tians had been metamorphosed into fables and allegories. Diogenes Laertius, Porphyry, and Macrobius, who lived still later, have only repeated less completely what we have already.

I have written this long and tiresome note, that my readers may determine for themselves, whether the allegation is not devoid of all evidence and probability, that the Mosaic narrative was an offshoot of the Egyptian mythology: the one shining in the most beautiful and majestic simplicity; the other, artificial, low and paltry, absurd and degrading. Much more reasonable appears the supposition, that the traditions which came from the family of Noah, in the line of the Mizraim (a plural name), were the ground-work upon which the Egyptian priests, after the prevalence of polytheism, built up their system of perversion and disguise.

[0.]

Referred to at page 158.

ON SOME PASSAGES IN MR. LYELL'S PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY.

THE allusion here is to some remarks upon Mr. Lyell's chapter v. of book i. published in the Christian Observer, April 1834; p. 200. It is in no captious spirit, but with sincere respect and solicitude, that I would ask this eminently gifted man, why, in his beautiful chapter (the viiith of book iii.) on the Introduction, Extinction, and Vicissitudes of Species, he has made so slight mention of the Almighty Creator? He has not said indeed, or implied, that a new species has ever, in the world's history, come into being without God as its cause; but it is painful to see the semblance of reserve on so soulstirring a theme. He speaks of "admiration-strongly excited, when we contemplate the powers of insect life, in the creation of which nature has been so prodigal."-Nature ?-Creation? O, why did not. his heart grow warm within him, and bound with joy, at the opportunity of doing some homage to the GoD of glorious majesty?

Sec. ed. It would have afforded me great pleasure to have cancelled the whole of the preceding Note. But my best reflection induces me to let it remain, with a slight alteration, because its silent withdrawal would have left an unwelcome impression without correction; and I could scarcely have made intelligible the expression of satisfaction and gratitude that, in the sixth edition, Mr. Lyell has in this place put "the Author of Nature:" because also that I could not

have expressed my concern at having given pain to the mind of this distinguished philosopher; since he cannot admit the justice of the censure involved, and he must feel it to be unwarrantably severe and presumptuous to insinuate against him, a christian and a member of the Church of England, a design of covertly assailing the evidences of Revealed Religion. Indeed I cannot charge myself with having made such an insinuation; my expressions having imported only the sorrow of heart which I did and still do feel, that his reserve in one respect and his expressions in another were likely to be laid hold of by a too numerous class of persons who wish to live without piety and religious self-government, and to whom it is a great object of desire to shake off the authority of Christianity by abrading its evidences. To have it in their power to plead either the concession or the reserve of such a man as Mr. Lyell, is an advantage which ought not to be given them; for their cause, standing opposed to the clearest moral evidence, to the highest interests of mankind, the purest blessings of the present state, and our noblest expectations in the future, is not entitled to such a benefit.Upon the substitution, unhappily so frequent with authors on natural science, of the word Nature for the God of nature, I am desirous of putting the best possible construction, (yet I beg attention to the Note at page 74;) especially if authors and readers would take care not to forget the exposition of the term which Lamarck himself has given :-" An order of things constituted by the Supreme Being, and subject to laws which are the expressions of his will." This definition is complete and satisfactory. See the Addenda to these Notes.

On the other hand, we ought not to pass with slight disapprobation, the practice of making references to the Deity with a frequency and hastiness which border upon familiarity, and tend to produce either presumption or hypocritical affectation.

With respect to the paper in the Christian Observer, (excellent in its spirit and design, though I am compelled, by what appears to me evidence, to think its writer greatly in error,) I fear that Mr. Lyell never saw it. What he had expressed in the unguarded manner which "laid him open to painful imputations" was, I am assured, intended to apply to the heathen and popish pretences to miracles, and to the numerous forms of vulgar superstition.

Upon the general subject of these observations it would be unjust in me not to point out that, in the chapter (III. viii.) which stirred up my painful feelings, the author explicitly calls us to observe the beneficent care of "Providence" which has "put causes in operation" for checking the destruction to men and many animal and vegetable

species, from the natural multiplication of Lepidopterous larvæ. I will also take out of their connexion (the limits of this note not permitting fuller citations) a few clauses which I take blame to myself for not having observed, as I ought to have done, before publishing the first edition." In no scientific works in our language can more eloquent passages be found, concerning the fitness, harmony, and grandeur of all the parts of creation, than in those of Playfair. They are evidently the unaffected expressions of a mind which contemplated the study of nature as best calculated to elevate our conceptions of the attributes of the FIRST CAUSE."-Referring to certain cosmological hypotheses, Mr. L. observes, "they had not the smallest foundation, either in Scripture or in common sense. "When the Author of nature created an animal or a plant, all the possible circumstances in which its descendants are destined to live, are foreseen, and an organization conferred upon it" conformable to the design.—“If the Author of nature had not been prodigal of these numerous contrivances, &c. . . if He had not ordained that the fluctuations of the animate and inanimate creation should be in perfect harmony with each other," &c. "In whatever direction we pursue our researches, whether in time or space, we discover every where clear proofs of a Creative Intelligence, and of his foresight, wisdom, and power."— "To assume that the evidence of the beginning or end of so vast a scheme lies within the reach of our philosophical inquiries, or even of our speculations, appears to be inconsistent with a just estimate of the relations which subsist between the finite powers of man, and the attributes of an INFINITE and ETERNAL BEING."-" The geologist can bring new and original arguments from fossil remains, to bear on that part of Natural Theology which seeks to extend and exalt our conceptions of the Intelligence, Power, Wisdom and Unity of design manifested in the creation.We can prove that man had a beginning, and that all the species now contemporary with man, and many others which preceded, had also a beginning: consequently, the present state of the organic world has not gone on from all eternity, as some philosophers had maintained.- -Why should we expect to find any resting place for our thoughts, or hope to assign a limit to the periods of past time, throughout which it has pleased an Omnipotent and Eternal Being to manifest his creative power?" Principles B. I. ch. iv. vol. i. p. 102; B. III. ch. ii. III. 30; B. III. ch. x. III. 209; B. III. ch. xviii. III. 406. Presidential Address to the Geol. Soc. 1837, in Proceed. vol. ii. p. 523. The references in this volume to Mr. Lyell's Princip. Geol. were adjusted to the sixth edition, as soon as it became practicable, for a part of this book was printed before

that was published: but, to facilitate reference to the former editions, the Book and Chapter are also mentioned; which yet may not always answer, because some of the Chapters are transposed or are new.

Third ed. With peculiar pleasure I have read Professor Silliman's observations on the character and labours of Mr. Lyell, in his Address to the Association of American Geologists and Naturalists, at Boston, April 24, 1842. From it, I quote the following paragraph.

"To him more than to any other or all other writers on Geology, we owe our recovery from the illusions of dreams and visions regarding imaginary powers supposed formerly to exist; but to have become exhausted or greatly enfeebled or even extinct in modern times. He has proved to us that the powers of nature are the same now that they have ever been; that, except the act of creation, and the first outbreak of the new-born elements and energies, there was nothing in the geological laws of former ages different from the present; and that the causes now in operation, acting with greater or less intensity, are sufficient to produce the effects of earlier epochs.

[P.]

Referred to at page 183.

SENTIMENTS OF THE ELDER ROSENMUELLER, BISHOP BIRD SUMNER, AND THE REV. DR. CONYBEARE, DEAN OF LLANDAFF, ON THE INITIAL PORTION OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS.

THE following extracts are valuable and interesting, as they shew the impression made upon the mind of an able Bible critic, the elder Rosenmüller, at a time when geological researches were little known, and when Werner, at the age of 25, was just beginning his career. He was far from the opinion which his son promulgated, fifteen years after, treading in the steps of Simplicius (in the sixth century), and Hetzel, Hase, and others in our own times, that Moses derived his history of the creation from the Egyptians. Whatever resemblance may be assumed or supposed, it is much more rationally accounted for, by supposing that the Egyptian and Phoenician traditions had flowed from a common source, the family of Noah; and that Moses, under the direction of divine inspiration, placed at the commencement of his great work the very written documents of primeval men

which had descended in the Abrahamic line, and which were the genuine records whence the other traditions had been derived.

"The enemies of religion act a very inequitable part when they require of us such explications of all chronological and historical difficulties, as should leave no portion of doubt remaining. Can it surprise any man that, in the most ancient of all writings, many things should be obscure to us, who live in times so extremely remote ? -In consequence of the great advances which have been made in modern times, in Hebrew and Greek philology and the languages and antiquities of the east, no small number of dark and difficult passages have been satisfactorily elucidated, so as to make it perfectly clear that most objections have been engendered by ignorance. Every good writer must be presumed to speak according to the custom of the men among whom he lived, and their common use of language.- -I shall not meddle with the question, whether the contents of the beginning of Genesis were by God revealed immediately to Moses; or that he derived them from more ancient records. -The style, and the entire manner of the description, involve evidence of the highest antiquity. At every step we perceive proofs of that extreme simplicity which must have been the character of our race in its very infancy. With respect to divine subjects, in particular, the first step of human knowledge must undoubtedly have consisted in conceptions of God derived from our own nature; ascribing to the Deity the same properties and perfections which men perceived in themselves, but in modes and degrees infinitely more perfect. Upon this principle are founded the representations of God which are given in the books of Moses, and many other parts of the Old Testament. Indeed this is, in my judgment, a very plain argument, not only of the genuineness and truth of those books, but of their DIVINE origin: seeing that they present to us a method of description concerning God and divine things, perfectly suited to the capacity of men in the earliest times, and yet the most sublime, and when fairly and candidly interpreted, in perfect accordance with spiritual truth. The scoffers at revealed religion, philosophers as they please to call themselves, betray an almost unpardonable ignorance, when they make stumbling-blocks out of those constantly occurring expressions of the Old Testament which speak of the Deity [anthropopathicis locutionibus] in language borrowed from human properties and actions. What can be a grosser absurdity, and even folly, than to require that Moses and the prophets should have spoken of divine truths, in the very infancy of the human race, according to the philosophy of Descartes, Newton, or Wolf?—

"In the beginning God created this universe; the heavens and the