some observations upon the salt-springs and salt-cliffs, the marine productions which are found upon, and under, the surface of the ground in the interior, they thus express themselves:

"So far from supposing America to be a new production, lately emerged from the depths of the ocean, the height of its mountains, the abundance of its precious metals, the vast circumference of its shores joined to the above circumstances, would seem to mark it as the most antient, as well as most august of the two great continents of the globe.”

We have called this a singular opinion; and we may add, that, if such an anti-scriptural opinion had been found in Dr. Rees's part of this work, these religious editors would have shown him no mercy. they would probably have asked him in what part of America he placed the garden of Eden and our first parents, &c. &c. But we forbear further remarking upon this opinion at present, as we shall have occasion for animadversion upon similar opinions in another part of this review.

After this view of the American continent itself, the editors proceed to give an account of the native inhabitants. In doing this they discover a great deal of philanthropick zeal to vindicate these degraded people from the false character given them in the "puerile fables" of European writers; and they state a number of pertinent facts by way of answer to these fables. They then observe:

"When we meet with such puerile fables in the pages of those writers whose talents do honour to human nature, we scarce know which sensation to give way to pity or contempt. Those writers ought to have recollected what country it was that gave birth to a Washington, a Franklin, a Rittenhouse, who now form so resplendent a constellation among those departed worthies who have adorned and enlightened the world-a country whose inhabitants in so short a space have raised, as it were, in the forest, a vast empire, founded on principles the most rational and benevolent, and affording the most perfect system of government ever adopted by mankind; whose commerce, scarce second to any, visits the remotest shores; and among whom the arts and sciences are rising and spreading with a rapidity hitherto unknown in the annals of the world; they should have recollected these grand features of our country, and blushed for their unmerited censure. Can it be prejudice that in all these matters continues to throw her false colours before them; or is it, that having once formed to themselves such an intermediate being so little raised above the brute creation as the man of America, they are now unwilling to relinquish the creature of their own fancy."

1

All this would be very well in its place; but we really cannot perceive its pertinency to the question under discussion. We do not perceive by what rule of logick it follows, that, because America produced a Washington and Franklin, and has a perfect government and an extensive commerce, &c. therefore the Indian or 66 man of America" is not inferiour to the European. The gentlemen in their great zeal seem to lose sight of the question, and fight with giants and windmills of their own creation.

After a variety of remarks upon the different characters of the tribes of Indians, their courage and other estimable qualities, we have the following observations:

"The American indeed has all the rudeness of uncivilized man, but into what region of the earth shall we follow these historians to find him superior? If we believe these very men who affect to look with humbled pride on the physical frame and faculties of the American so little superior to the brutes, do they not declare, that the natives of Hindostan are weak, servile and timid, that the New Zealander is treacherous and ferocious, the inhabitants of New Hol

land unequalled for filth and stupidity, &c. What are the numberless nations scattered over the wide continent of Africa, but hordes of barbarous tribes, with the exception in America of some more civilized settlements?* or what were the original natives of Britain, when first known to the civilized world? In short, if we throw prejudice aside and survey mankind as the children of habit, as much as of nature we will [shall] find that the same causes, the same advantages and deprivations, produce consequences nearly similar among the human race, in every region of the world."

These sentiments are certainly correct; and the readiness of "these very men," (the English editors) as here acknowledged, to give to the American savage an equal rank with other savages, ought to have stifled the unworthy imputations which have been heaped upon them for intentionally degrading the "man of America." But, alas such is poor human nature, the gentlemen have no sooner dropped these commendable sentiments from their lips, than in the very next column they let themselves off in these revengeful terms:

"From the discoveries now going forward we anticipate with pleasure the period, when many of those cobweb romances, which have so long disfigured this part of American history, will be swept away forever, and consigned to the oblivion which they and their fabricators so honestly merit."

This prophetick denunciation, we trust, was intended only for the European philosophers; but we are so apprehensive that some of our own philosophers will be involved in it, that we most devoutly implore these Gods of science and literature to have compassion on poor humble man, and recall this "sweeping" edict.

The President's Message (before alluded to) is next introduced, giving an account of the route of Capt. Lewis; and this is followed by an extract of a letter from Capt. Lewis himself dated at Fort Mandan, which appears to be at the great distance of 1600 miles up the Missouri.

We next find some extracts from the President's communications to Congress, and from Bartram's travels, upon the character and manners of the Indians; the whole seasoned, as usual, with editorial reflections upon the ignorance and prejudices of the European philosophers, who have had the presumption to write and make theories upon America, without foreseeing and waiting for the discoveries of Capt. Lewis and his companions. What a pack of ignoramuses those European philosophers must be ! How durst they express their opinions upon the subject of America? Why did not they reflect, that their speculations would one day pass in review before the "literary and scientifick characters" of that very country-the descendants of those very Americans (it is surely fair to consider these gentlemen as aboriginals, if they have a right to do the same with Franklin and Washington) the descendants we say of those very Americans whom they were attempting to degrade.

This article is closed with a discussion of the interesting question, "Who were the first people of America, and whence did they come ?"

The first opinion which the editors cite on this of Robertson and Pennant, who suppose that America was peopled from the coast of Asia.

question is that the continent of This opinion is

* We are a little at a loss to comprehend this sentence. It would seem from this exception, that the editors consider America as a part of Africa.

founded on the striking resemblance of the respective inhabitants in their persons, manners and customs, as well as on the constant traditions of the Mexicans, that " their ancestors came from a remote country situate to the northwest of Mexico."

"On the same side of the question," say they," ranges professor Barton of the University of Pennsylvania, who has distinguished himself by a laborious investigation of this subject in his New views of the origin of the tribes and Nations of America." But, although Dr. Barton thinks himself justified in concluding that the march of population (as he expresses it) was originally from Asia to America, and, of course, that all mankind might have sprung from one couple, yet this does not satisfy these editors; for they observe, that "all these opinions are subject to numberless objections, and with respect to the great object of inquiry, leave us as much in the dark as ever. If the human race originally passed from the eastern shores of Asia to America, it must have been at a period long after their creation. Many thousands of years must have elapsed before the population of the old world became so great, and the fertile plains of Asia and Europe so occupied, as to drive their superfluous inhabitants to the necessity of seeking refuge in the bleak and frozen regions of Siberia. The supposition, that during all this time so great a portion of the globe remained one vast uninhabited solitude, seems inconsistent with the very design of creation and repugnant to all the operations of that wonderful system of nature, where the multiplication and nourishment of animal life is so principal an object, and so particularly attended to."

It is somewhat difficult to determine precisely what length of time is here meant by the phrase " many thousands of years.' If it means several periods, each of which is composed of thousands of years, then two thousand years is the smallest number which could constitute each of those periods, and the smallest number of such periods, which could be denominated many, would be two, making the whole length of time spoken of to be at least four thousand years. If this is the meaning of the phrase, then it is perfectly clear, according to the scripture chronology, that America could not have been peopled from Asia or Europe before the flood; because this event happened within two thousand years from the creation; and from the flood to the discovery of America the period that had elapsed was short of four thousand years, which, according to this explication of the phrase "many thousands of years," is likewise too short a time for the emigrants from "the fertile plains of Asia and Europe" to have reached even Siberia. But if the expression, 6C many thousands of years," is to be understood as equivalent to many thousand years, then two thousand must be considered as the shortest period in which Siberia could have become peopled from "the plains of Asia or Europe." Now from the creation to the flood the period being short of two thousand years; it is clear that Siberia could not, as we have before remarked, have been inhabited before the flood. We must therefore commence our calculation after the flood. The period of time from the flood to the discovery of America is short of four thousand years, and as Siberia could not have been peopled till after two thousand, it is plain that an emigration

from Siberia to America could not have been commenced till after that time, and consequently that America was not, according to this hypothesis, peopled more than two thousand years before its discovery by Columbus. According to the first statement then, America eould not have been peopled at all from Asia, and according to the other it could not have been peopled two thousand years; or, in other words it was not inhabited by mankind till nearly four thousand years after it was created. With respect to its having been inhabited only for so short a time as this statement allows, the editors observe: "The supposition, that during all this time so great a portion of the globe remained one vast uninhabited solitude, seems inconsistent with the very design of creation and repugnant to all the operations of that wonderful system of nature, where the multiplication and nourishment of animal life is so principal an object and so particularly attended to !" Now from this observation, we think, we may fairly infer it to be the opinion of these editors, that America has been peopled much longer than it could have been according to the latter of the above statements, and, consequently, that in their opinion it could not have derived its population from Europe or Asia. If then this is really their opinion, we would ask them, what is the religious condition of the natives of America? If they are not of European or Asiatick origin, they cannot be the descendants of Adam; and if not descendants of Adam, then they have no part or lot in the christian dispensation; and if they have no part in this dispensation, what propriety can there be in attempting to convert them to christianity? Indeed, upon this hypothesis of the learned editors, the labours of our missionaries, if not altogether a cheat, are at least entirely groundless.

If the opinion, which we have attributed to these editors respecting the peopling of America, is not their real opinion, but on the contrary they think that was peopled from Europe or Asia, and that it had been inhabited by mankind not quite two thousand years before it was discovered by Columbus, we find it difficult to reconcile the sentiments above cited, respecting the supposition of its having been peopled for so short a time only, with an observation made by them under the article Angel, concerning him who, in their opinion," has touched irreverently the hallowed depository of God's revealed will. In the best manner we can," say they," we will withstand his audacity, expose his impiety, and invest him with his proper character."

Is it an unpardonable offence, gentlemen, for others to touch the hallowed depository of God's revealed will in a manner which you may deem irreverent? And is it no crime for you to revile the Deity himself by insinuating, that "it is inconsistent with the very design of creation" for him to have let America remain uninhabited for so long a period of time, as, according to your statement, it must. have been, supposing it to have received its population from Europe or Asia?

There is indeed one way in which this difficulty may be easily solved, and that is this-That the God of the scriptures, and the God who formed the world are, in the opinion of these editors, entirely different beings.

After this specimen of their regard for scripture, authority, the reader will not be surprised to find them adducing the following authority in support of the opinion, that all mankind could not have sprung from one couple.

"How can we," say they, "reconcile the number of languages spoken in North and South America, many of them totally different from each other, with the so recent arrival of its inhabitants, as two, three, or even four thou sand years. "How many ages have elapsed,' says an elegant writer and distinguished naturalist, 'since the English, the Dutch, the Germans, the Swiss, the Norwegians, Danes and Swedes have separated from their common stock? And yet how many more must elapse before the proofs of their common origin, which exist in their several languages, will disappear? A separation into dialects may be the work of a few ages only, but for two dialects to recede from each other, till they have lost all vestiges of their common origin, must require an immense course of time, perhaps not less than many people give to the age of the world.' Notes on Virginia, p. 148.”

The whole of the above specious reasoning is inserted by these religious editors without comment, and without the least intimation that any answer has been, or can be, given to it; although they must know that Dr. Barton in his "New Views" (which it seems they must have read) has given a very elaborate answer to it. This supposition, that a great many of the native languages of America are totally different from each other," is so far from being warranted by facts, that there is great reason to believe the reverse of it to be true. Dr. Barton (whose opinions these editors cite just so far as suits their purpose) maintains, that those languages have an affinity with each other, and with the languages of the Asiaticks ; and so far is he from thinking two creations of men necessary, that he inclines to the opinion that all mankind had their origin from one pair. This opinion (apart from scripture) he supports with arguments of no small weight, at the same time that he ably combats the opinions above adopted by the editors. But these gentlemen, for reasons which it is their duty and not ours to lay before the publick, keep this part of Dr. Barton's work out of sight, and only quote such of his singularities as will support their anti-scriptural hypothesis.

Before we close our remarks on this head, we would ask the reader to compare the conduct of these editors with the management of the French Encyclopedists. They professed great respect for religion in all the theological parts of their work; but in the philosophical and other articles, where the reader was not prepared to meet theological discussions, they took occasion to propagate opinions of the kind we have seen in the present instance. If such management was criminal in the French editors, whose work was confined to the circles of the learned, it is doubly criminal in those who publish the present work, which has a very general circulation, and will of course fall into the hands of the unlearned and the inexperienced. And is this, we would ask, one of the ways in which this work was to be "adapted to this country?" Is it possible that these professedly christian editors could have reasoned, as the French philosophers did; that the publick mind would not yet bear a direct attack upon the scriptures, and it was therefore necessary to profess great zeal in their defence in the theological articles, that they might