ground is clear, and that the dictates of Scripture interpose no bar to observations and reasonings upon the mineralogical constitution of the earth, and the remains of organized creatures which its strata disclose. If those investigations should lead us to attribute to the earth, and to the other planetary and astral spheres, an antiquity which millions or ten thousand millions of years might fail to represent, the divine records forbid not their deduction. Let but the geologist maintain what his science so loudly proclaims, that the universe around us has been formed, at whatever epoch, or through whatever succession of epochs, to us unknown, by the power and wisdom of an Almighty First Cause. Let him but reject the absurdities of preexistent matter, of an eternal succession of finite beings, of formations without a former, laws without a lawgiver, and nature without a God. Let him but admit that man is but of yesterday, and that the design of revelation is to train him to the noblest purity and happiness in the immortal enjoyment of his Creator's beneficence; and he will find the doctrines of the Bible not an impediment, but his aid and his joy.

I have written much more than I anticipated, and I will tax your indulgence no longer; otherwise, confirmation and illustration might be brought from various passages of Scripture, and it would plainly appear that a just interpretation of the idioms of the Hebrew language, marked with archaic simplicity, would show them to be susceptible of an unforced accommodation to philosophical truth; just as, in every modern language, phrases of current parlance, which, literally taken, would be absurd, are continually used by the masters of science as well as by common men. In such cases, error is neither given nor taken, and to affect philosophical precision would be miserable pedantry. This general principle may, I humbly think, be satisfactorily applied to the account of the

Noachian Deluge, and to the obviating of some of its difficulties, though others will probably remain as a proper test of our disposition to rely implicitly on the infinite wisdom, goodness, and power of the glorious Author and Preserver of all things; "in whose hand are the deep places of the earth, and the strength of the hills is His also." J. P. S.

Dec. 10, 1836.

[R.]

Referring to page 302.

ON MOUNT ARARAT.

M. EUGENE BORE, was sent by the French Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres, on an oriental expedition for literary and scientific purposes. He has lately sent home from Persia a Report upon Chaldæa and its ancient and modern inhabitants. It has been published in the Révue Française, vol. XII.; and a large extract is given in the Sémeur of Oct. 2, 1839. From this article, which contains much philological and historical information, I extract a few sentences, tending to support the idea that the resting place of the ark was in some less elevated part of the great mountain region to which the name of Ararat was anciently given.

"The Chaldeans inhabited the mountains whose extended chain over Mossoul, Diarbekir, Van, and Suleimania, covers the country with its innumerable ramifications. Secluded there and intrenched as in an impregnable fortress, they have constantly maintained themselves in their independence and wild liberty, which they have ever prized above every other enjoyment. Those mountains anciently bore the

names of the Gorduian [Gordyæan ?], Carduian, or Cardou.The Syriac Version of the Old Testament does not say that the ark rested upon Mount Ararat, but on the top of Mount Cardou. On the place here pointed out by tradition, the early Christians built the edifice which they called the Monastery of the Ark; in which they kept up an annual commemoration of the patriarch with his family coming out of the ark. The Mohammedan dervishes to the present day maintain in this place a perpetually burning lamp, in an oratory.-The mountains Cardou, Macis as called by the Armenians, and Ararat, are only links of the immense chain of the Taurus."

[S.]

Referred to at page 344.

THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY VINDICATED FROM MISREPRE

SENTATION.

IN a recent publication, "The Stranger's Intellectual Guide to London, for 1839-40," by Mr. A. Booth, an account is given of the Geological Society; and in it occurs the following passage.

"The meetings of the Geological Society are perhaps the most popularly interesting to their attendants of any in town, and each member having the opportunity of admitting two visitors, the capacious meeting-room is generally

*The Syriac has Cardu, the Arabic Carda; but the difference is not essential, as every one acquainted with the Shemitic languages must know. The bearing of this evidence is to support the opinions, that the name Ararat in the Hebrew text was intended to comprehend the whole mountainous district; and that the ark rested in some part of the lower, but yet hilly, region which lies eastward, and is called in Arrowsmith's maps, Karadaugh. The Latin Vulgate renders Ararat by Armenia.

well filled. The principal interest of these meetings is however derived from the discussions which arise after the papers are read, and which sometimes do not assume a very scientific character. Geology is not generally popular with the public, and has not as yet sufficient claims to make it so, the opinions of its advocates being split into party theories, and the papers that are read before the Society giving rise to discussion neither the most rational nor acceptable. What is wanted in the reason is made up for in the jocularity of the discussions, and sallies of wit usurp the place of the grave deliberations of science; what is wanted in argument made up from deductions from close investigation, is met with in the sophistry of the forum or debatingroom. Sometimes it is to be lamented that these discussions take a different character, being directed against the fundamentals of revealed religion, and have a tendency to subvert those doctrines which are the basis of our modern civilization. From these circumstances the Society takes especial care that their proceedings shall not be reported: the attendance of every person from whom these might emanate being carefully excluded from the meetings. Their own reports indeed appear carefully worded, and supplied by their own secretaries, in the Literary Gazette and the Athenæum, but in these accounts all allusion to their discussions is avoided. In these respects the Geological Society does not court the freedom of public discussion, which, through the medium of the press, is allowed by every other Society in the metropolis."-Pp. 77, 78.

It may be requisite to assure the reader, that this paragraph is copied with literal accuracy. The writer's representation of the general character of Geology may be very safely left to itself, as an instance of the ancient practice not yet become uncommon, that persons "speak evil of the things which they understand not." But it contains insinuations and assertions which call for attention: and I

should think myself wanting in the observance of moral uty, were I to neglect the opportunity afforded by the publication of this volume, of bearing testimony to truth, and so of counteracting injurious representations. To any candid thinker it must appear an unreasonable expectation, that any person that pleases should be allowed to take notes of the papers, conversations, and discussions of any scientific or literary institution, and to publish them. No Society of respectability and honour would submit to such an intrusion. Besides other obvious objections, this one immediately presents itself; the contingency, not to call it a certainty, that mistakes and misrepresentations would be committed, and those often of the most serious import, even by well-intentioned reporters.

The impropriety of this complaint is however a small thing, in comparison with other parts of the passage. The writer does not say that some instance may have occurred, or even more than one, in which a speaker had uttered sentiments irreconcilable to reason or piety. The reflection would then have arisen, that no society to whose objects unreserved discussion is essential, could prevent such an occurrence, or ought to be held answerable for it, unless it had manifested approbation, or at least connivance. I do not say this as an apology for any known fact, for I have never heard of such an occurrence. But the writer evidently strives to produce the impression that scientific investigation is not the chief object of the Society's meetings, that it is made only a mask for the effecting of other purposes, that the most momentous truths of religion are assailed with scoffs, in the guise of witticism and sophistry as the substitute for argument, that infidel and immoral principles are bandied about, and that the Society gives encouragement and protection to such a course of proceeding.

I feel it my duty to declare that, to the best and utmost