as

***

Revealed Religion. For the inevitable effect upon the Sceptical Geologist will be to make him throw aside the work, and we fear the whole series" [of the Bridgewater Treatises,] "in disgust. We have before us a letter from one of the ablest living Geologists of this description, which well exhibits the effects of such productions. It gives me pain (says he) to find a man so estimable in every respect [not Mr. Kirby,] compelled to cling to theories impossible to defend, from reasons unconnected with science. It has injured his well-earned reputation; and I think has injured the great cause he has at heart, the interests of the Christian Religion: for this must be the effect of connecting it with opinions which are manifestly no more than the best conclusions that wise and good men of former days were induced to adopt, when they had but few facts, inaccurately observed, to reason from.'There is another bad effect resulting from the adoption of such untenable and exploded opinions by a standard writer. The greater part of even educated men have not the leisure requisite for pursuing the subjects of natural science, so accurately as to be able to form independent opinions upon difficult questions connected with it. Hence, when a man like Mr. Kirby, of acknowledged distinction in science, and evidently jealous for the honour of Natural and Revealed Religion, advances opinions on the connexions of science with revelation, they will have a wide influence and be extensively adopted: and, if they happen to be wrong, they will powerfully arrest the progress of truth. Now, Mr. Kirby's reputation as an Entomologist, and perhaps we may add also as a Helminthologist, is deservedly high. But this does not prove that he is at all qualified to decide difficult Geological questions; especially when he himself testifies that he is not. Yet his opinions on Geology will have nearly as much influence, except among Geologists, as if he were well acquainted with the science. Nay; with not a few, there exists no small jealousy respecting the views of Geologists, as if hostile to revelation; and such will be very glad to range themselves under the banner of a leader in Natural History, especially of one whose great object appears to be, to bring philosophers back to the word of God."

With regard to Mr. Penn and Mr. Fairholme, I must now say that a passage of Professor Hitchcock which was quoted in the first lecture, but suppressing the names, referred to those authors. It needs not to be repeated. The tenor of it is to complain of them

* Americ. Biblic. Repos. Jan. 1837; pp. 100-104.

for their unreasonable positiveness of opinion upon subjects in which they betray their want of practical acquaintance, their intolerant spirit and injurious language, their wrong representation of facts, and their calling upon us to receive theories of their own which, says Mr. Hitchcock, "appear" to a person acquainted with Geology, "a thousand times more extravagant and opposed to facts, than any opinions that have been entertained by the cultivators of this science, and which Penn and Fairholme so violently oppose." This comparison shews the strong sense which Hitchcock entertains of the folly and presumption which provoked his censure; but I ought to caution my hearers against understanding it too largely. The Professor did not design to cast a veil over the irreligious opinions of some foreign geologists, which, in the Dissertations from which I have quoted, he has strenuously exposed and refuted. But his observation is strictly correct in relation to the subject upon which he is treating, the theories of really well-informed geologists.

Two years ago, a venerable clergyman, of whom it would not be easy to speak in terms of too high respect, the Rev. Thomas Gisborne, one of the Prebendaries of Durham, published his "Considerations on the Modern Theories of Geology." If christian piety, good temper, fine talent, and elegant expression, could alone secure correctness of sentiment upon a subject of natural knowledge, we should have had nothing to regret in relation to this work. But the sources of error, which have been already described, have unhappily poured their influence into Mr. Gisborne's mind. The prevalent and deeply working prejudice against the modern Geology, that it seeks to undermine the authority of the Scriptures, and consequently to destroy our faith in Christianity, has led Mr. Gisborne into the adoption of most imperfect views of geological facts, and into the pleasing fallacy of what Professor Sedgwick calls "making a world after a pattern of our own." He employs his great ability in finding or in imagining faults and inconsistencies in the doctrines advanced by geologists, while it is manifest that his acquaintance with the subjects of their attention is extremely limited; and that his perusal of their writings has been but cursory, and far from being comprehensive, or such as could be made the basis of safe argument. The inconsequence of reasoning, into which this excellent man has allowed himself, I am sure unconsciously, to be drawn, we can scarcely hope that,

in his very advanced age, he will be brought to discover: but it has subjected him to the cutting suggestion of a clergyman of his own communion, who concludes a page of criticism upon the Prebendary's pamphlet, with the words, "This is surely not an age, in which dignitaries of the Church should be found arraying themselves in hostility to science."*

Yet another dignitary has not withheld himself from the peri! of joining this array. The last year, the Dean of York published "A Letter to Professor Buckland;" in which, by the expenditure of a very few pages of loose paragraphs, he actually represents himself as having overthrown some of the principal doctrines which the most cautious geologists regard as indubitably established; and then he brings forward a theory of his own, of which I will only say that it manifests a degree of ignorance next to incredible upon the phenomena under his consideration, the very nature and most obvious facts of stratification: and, to crown all, the Dean of York does not observe even common courtesy towards Dr. Buckland. Probably that eminent man may think this attack beneath his notice; and, scientifically considered, it is so. But, as not only the Dean's pamphlet, but the productions of Prebendary Gisborne, Mr. Mellor Brown, and some other writers, are directed against Dr. Buckland by name; and as multitudes read those pamphlets who are totally unqualified to detect their errors and escape the impression of their vehemence; it is greatly to be wished that he would confer upon the public a service so valuable as would be a calm exposure and refutation of the whole genus.

PART III.

A GENTLEMAN who has illustrated the history of our country in a manner which proves diligent research, fidelity to moral principles, and a pleasing talent for narration, Mr. Sharon Turner, has also written a work for the use of young persons, and containing stores of valuable matter, "The Sacred History of the World." This work, in a manner well adapted to inform and

*Prof. Powell's Connexion; p. 281.

religiously to benefit the readers, introduces many facts of Natural History and principles of Natural Philosophy: yet one may wish that the author had accumulated his materials with more discrimination. He has also taken notice of geological subjects, in several of the Letters of which the work consists. He has consulted many books and philosophical journals; and has brought together, in rapid, but not always correct, sketches, a numerous body of interesting facts. In many of his details and descriptions, I humbly think that his work is mistaken and defective; the apparent result of having been compiled too hastily, by multifarious reading, without personal observation and practical knowledge. This is particularly the case in his opinions upon stratification; and in his account of vegetable and animal remains. He supposes all the stratified formations, from the lowest to the highest secondary, to have been produced in the 1656 years from the creation of man to the deluge; and the tertiary, to have been the effects of the deluge itself: notions which, one might well think, would be impossible to be received by any person who had examined with his eyes any large extent of stratified masses, and observed the vast thickness of many, and the regularity and order which belong both to the earthy deposits and to the organic remains imbedded in them. But, with all the deficiencies and errors which appear in this part of the work, Mr. Turner has sufficiently conceded the position, that, in any fair interpretation of the commencing portion of Genesis, "the Sacred Historian gives the largest latitude for the investigations and deductions of geological science." "What interval occurred between the first creation of the material substance of our globe, and the mandate for light to descend upon it, whether months, years, or ages, is not in the slightest degree noticed. Geology may shorten or extend its duration, as it may find proper. There is no restriction on this part of the subject. In this portion of time or eternity, we may place the formation of our elementary matter; the composition and arrangement of the vast central and interior contents, whatever they may be; and the construction, circumambiency, and consolidation of all the primordial rocks; and indeed the production of all things to which light was not essentially necessary."* If this be admitted, the chief point is secured; and we may indulge

* Sacred History of the World; vol. i. pp. 491, 490.

the hope that more ample examination, and its results in more accurate knowledge, will shew to this respectable writer the perfect untenableness of the theories which he has advanced on the formation of strata and the character of imbedded remains. I may be allowed also to add, that the beautiful sentence of the archaic record,—“Be light, and light was,"-upon which Mr. Turner expatiates with just feeling, will be perceived by no means to signify a first creation of light, or a first production of the conditions of which it may be an effect; but is perfectly reconcilable with the belief that the phenomena of light had existed long before, and that the instance under consideration declares only a new developement and application of it.

A book has been lately published by some one who honours himself with the appellation of "Biblicus Delvinus;" entitled, "Facts, Suggestions, and Brief Inductions in Geology." The apparent rapidity of composition, the unscrupulous facility of assertion, and the tone of self-complacency, which distinguish the book, would appear ludicrous; were it not that our minds are wounded and mortified by the reflection, that errors so egregious and reasonings so inconsequent as are found here, united with professions of pious reverence for the Bible, are not unlikely to work great mischief. That mischief may be immediate, by misleading the honest but uninformed; and remote, by producing a revulsion, to the injury of faith in the Scriptures, when those persons may come hereafter to be better informed. Indeed, I may express the belief that this is a common character of certain books and papers, which seem to be mutual copyists, in the qualities of blind and obstinate blundering, and vehement censuring of others who take some pains to understand before they write and publish; while these easy writers allow themselves no narrow indulgence in the formation of purely ideal and often very ignorant theories, by which they fancy that they can account for every thing.*

* There have been in the Christian Observer for 1832, 1834, 1839, and at other times, many valuable remarks of the Editor and communications from his correspondents, upon the studies of Geology. Many of those papers might be particularized as preeminently valuable: but to attempt such a discrimination would be digressing too far, in this incidental notice. I may, however, recommend con amore, the poetical jeu d'esprit, "The Fossil Shell," by the Rev. Samuel Charles Wilks, in the vol. for 1834, page 219; and republished in a volume of the author's Poems, "Rescued Rose Buds." From an article published since these lectures were delivered, I feel happy in taking a citation. "The anti-geologists taunt the geologists with their diversities of opinion, but keep back that no two of themselves agree: whereas the geologists, amidst all their contro