in different lands at different epochs; so that analogy would teach us to reason in the same way concerning the finny and brute creation. We know, from historical facts, that some animals periodically migrate to distant countries, and that others occasionally retire from their wonted haunts, and multiply in places where they were previously unknown. History, therefore, leads us to draw inferences very contrary to the geological scheme. Besides, as cosmogonists seem now inclined to renounce the doctrine of periodical revolutions, or extensive changes in the surface of our globe, the notion of "equivalent strata" must be abandoned as inconsistent with the idea of limited alterations. The two cannot be logically held together. If the secondary and tertiary rocks of different countries were formed at the same time, then there were geological epochs and grand catastrophes. But if Nature has always been carrying on her operations in a gradual manner, and in small patches, we infer that similar strata were not deposited in distant regions at the same period. The two hypotheses destroy one another. Yet some geologists embrace them both; whilst others, like Sir Humphrey Davy, prefer the plan of successive destructions and creations of animate nature. It is evident that until this essential point be settled amongst themselves, and proved to the satisfaction of the world, they have no right to claim our assent to any of their consequent theories.

DEDUCTIONS.

We have thus examined Geology upon its own merits, and having weighed each system in the balance of reason, we have found it "wanting." We have also placed the chief authors in juxta-position with one another, and compared the value of their testimony: upon which we have discovered that they essentially differ in those very points which are requisite to establish the principles of the science. Again: upon examining many facts brought forward by themselves to support their own hypotheses, we have proved that most illogical arguments have been drawn from such data, which are otherwise of no real value, because of their conflicting character; and that these very facts may be made

to substantiate an opposite conclusion. Upon the whole, we have tried the plan of reductio ad absurdum, and found it to answer our purpose; by knocking down all modern theories, and leaving the ancient one of Moses alone standing. With this latter, we have not presumed to interfere, because it rests upon grounds of a higher order than can be claimed by the most exalted wisdom of man. We might argue that Moses was one of the greatest philosophers that ever lived; and that, as he flourished nearly four thousand years ago, he ought to be more acquainted with the events of primitive times than any number of modern philosophers. Yet strong as this position would be, we do not rest upon it; for the patriarch's teaching is upheld by its Divine authority-an authority which can be substantiated by the proper kinds of evidence.

Mathematicians, unfortunately, are prone to look upon that sort of proof which is called demonstrative as being entitled to peculiar credit, or even as the only perfect mode of argument: they are generally so immersed in the abstruse calculation of quantities, that they hesitate to admit any truth that cannot be tested by their favourite mathematics. They have carried this kind of reasoning to the highest pitch of nicety, whilst their other powers of discernment are often in an infantile condition, from sheer neglect or distrust of their ability. We do not state this point in too strong a manner; nor do we underrate the evidence of numbers, when we decline placing it on a superior footing to experiment and experience, in an application to the practical affairs of life. Man is gifted with reasoning powers of different characters, to suit the numerous subjects which he may be required to investigate, or with which he ought to be fully conversant. Each of these orders of reasoning is necessary in its place, nor can its office be properly assigned to another; and when they are all rightly cultivated, we do not know that they differ much in the strength of their testimony. Conviction is the end of all evidence; and if it be produced, more cannot be effected. Scientific men may tell us that demonstrative evidence is necessarily true, whilst other kinds may be incorrect, and are consequently of inferior value; but this is a philosophic delusion; for if the mind be perfectly satisfied, no sort of proof can lead to higher results, or be of greater practical weight.

Let us take the case of a barrister-at-law, who has been accustomed to examine witnesses, and whose acuteness in this department has been whetted to a high degree. Imagine him to be

using all his skill in à trial where the subject of mere testimony is involved; several persons professing to have been witnesses of a certain transaction: the lawyer's object is to discover a flaw in their evidence, by subjecting them to the process of a rigid crossexamination; but he fails in detecting the least inaccuracy in any of their statements:-would he not then be as morally certain of the truth of the account, as any mathematician could be of the results of an algebraic equation? No amount of figures could add satisfaction to the barrister's mind; no geometrical problem could be more implicitly relied upon. And does not the philosopher expect that we shall receive his account of his own mathematicial discoveries? He hopes to be instantly credited, without waiting until all the public shall have learned the science of numbers, so as to verify his calculations. He labours in his art, under the idea of his testimony being honourably received.

Again: many criminals have been convicted upon circumstantial evidence, in cases where the judge and jury have had no more doubt concerning the prisoner's guilt, than if they had seen him perpetrate the felonious action. An astronomer might profess to despise the judgment of these uneducated jurors, (especially if any of them were to deny that the earth revolves round the sun,) and to ridicule the evidence of mere experience; but he himself proceeds upon the very same grounds. For whilst he boasts that mathematics carry with them an absolute certainty of truth, this only holds good with respect to the calculation of numbers, not in their application to practical purposes; for in the different branches of physical science, much depends upon correct observations, a fact which at once reduces the evidence to the same level with others of an experimental character.

The philologist, accomplished in ancient literature and antiquarian researches, feels as much at home amidst manuscripts and versions, as Laplace did amidst stars and planets: give him a sufficient number of copies, and he will decide upon the antiquity and genuineness of an author, with as perfect satisfaction as if he had a telescope which could reach into the vista of past ages, and see the sage gazing upon his parchment by the glimmering light of the midnight oil. With adequate materials, he will detect any false reading, and point out the meaning of an intricate passage, with as much certainty as if he had calculated it by algebra. There is no obscurity in the subject in his apprehension; not half so much, perhaps, as he feels respecting the motions of the planets, or the mountains of the moon. If, then, the mathematician

require a linguist to rely upon his figures, the philologist has as much right to demand credence of the astronomer in an affair of books and language.

Whilst a student of physics explains the nature and forces of mechanical powers, and argues the precise effects which may be expected to proceed from any defined cause,-the elements of which knowledge were first acquired from observation, and the subsequent calculations were made upon the assurance of similar results occurring under similar circumstances, that is, upon the ground of experience, he would think it strange if the historian or moralist should turn away from his demonstration with a sceptical laugh. Has he then a right to sneer at the Bible, and the religious truths contained in its sacred pages, which the most accomplished linguists and moralists have declared to be Divine, after a laborious and rigid investigation? The theologian who has studied the philology of Scripture, weighed its proofs, experienced its renewing influence in himself, and seen its moral effects on the dispositions and lives of others, is just as sure of its truth as Sir Isaac Newton was convinced that the sun is the centre of our planetary system. He has not the shadow of a doubt upon his mind, he is as certain as reason and feeling can make him of the divine authority of the Bible. And there is a multitude of such witnesses,-compared with whose number, eminent astronomers are only as a drop of the bucket; so that the evidence of scripture is superior to that of astronomy in the numerical value of its witnesses, as well as in the simplicity of its investigation.

It is upon these grounds that we bring forward the Mosaic history of the creation, and claim for it the most reverential deference. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear," (Heb. xi. 3,)—is nearly all that we can hope to comprehend upon this sublime and mysterious subject.

WE are satisfied that Dr. Pye Smith, in his geological lectures, has only "darkened counsel by words without wisdom," and has endeavoured to introduce a most unwarrantable mode of biblical exposition. There is neither logic nor divinity in his feeble attempt to reconcile scripture with his cosmological speculations. It is true that he professes great respect for the sacred volume,

F

and exclaims against the narrow-mindedness of those finical Christians who cannot allow a little latitude of interpretation, so that religion and Geology may be made to speak the same thing: but the nature and extent of the demands made upon our biblical liberality would seriously infringe upon the integrity of the sacred record. For, if we allow the simple narrative to be wrong in its detail of facts, or admit the plain language of Genesis to be highly figurative, then we can place no confidence in the more recondite doctrines and abstruse passages, which rest upon the same foundation of divine authority. Most geologists wish to interpret the Bible so as to enlist it on their own side, promising that they will then lend their assistance in corroborating its testimony; thus virtually detracting from its weight and diminishing its importance, by making it seem to depend upon the aid of science, a subject which is quite foreign to the genius of its revelations.

On the other hand, some Christian commentators have done no little disservice to the cause for which they have been pleading, by endeavouring to twist the sense of every word relating to physical subjects, incidentally mentioned in the divine communications, to make them harmonize with the peculiar views of modern discovery. Had the Almighty spoken to the Jews according to his own knowledge of the universe and its courses, they would not have understood a sentence of his law: and, notwithstanding the superiority of our acquirements, we should probably be as much perplexed and confounded, were He to send us a message, worded according to the perfection of infinite wisdom. It would refer to subjects of which we have no idea, and contain technical terms which we could not possibly decipher. When we read the Lord's communications to his people of old, we should ask what meaning a pious Jew would have attributed to the phraseology; nor is this difficult to a philologist, who is acquainted with the manners, customs, language, and idioms of that ancient people. Here is the province of a commentator; and though a few words and passages still continue unexplained, from our ignorance of some current notions and natural phenomena of former times, the greater part of the volume has been clearly deciphered, and its meaning unfolded in the most satisfactory manner.

Would Dr. Smith ever dream of instructing a tribe of rude Hottentots in the creation of the world by a Supreme Being, in the language of a modern geologist? Would he not try to give