already convicted of fraud, while yet, before he can justify his scepticism, he must be held bound on other grounds to shew its unworthiness of credit. Till he do this, he must be considered as under a determined but unreasonable bias, and not to be regarded by any candid investigator of truth. If, in a court, an event is proved, and witnesses are adduced, who state how that event occurred; is their testimony to be treated as undecisive, till it is further shewn that in no other way could the event have taken place? Except the credit of the witnesses had been already impeached, would not this be trifling intolerably? And would not the trifler who should plead for that course, meet with deserved contempt from reasonable men? Of similar contempt are the learned triflers worthy, who so treat the Scriptures, and those advocates of them who endeavour to shew, that admitted phenomena would be the result of facts which those Scriptures state. For it is to be remembered, that these advocates of Scripture are assailed, not for having failed in their elucidations, but for having made the attempt to elucidate Scripture facts by known and acknowledged phenomena.

But in this case, who are the persons who with propriety may be held to rigorous proof? Are they the advocates, or the repudiators of Scripture? The case, be it recollected, is literally this. The Scriptures, by other and many independent media of evidence, are proved to be true; but they declare certain facts, which their oppugners have held to be impossible, or at least highly incredible. On further research, it is found in the progress of discovery, however, that events wholly before unsuspected, and denied to be possible, have actually occurred; events, for which, if true, such facts would satisfactorily account. Now, the advocates of religion treat these admitted events as proofs of the facts before asserted in Scripture; but, says the sceptic, No, I will not concede that inference, I will not allow that these undoubted events are proofs of those contested facts, until you advance another step until you shew, not only that those facts will sufficiently explain them, but that no other possible supposition can be devised, to which their causation might be adequately ascribed.'

Irrational men,-thus the Christian advocate might justly retort upon his sceptical opponents,-determined foes of truth and piety, it is you that must shew, and by all reasonable men will be held most strictly bound to shew, the exclusion of those facts. You must prove, not only the possibility, but the certainty of some other cause. You must not amuse the world with fantasies subversive of Scripture, grounded only on possibility, but either demonstrate your positions to be conformable with fact, or submit to be considered as invidious enemies of the faith of the Christian world; as cowardly seeking to destroy by craft, what you feel yourselves incompetent openly to encounter. Men who,

under the guise of science, endeavour to subvert the faith of the Christian, and who cast their foul reproaches at its defenders, ought to be openly denounced by the steady friends of truth. Complaisance under such circumstances, is treason against the best interests of mankind.

Suppose it could be shewn,-which it cannot,-that the widely spread and astonishing effects attributed by Professor Buckland to a general, simultaneous deluge, might, in all their circumstances, be accounted for by partial, successive floods; would this invalidate, or even weaken the Professor's inference? To have any weight against the combined force of testimony and inference, it must, in addition to this, be established, that a general deluge would be inconsistent with the facts;-that, at least in parts, the phenomena are inexplicable by the cause assigned. It is puerile trifling to tell us that partial floods can produce, pro tanto, effects exactly similar to those of a general one. Of those partial alleged inundations, one at least must be shewn to have occurred at every place; and the effects ascribed to them, must carry unequivocal indications that they were successive. To suffer the imagination wildly to wander over immense durations of time, and arbitrarily to assume a long succession in the operation of causes, when the effects to be accounted for, exhibit no distinctions of date, but, on the contrary, every indication of contemporaneous production, is in itself unreasonable; but to do this, in preference to admitting a well attested and simultaneous cause, is not the part of rational deduction, but of unlicensed theory and inveterate prejudice.

Geologists are now, in relation to the question of the truth of Scripture facts, of three principal schools. Those who compose, it may be feared, the most numerous class, are vainly endeavouring to lay the Bible on the shelf for ever. They are for leaving it out of sight, till they shall have succeeded in prejudging its claims, by imbuing their readers with counter theories, and persuading them that those theories are really science, the legitimate and necessary results of the inductive philosophy. Having accomplished this, their object will doubtless be achieved; for what respect can a book secure, which, professing to be a revelation from the Author of Nature, and to found its claim to obedience in matters of religion, solely upon its own authority, shall be proved untrue in some of its main averments? If, where we are supposed to be competent to judge, we find it to be false, how shall we confide in it as true, when treating of matters beyond the reach of our scrutiny? To maintain that in a physical sense the Bible is false, though in a moral sense sacred verity, is a species of philosopher-craft that is becoming stale, and its effects have been more than sufficiently developed in other

countries.

Doubtless the plea is plausible, that, in order to support the Scriptures effectually by the discoveries of science, the investigations of science must be conducted independently. We object not against the maxim, but complain of the malus animus with which it is manifestly propounded, and the bad faith with which it is applied. We complain, that theories are obtruded as deductions of science, which are not even legitimate inferences from the facts, and which have obviously been suggested by the desire to get rid of Scripture statements. Had there been no such statements, no such theories had ever seen the light. Such reasonings are not really independent: they owe their origin to a knowledge of what the Bible teaches, and are contrived to negative its testimony. Of this, the extravagance of the theories themselves, affords sufficient proof.

Admitting that science is independent, still, it must be science, rigorously such, cautiously deduced and necessarily resulting from indubitable premises. Of science truly such, the believer in Scripture can entertain no fear. No discovery of what is still unknown, can ever contradict what we already know. It is ignorance alone which time and advancing light will dissipate. But to put in this claim of independence in favour of every theory, and to maintain that we are at liberty to enter the wide region of possibilities, and to assume, in contradiction to an accredited basis of religion, agencies and operations to have been actual and real, merely because we cannot prove them to have been impossible, is an abuse of science, which its enlightened friends must join with the friends of religion in indignantly reprobating. When, therefore, we find elaborate theories built upon mere possibilities, in direct opposition to Scripture on the one hand, while those hypotheses which accord with Scripture are gratuitously rejected on the other, what must we conclude, but that enmity exists, and that the maxim above referred to is advanced merely to mask the attack upon Revelation, and to beguile the unsuspecting reader into infidelity ?

Another class of Geologists maintain the consistency of the phenomena of nature with the Scripture records, not only as they may be interpreted without violence, but as they have been popularly understood. They not only repudiate the theories of those who demand immense durations of time, even myriads of ages, for the slow operation of existing causes, but will admit of a duration no greater, from the first creation of the matter of the earth, than the few thousand years which have ordinarily been assigned for it by the common chronologist. Of this class is our Author, concurring, in this particular, with Mr. Granville Penn, Dr. Ure, and others. Without denying the possibility that all the phenomena of geology may be reconciled with this view, (a supposition which, quite contrary to his inferences, we think Mr. Lyell

has rendered more plausible,) we do not feel that Scripture lays us under the necessity of maintaining it. Irrespectively of any reference to geology, the term days, in the first chapter of Genesis, may be taken to mean periods of duration of indefinite extent, without exceeding the latitude often assumed in the application of that word in Scripture. Nor does this admission at all affect the notion of creating acts being independent of time. All must agree, that the creative acts recorded were successive; and it cannot affect their extra-natural, their immediately divine character, whether we suppose them to have been exerted at intervals of twenty-four hours, or of longer periods. To that part of the work before us, which seems to insist upon the necessity of adhering closely to the restricted system of interpretation, we, with all respect for the Author, demur.

The third class of writers on Geology is intermediate between the two just mentioned. Of these, De Luc is at the head. We cannot again name this eminent man, without expressing our admiration of his genius and industry, and our pleasure at seeing a recent edition of his letters, accompanied with valuable remarks and illustrations, by the late Rev. Henry De La Fite.

Of Geology in general, we may confidently affirm with the present Writer, that, so far as it can be considered as established science, it contains nothing contrary to Scripture. But, with him, we may go further, and supported by such high authorities as De Luc, Professor Buckland, Mr. Young, and others, differing among themselves on many points, yet on this point agreed, may add, that its researches have afforded much valuable and interesting corroboration of the sacred narrative.

In accordance with these views, our Author remarks :

While we profess the highest respect for the valuable researches of a Cuvier, a Brongniart, a Buckland, a Ledgwick, a Greenough, a Lyell, and many others, we consider that they are not infallible. We much esteem the interesting facts which they have presented; but their deductions may not always correspond with the legitimate requirements of inductive truth; and it is admitted on all hands, that our advancement in geology must extend very far beyond our present attainments, before we have any right to think about the structure of a theory. Geology was formerly called a "system of paradoxes." Is it consistent with induction, to overlook the only authentic record of the infant history of the world, and yet introduce eastern fables, because they happen to exceed the limits prescribed by the Mosaic cosmogony, and dance to the tune of millions of years; and that because such a term of years has been preconceived to be necessary? This takes for granted the thing that remains to be proved, and is in direct variance with the maxims of inductive science. It will be time enough to grant the requirement, when positive and substantial facts shall have proved it to be necessary; but we deny the concession on the mere dictum of pre

conceived opinion, or bold assumption. We cannot establish our premises better than by referring to geologists themselves. Are not the proteus forms of geological speculations, systems of geology, and theories of the world, at this moment, the laughing-stock of well informed men? Cuvier pays a well merited compliment to Professor Buckland, for steering his bark of observation clear of these whirlpools of fantastic opinions, in which so many have perished. M. Cuvier calls this distinguished geologist," a philosopher who does honour to geology by precise and consistent observations, as well as by the steadiest opposition to random hypotheses;" and in geology, these "random hypotheses have been almost as numerous as the authors who have written on this branch of science. Nothing can be more opposed to true science, than to pronounce on the priority of formation, or the comparative age of rocks, from either their structure or the organic remains they present:-the entire question remains just as it was. M. Alexandre Brongniart thus propounds his opinion: "In those cases where characters derived from the nature of the rocks are opposed to those which we derive from organic remains, I should give the preponderance to the latter." This seems to us to imply an admission, that nothing definite can be inferred from the nature of the rocks; moreover, that between the nature of the rock, and the organic remains, there may be a palpable discrepancy; and that these may be even at complete antipodes with each other. The event has proved, from what we have already mentioned, that no evidence as to priority can be obtained from the nature of the fossil remains displayed in particular strata. In addition to what has been said on this subject, we may further state, that encrinites, entrochites, and pentacrinites are found in clay slate, grauwacke, transition limestone, alpine limestone, lias, muschelkalk, and chalk. It may be reasonably asked, how these three species of fossils could indicate any particular formation, when they are found in so many types and structures of rocks altogether different? If they would go to prove any thing at all, it would be that of a contemporaneous formation; but certainly not distinct epochas. The same observation applies to madrepores, belemnites, &c. which are equally diversified in their abodes. It follows, therefore, that they afford no clue whatever either as to "the order of creation," or priority in the question of the "epochas of formation." We find the same evidence when we take up the fossilbones of quadrupeds in their more complete and perfect organization. To this interesting topic we shall again recur. We therefore infer as a matter of fact, that the theory of successive development is founded in error. Certain organic remains have been considered peculiar to certain formations, at once supplying data to determine the identity of such formations in remote countries, and becoming a chronometer to determine the relative epochas of formations; but this is altogether illusory; and yet, these have been propounded with an effrontery sufficient to overawe, for a time, the disciple of truth. These errors, though now completely exploded, are still however, by some, promulgated at the present moment as truths. "It is," says Mr. Lyell, in a foot note," an encouraging circumstance, that the cultivators of science in our own country, have begun to appreciate the true value of