abuses which have clung around it, and clogged its path-to lead it in the search for truth-to open things which are hidden. It has long ago established the divinity of its own origin, while those who were laboring to accomplish that work, were honestly abusing its doctrines, misinterpreting its spirit, and pulling it backward with all their force. With the history of The Book before us, we ought surely to feel very confident of its own ability to vindicate its own truths-very diffident of our capacity to perform for it that service. The effort to do it, betrays, often, not only a presumptuous spirit, but a doubting, hesitating belief-a sad want of the great virtue of faith. We ought certainly, now, to consider the Bible "firmly grounded and established." With its light shining constantly on our way, we may launch out boldly in the investigations of nature-we may fearlessly acknowledge the truth of whatever is wellproved, however it may seem for the moment to militate with Bible history or Bible doctrine. We have had sufficient experience to learn that our understandings can neither infallibly comprehend the teachings of the Bible, or the connection and bearing of incomplete portions of scienceand that, however these may appear to differ at first, eventually we shall find a perfect harmony between nature and the book which has been given us by nature's God.

But Dr. Smyth seems to lack this confident spirit, and to be impressed with the fear, that unless the Bible, or rather his private understanding of it, can be at once established by logical demonstration, it is in danger of falling into infinite discredit. He repeatedly asserts, in different forms of expression, his continually present idea, that the truth of the Bible. depends on the establishment of his opinions. Thus, on page 337, he

says: "Now this theory is necessarily ÎNFIDEL. It is in open and direct

opposition to the testimony of the Bible. It overthrows not only Moses, but the prophets and apostles also, and thus undermines the Scripture, as a divine record, both of doctrines and of duties;" and he therefore argues, that "all who believe in it as the word of God, must contend earnestly." "Man should not distort Holy Writ to suit his notions of right and wrong," says Dr. Nott, an advocate of the theory thus summarily branded Infidel, and as pious, Scripture-believing, and learned a divine, possibly, as Dr. Smyth, who quotes the sentence, but cannot see that it has any application except against the doctrines of its author.

Dr. Smyth's hostility to our theory probably finds its origin in the fact, that Voltaire and other infidels, as he mentions, have used it to discredit the Bible. Yet we humbly conceive that Dr. Smyth's opponents are doing more to baffle this infidelity, than he will accomplish, with whatever expense, in this direction, of his biblical zeal. On one point, in fact, he fully agrees with the infidel: viz., the inconsistency of the theory with the Bible, and so far would satisfy the latter. We, on the

other hand, strike at the very root of the infidel's argument, and explode his whole effort, by proving his assumed facts entirely consistent with that which he seeks to refute.

Of course, the effect of Dr. Smyth's plan of controversy is to destroy all the value of his book as a scientific investigation. He starts with his mind pre-occupied-his judgment is fully determined. He believes the Scriptures to assert positively the unity of the race, and he will therefore believe nothing that asserts the contrary. Putting the assumed Bible doctrine in advance, as he does, he cannot do otherwise. Whatever evidence appears to controvert the doctrine of the Bible must be rejected (or what is the same thing, perverted from its true bearing,) for the Bible is superior authority to all, and what does not agree with it, is either false in itself, or is presented in a false view. What is the worth of the investigation after such an outstart?

But not only will Dr. Smyth not tolerate other understandings of the Bible beside his own, but he will not allow the right of private interpretation to those differing from him. Page 373, he complains of Professor Agassiz for giving his views on the Scriptural relations of this question, imputing to him, with other "scientific observers," "arrogance and intolerance" in presuming "to interpret and determine the nature of inspiration, and the actual teachings of the Bible.” "They transcend the limits of their sphere and functions, and dogmatize upon that with which they have, as men of science, no concern." Now, we would charitably inquire, why it is not of the same "concern" to Professor Agassiz and other "men of science," to sustain their scientific theories by the authority of the Bible, that it is to Dr. Smyth to support his scientific theory with that authority? and why it is not equally as proper for them to "interpret" and "dogmatize" upon the Bible, as it is for one of the clerical profession to enter the ranks of "scientific observers," and dictate to them what theories they must believe, and what reject-assuming to "interpret and determine scientific truth' by his understanding of the Scriptures?"

6

In examining those texts, which are thought to afford the strongest Biblical support to the theory in question, we shall not assume to prove our own opinion from the Bible, though the argument would bear turning to that point without violence. We shall merely attempt to show that the Bible affords no direct sanction to the theory we oppose, and shall thus merely rescue the question from a premature and improper decision, and place it on clear scientific ground, to be decided according to the evidence which legitimate inquiry may suborn and reason weigh. It is no part of our argument to put any class of men without the pale of humanity, or to draw any unnecessary distinction between their varieties.

To begin with the first chapter of Genesis, the reading would seem plainly to indicate that Adam was the first created man, his creation immediately following the completion of the world, with its vegetable and animal population, and the heavenly bodies; and in chapter ii., verse 10, we are distinctly told, that prior to his creation "there was not a man to till the ground." But for the same reason that we should derive from the history of the creation the inference that Adam was the first and only created man, we should be obliged to accept many other things, equally derivable from the account, which we know cannot be true. Thus, we should be obliged to believe the whole universe was made as an incident to