ment of A Scriptural Geologist, in advance of his own position, is grounded upon the eternal succession of created matter, consistently with the wise and merciful intention of God; which he believes to be more capable of proof upon the theory of modern geology, than upon that of its opponents, and to be attended with fewer difficulties. This statement, however, at present I must doubt and deny and if it were demonstrable, our appeal must be to the sacred records.' "Should we find, in regard to either of these assertions, a scriptural attestation for or against them, then are we called upon to submit our reason to faith, and to credit what, when, where, and how we cannot sufficiently comprehend. 'Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world; and not after Christ.'

"

As the subject may not interest all your readers, I will not obtrude any detailed reply to your correspondent's paper (so far as it has already appeared); but I must remonstrate against this mode of dealing with his Christian brethren. If the friar who'preached when Galileo recanted, took the passage above quoted for his text, he had just as good ground for it as my reprover; that is, none at all. I do not see why not adopting some commonly-received interpretation of Genesis i. 1, from believing that there is another which more truly conveys the mind of the Holy Spirit, is walking " not after Christ; nor has the text any reference whatever to the question, unless it be that "commonly received interpretations" are often "vain deceit" and "tradition of men," not infallible expositions of Holy Writ; and that, therefore, your correspondent should "beware of them. That "natural research" should "succumb to revealed truth;" that we should "submit our reason to faith," and "credit what we cannot understand;" is a most scriptural and blessed truth in its right meaning; but as applied by your correspondent it is fallacious and not scriptural, as he must admit when the Papist quotes his words to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation. Besides, he just begs, or rather confounds, the question; for Christian geologists do not allow that the word and the works of God contradict each other. He also reasons in a circle; for before we can believe that the Bible is infallible, we must know that it is the word of God; and in collecting and weighing the proofs of that fact, we should be stopped at the very threshold, if its declarations were demonstrably untrue. Even in regard to mysteries, almost every Trinity Sunday sermon tells us that Scripture mysteries are above reason, but not contrary to it. It is easy to say, "We would believe the Bible if it declared that two and two make five;" but such ostentatious professions of faith would drive more men into infidelity, than they would reclaim from it. The right solution would be, "I am convinced that two and two cannot make five; nor would it be possible to believe that any book speaks truth which should assert so; if therefore a book, which we know from other proofs to be infallible, appeared to us to make such an assertion, it would be quite clear that we must have mistaken its meaning." And, even in such an extreme case, the mistake would be possible. Financiers often say that two and two do not always make four; which might puzzle a child, but which every man knows means only that doubling a tax does not always double the revenue. There is nothing resembling this in the word of God; but there are many passages, the prima facie construction of which is not the true one; and facts prove that the opening verses of Genesis are among the number. I fully concur in what Dr. Chalmers says of the injury done to revelation (or rather to the souls of men, for the truth of God is not

vulnerable) by the unbelieving apprehensions of some of its advocates. I have heard of parents forbidding the study of geology in their families, lest the facts should lead to conclusions adverse to received opinions and I read among the advertisements on the cover of your last Number the following recommendation from the "Christian Ladies' Magazine" of some work by Biblicus Delvinus: "These are valuable hints, and we have for the first time read through a work on geology without any painful misgivings." I respect the praise-worthy modesty of "Christian ladies" in not wishing to get out of their depth in matters of science, and in not touching upon them, unless they can adequately grasp what they handle; but I would ask, Why should there be any "painful misgivings "on the subject, at least by any person who is duly qualified to give an opinion upon it? The misgivings must be either in relation to the facts, or to the conclusions of the writer, or to his motives. As to the facts, it is not a confident defence of truth to say, "I would rather not know them, or reason upon them, lest they should make me doubt the correctness of some of my opinions; and as to the conclusions of the writer, let them be shewn to be incorrect, not merely denounced as hostile to some popular interpretation. But the point to which my remarks chiefly apply, is the question of motives. We have just cause to feel misgivings, and more than misgivings, when we read the work of a man who we have reason to believe wishes to entrap us into scepticism; but it is most unjust to entertain the same suspicion towards writers who are indubitably men of piety, or, to say the least, firm believers in divine revelation. But, it is replied, "We have no suspicions as to their motives; but we consider that they have been led away by a dangerous theory." Surely in such a case the misgivings ought to be, in part at least, as to our own opinion; for if persons as wise and as conscientious as ourselves, who once held that opinion, have been constrained to correct it, it is probable that there is more in the matter than we were aware of; and it may be that they are right and we wrong. It is not indeed necessary that we should examine every question; and it is always much better to refrain from non-essential speculations, than to puzzle ourselves by them; but if we pretend to take up the question, it ought to be with candour and honesty.

Your second correspondent, "Baconianus Christianus," says, that upon some persons inductive science seems to have no effect; and that he has known anti-geologists of this order, who, in reply to plain facts, have ever some vague question,-" How do we know but that it was a miracle?" or, "How do we know that things might not be different formerly?" or, that by-and-bye we shall not find out somewhat quite opposite. I once showed to a reasoner of this cast a solid, lofty, inland rock, composed of one vast mass of shells, often very delicate and brittle, agglutinated with interstitial matter; and asked him whether he thought that these enormous depositions were attributable to the deluge, or were formed during its short duration; and also, whether the various successions of strata, ten miles thick, teeming with the remains of animals and vegetables, from the most complicated in the upper strata down to the most simple in the lower-all arranged in order; now a layer of salt-water formation, then one above it of fresh, and then another of sea, and so on in succession-had really been deposited thus in fifteen hundred years before the deluge. His reply was to the following effect:-"How do I know but that in

those early days the powers of nature were so prolific; or rather that there was so constant a miracle, that this rock, which would require an enormous period to grow by ordinary accretion, might be generated in a day; each plant and animal going through all its stages of life and death in the fraction of a moment, if necessary to produce the effect?" But why should it be necessary? or, what "effect" did my friend mean, except the support of a popular interpretation? I almost believe, that if my friend had been pressed with an argument from Euclid, he would have replied, "But how do we know that antediluvian circles or angles were like ours?”

I should regret not replying to your correspondent's paper, if there were anything (so far as yet printed) to reply to. He does not attempt to cope with the real question, namely, "How do you reconcile the usual interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis with the facts of geology?" but he asserts that scriptural geologists" bend and conform the Scriptures to philosophy." If so, let him reject their interpretation, and let him give a better in its place; for if not, he leaves a breach open to the inroads of infidelity. He affirms that the ordinary interpretation is right. Now that interpretation is not consistent with what not merely infidels, but Christian geologists, assert to be the facts of the case. And what does he do under these circumstances? Does he either give us a new comment, or shew that facts agree with the old one? Neither; but he lays down the following maxim :

:

"I must be understood to uphold this axiom, that the Bible ought not to be bended and conformed to philosophy, but more plastic science should rather be assimilated to a cast which is framed by the hand of the sculptor from the primitive model of Scripture." "There ought to be no contrariety between natural research and revealed truth; and if there be, the former must succumb to the latter.”

Now, sir, if your correspondent had said, that inspiration and fact could not contradict each other; and that he was better convinced that he rightly interpreted the former than the latter, his argument would have been reasonable and scriptural. But to represent facts as "plastic science," and biblical interpretation as immutable (for it is the interpretation, not the text, that is disputed), is a mode of argument which no well-judging believer in revelation will approve. The inquisitors said to Galileo, that the Bible affirms that "the sun stood still," thus teaching that it moves; whereas Galileo said, that it is the earth, and not the sun, which moves; and in this contrariety science must succumb to revealed truth. The poor sufferer was induced, by stronger arguments than words, to recant with his lips; but his understanding went not with his palinode; so that if he believed the popular interpretation to be the right one, and that the text admitted no other, he was forced into a rejection of Holy Writ. The inquisitors did not grapple with his facts; they contented themselves with the infallibility of their own comment. Can men believe or disbelieve matters of science at their pleasure? Can they admit inductive facts, and yet shut their eyes to inferences when they are not such as they had preconceived? It is quite certain they cannot, and ought not. the Scriptures argument-proof, and we need have no misgivings in admitting truth wherever it is found. If geological science is not true, let it be refuted. It is quite certain that it can never refute the Bible. We should feel no apprehensions if some person were to write a book to prove that the square of the secant is not equal to the

squares

of the radius and tangent; and if our belief in the Bible is as strong as in the forty-seventh proposition of the first book of Euclid, we need be under no greater alarm about the results of science.

So far as your correspondent's paper goes, it confirms, not refutes, the opinions of the geologists. He admits (page 153), that "No traces of human skeletons are discoverable in any of these formations to which the same date can be attributed as that of other fossils." Nor can he deny the succession of layers, and groups of layers, of organic remains, from those which form (I use his own words) "the lowest scale in animal and vegetable life, and whose species are extinct;" down to the more recent genera and species. How he attempts to reconcile these admitted facts with the hypothesis that man was coeval with these extinct genera and species, he has not told us. It was candid of him to make this admission; for some opposers of geology endeavour to evade the fact; and try (though in vain) to prove that the Gaudeloupe skeleton, in the British Museum, is not of modern formation, but coeval with the most ancient extinct genera.

Your correspondent also makes another important admission; for whereas some anti-geologists say, that the whole science is vague and fluctuating, he allows that, amidst minor changes, there has been no material interference with "the first principles which have been professed to be laid down ;" and the chief of these, Dr. Chalmers justly remarks, is that of the higher antiquity of our globe than the common interpretation warrants.

I read, some time since, a very useful paper on geology, in the American "Biblical Repository," which I am glad to see reprinted in that excellent cheap miscellany, "The Scottish Christian Herald." I will extract the first ten heads, the whole being too long. The very first, it will be observed, is the non-eternity of the succession of matter, which your correspondent has most unaccountably made a tenet of the geologists :

"1. Geology teaches that this world had a beginning. It places its origin at a very remote period; still there was an origin-there was a beginning. The organizations on the earth, and in the earth itself, have uniformly taken place in an ascending series, from the less to the more perfect. Trace now this series backward, and we at length arrive at a period when there were no organizations, and when the earth itself was not. The geological conclusion therefore is, that earth was originally created from nothing. The same also is a doctrine of the Bible. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' 'Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.' (Psalm xc. 2.) ‘ I was set up from everlasting, or ever the earth was.' (Prov. viii. 23.)

"The geological conclusion, that this world must have had a beginning, is of very great importance in connection with natural theology. The most plausible of all the atheistical hypotheses are those which assert the eternity of the world. Without undervaluing any thing which has been written with a view to refute these unreasonable suppositions, the proper refutation of them is to be sought, and is found, in the world itself. Tracing back geologically the history of this globe, and after successive generations, we arrive at a period when it contained no living thing, and when it was incapable of sustaining any form of life with which we are acquainted. We arrive at a period, when nought terrestrial existed but the bare elements of nature, and when, in all probability, an existence was imparted even to these.

2. Geology teaches that the earth we inhabit is the workmanship of one God. This is evident from the unity of design every where exhibited in the structure of the globe. The Bible also teaches the same doctrine. The God of the Bible is one God-to whom the work of creation is ascribed.

"3. Geology teaches that the Creator of the world is a being of infinite wis

dom, power, and goodness. No one can look into the interior of the earth, and observe its massive structure and multiform organizations, and not be convinced that its Maker is possessed of unlimited wisdom and power. As little can we doubt the goodness of the Creator. To give but a single indication of this. Was there no goodness manifested on the part of the Creator, in his treasuring up, at a period long anterior to the creation of our race, those measureless coal formations, which are now beginning to be exhumed for our comfort and benefit? No reader of the Bible needs be informed that the creation of the world is there ascribed to a Being of infinite wisdom, power, and goodness.

"4. Geology teaches that the earth, compared with its Creator, is a very little thing; that he holds it in his hand, and can rock it on its base, and upheave it from its deep foundations, at his pleasure. In literal accordance with this, is much of the language of the Bible. He taketh up the isles as a very little thing.' 'He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth; he toucheth the hills, and they smoke.' 'He stood and measured the earth; he beheld and drove asunder the nations; the everlasting mountains were scattered; the perpetual hills did bow.' His lightnings enlightened the world; the earth saw and trembled; the hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord.' At language such as this, infidelity has been accustomed to sneer and shake her head. She would not believe that there lives a Being able or disposed to effect such stupendous changes in our firmly established world. But geology confirms the solemn facts, as taught by revelation.'

"5. Geology teaches that, previous to the creation of man, the earth was chiefly, and often perhaps entirely, covered with water. Most of the animals of that period were either marine animals, or of an amphibious character. Most of the plants and vegetables were such as grow in marshes and fens. The stratified rocks, from the lowest to the highest, are all to be referred to the action of water. The bowlders which occur in the tertiary formations; the regular layers in clay-pits and other places below the diluvium, all proclaim that, at the period immediately preceding the creation of man, the earth must have been almost entirely covered with water. This conclusion is in literal accordance with the representations of Scripture. While the ruins of a previous organization lay formless and desolate, darkness,' we are told, was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.' It was these tertiary waters which were divided by the firmament on the second day; and were gathered into seas and oceans on the third.

"6. Geology teaches that man, and most of the present races of animals, have not existed on the earth more than a few thousands of years. In the transition and secondary formations, and in the deeper portions of the tertiary, we find no traces of human beings, or, with few exceptions, of such animals as now exist. Indeed, it is not at all likely that man could have lived on the earth at that period, had he been placed here. Dragons, and mighty lizards, and other frightful amphibious creatures, were then the lords of the creation. It is only in the upper tertiary and diluvial formations, that we find the remains of such animals as now exist, and in some few cases, perhaps, the bones of men. Now this shows conclusively that man, and the present races of animals, are among the comparatively recent inhabitants of the earth. They cannot have existed on it more than a few thousands of years. The Scriptures certify us of the truth of this important geological conclusion. They inform us definitely, that man, and the other animals now on the earth, were created less than six thousand years ago.

"7. It is a remarkable fact, that in those geological formations which are supposed to have been deposited before the formation of man, there have been found as yet no literal serpents, i. e., reptiles without legs or fins, and which creep upon the belly. Of the general class of serpents, or of what would have been serpents, if they had gone upon the belly, there are reptiles in abundance, of various sizes and forms. But they all were furnished with legs, or fins, or wings, or paddles, or some means of locomotion, beyond what belongs to the proper serpent. If this is a fact, as I believe it is, in what way is it to be accounted for? There is nothing certainly in the organization or habits of the proper serpent which unfit him to have lived among the saurians of the secondary formation. On the contrary, all that we know respecting him would seem to adapt him precisely to that period, and to the state of the then existing earth. Why, then, do we find no proper serpents there, and nowhere until after the creation of man? The writer of the book of Genesis assigns a reason. On the apostacy of man, the serpent tribe, or a large proportion of them, became divested of some of their important members, and were henceforth doomed to roll, and gather their meat upon the naked