than by referring to the Bible, which fully explains this whole mystery. Here we learn, that man was provided with no natural clothing, because, when created, and as long as he remained innocent, he needed no other garments, than the innocence of his character. He was placed in a garden, where the temperature was exactly adapted to his body-where no chilling blasts, no pinching frosts, no desolating storms,disturbed his tranquillity; and as he needed no clothing for protection, so he felt no shame on account of his nakedness. In Paradise, man was richly provided with every thing necessary and comfortable, and was exposed to no dangers or accidents from the elements. We see then, that the munificent Creator did not turn man, his noblest work, loose upon the wide world, without the means of protecting himself. This event did, indeed, take plaee, but it was in punishment of man's disobedience; and even then, he furnished him with clothes, from the skins of animals, and thus taught him how to provide for himself. But the origin of artificial clothing is given in the Bible, with such simplicity and beauty, that it will be worth our while to hear the whole narrative, as related in the sacred record. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew, that they were naked, and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons.'

"And the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him, where art thou! And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked. And he said, who told thee, that thou wast naked?"

"Unto Adam also and to his wife, did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

Here we have the true origin of artificial dress, and of the reasons which led to its use, which are sufficiently mortifying to male and female vanity, if they were duly considered.

There is much in this simple narrative which will serve to provoke the scoffing infidel to shoot his envenomed arrows of ridicule at the book of God; but they will strike upon the shield of truth, and will fall harmless to the ground. He may ask with an air of triumph, how the eating of a certain tree could open the eyes of the first pair, to know that they were naked? How could they be ignorant of their nakedness, if they had only the understanding of children? But this is a mere perversion of the meaning of the inspired historian. In the figurative language of the Bible, the eyes are said to be opened, when a new feeling is introduced into the mind, causing us to see things as with new eyes. God has so constituted the human mind, that transgression produces the feelings of remorse and shame; and he had so ordered things, in regard to our first parents, that as soon as they eat the forbidden fruit, a deep feeling of shame on account of nakedness, overwhelmed them. Why this particular effect was connected with their transgression, it is not necessary for us to know. We have the fact, and that fact seems to explain a circumstance in the history of man which would otherwise be inexplicable.

Many fanciful theories have been invented to account for these peculiar feelings, found in all branches of the human family; but I will not pollute my paper by an exhibition of them here. The simple narrative of the Bible is enough, and exactly and remarkably accords with the facts universally observed to exist.

All nations make use of artificial clothing, for purposes of decency, if not for protection from the weather; though no other species of animals is led by instinct to provide any clothing except that which nature furnishes. This remarkable fact inexplicable upon mere natural principles, is satisfactorily explained in the Mosaic history.

2. Among all nations, whether civilized or barbarous, we find existing, the institution of marriage; and, almost uni

versally, this compact is entered into with some solemnity or formality; and its violation is considered a crime of so serious a nature, that its punishment is very severe, and among some barbarous people, even capital. This universal existence of marriage does not appear to be the result of reason, but has been received by tradition; its origin is as ancient as the union of the first pair in Paradise. The Bible is our key to the universal fact. There we read, that when the Lord God had formed the woman out of the rib of man, he brought her to him, and "Adam said, this is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man; therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh."

It appears very evident, that in this divine institution, it was intended that marriage should include no more than one woman for the great Creator, in furnishing a model for future imitation, instituted the first marriage between one of each sex. Polygamy, therefore, which began to be practised before the deluge, and prevailed, and still prevails, extensively in the East, was a departure from the purity and simplicity of the origiual institution.

The history of those families and nations in which polygamy has been allowed, furnishes a strong argument in favor of the wisdom of confining man to one wife; for domestic strife, and innumerable other evils, have been occasioned by the practice.

The same thing is also demonstrated by that remarkable dispensation of providence, by which the number of the respective sexes, in all ages and countries, is very nearly equal:-the males generally being a small majority, that by the surplus, provision may be made for the greater waste of life in that sex, by their greater exposure to dangers. It has, I am aware, been asserted by some travellers, that in the countries where polygamy prevails, no such equality be

tween males and females exists; the female sex being far more numerous than the males. This assertion, however, has never been verified by an appeal to any authentic documents; and there is reason to believe, that it has no foundation in fact. If true, it would be the strangest anomaly which can be found in the whole circle of providential

events.

One great end of marriage is the nurture and good education of children; but it would be easy to show, that polygamy is destructive of this end, and is not even friendly to population. The prophet Malachi seems to refer to this subject, when he says, " And did he not make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore, take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth."

3. On any principles except those contained in the Bible, it is impossible to explain the origin of articulate speech, among all the nations and tribes on the face of the earth. If men are of entirely distinct races, and language is a human invention, is it not extraordinary, that every one of them should have made this important discovery? Indeed, if we examine the common philosophical theory of the invention of articulate speech, we shall find it encumbered with so many and great difficulties, that we will be pleased to find some other method of accounting for the possession of this wonderful faculty.

Previously to the use of language, the mind of man must, from its very constitution, have been in such a state of ignorance and incapacity, that he was no more able to invent a language, than to build a ship of war. How could savage man, supposing him to have possessed a degree of intellect which could not have belonged to him, have known that he possessed the capacity of forming that variety of articulate sounds, necessary to a language the most limited? Moreover,

language could only be formed by common consent to employ certain sounds as the signs of certain ideas or things s but before language existed, how could such an agreement be made? And this formation of language, by men in the lowest state of improvement, or rather destitute of all improvement, appears more incredible, when we analyze the languages of the world, and find that their structure is indicative of profound wisdom. Even the languages of some of the wandering tribes of America are complicated, and in a very high degree, artificial.

Again, let it be considered, that if human language were the invention of men, it would have been long in a very imperfect state; and we might expect to be able to mark the steps of improvement, from the first rude and awkward attempts, up to that perfection which language has attained; and according to this theory, the more ancient languages would be found less artificial and less complete in their grammatical structure, than the more modern. But the facts are not so. The oldest languages known are as complete in their structure, and as artificial in their grammatical inflexions, and even more so, than those languages which have been more recently formed.

Besides, how can we reconcile it with the beneficence of the Creator, who has enriched human nature with so many other gifts, that he should place man in this world, without giving him, from the beginning, the use of speech, so necessary to his comfort as a social being?

if we re

He

Now all these difficulties are removed at once, sort for information, to the simple narrative of Moses. informs us, that man, as soon as created, was endowed with speech; for he was capable of understanding the words in which his Maker communicated to him his will. His possession of articulate speech is most apparent in his giving names to all the animals, which were brought in review before him, for that purpose. When the woman was brought