tion to this question. Either we must trample upon the conclusion to which the men have come, who have had the best means of judging, of all countries and classes, with scarcely an exception; and thus be accessory to the fearful state of minds which Mr. Powell has set before us : or we must so modify our catechetical and other instructions as to prevent the collision between faith and reason, as our adversaries would not fail to call it. My own conviction is, that we ought to say, in the shortest and plainest manner, that this description was written for the use of those who could not have the knowledge which God has since enabled men to attain, and that it referred only to such parts of the Creator's works as those persons were acquainted with.

Surely also, it is proper to set before our children and congregations that, in the Fourth Commandment, the clause is given as a reason for the sabbatic rest, viz. that even the Creator was fatigued and needed repose; explaining to them the principle of condescension to the minds of uncultivated men, so abundantly appearing in the earlier parts of the Old Testament: also that, in the repetition of the Ten Commandments, given forty years after in a written form, Moses omitted this reason, and introduced another, not as a part of the Commandment, but as a gloss or comment, founded upon the feeling of equitable sympathy: Deut. v. 15. Above all, we should take the requisite pains to make them understand that the unspeakable privilege of the christian LORD's day, and the duty of observing it, stand, not upon the Israelitish positive law of the seventhday-sabbath, but upon moral reasons, analogical and inferential, arising from the primary facts of Christianity, and the benefits to piety and morality of this inestimable weekly season.

[Q.]

Referred to at pages 275 and 281.

ON THE DUTY OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS, AND IN VINDICATION OF DR. BUCKLAND.

THE following letter was courteously admitted into the Magazine of Popular Science, more than three years ago. It was intended to obviate some remarks, in a Review of Dr. Buckland's Treatise, which the writer thought to be of an unhappy tendency. It is republished here, in the hope of its being useful partly as giving a short view of some principal sentiments maintained in this volume, partly for the sake of representing the importance of the discussion, and partly also to call attention to the interpretation of Gen. i. 2, which is maintained in these lectures, and for the suggestion of which I am under obligation to the Rev. Baden Powell.

Sir,-With cordial approbation of the design and the general execution of your article, in the last month, upon Dr. Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise, I request your candid indulgence of some brief remarks.

[Some of your] observations appear to me capable of being misunderstood, or of being construed injuriously in various ways to the interests of both science and religion. The tendency of those observations appears to be, First, to assume (or at least to warrant the assumption) that the Holy Scriptures contain allegations and implications with respect to the natural history of our earth, which are contradicted and disproved by the demonstrations of modern Geology; and, Secondly, that it is the duty of a philosopher to abstain from any discussion of this discrepancy, and from

any inquiry whether it be real or only apparent; as if it were said, Let these two branches of knowledge be kept far away from each other: let philosophers and geologists pursue their own course, and let theology and religion practise their own duties, and watch over their own interests; but let neither interfere with the other; let no inquiry ever be made whether they are in accordance or in opposition.

This short way of dismissing the matter has, indeed, been adopted by some eminent men; but I appeal, Sir, to your impartial reflection, whether it is not absurd and impracticable.

1. It is absurd. TRUTH throughout her whole domain, illimitable as is its extent, is one in principle, and harmonious in details. It is no other than the having our conceptions in accordance with the reality of things. And Truth in expression (= veracity) is the adapting of our language, written or spoken, to the honest utterance of our conceptions. A mere child, if he will reflect a moment, perceives that a proposition cannot be true and false, under the same circumstances; unless there be some artifice practised in the use of terms. An assertion cannot be true in theology, and false in geology, or any department whatever of scientific knowledge; nor inversely. It really is an insult to men's understandings, to admit indirectly, that there are affirmations or doctrines in the records of revealed religion, which are disproved by the clearest evidence of science; and then to proscribe investigation, with a solemn pretence of mysteries not to be inquired into, an hypocritical tone of reverence for sacred things. The veil is transparent; no man can be deceived by it: but it is lamentable that any should attempt to deceive by it. We greatly wrong the interests of knowledge, and prejudice our own improvement, when we but seem to admit that theology is an insulated portion of science, which may be safely pur

sued by itself, and which yields no advantages to other de→ partments. True theology, on the contrary, attracts to itself, illustrates, and harmonizes all other knowledge. It is the science which relates to the Author and Preserver of the whole dependent universe; whatever may be known concerning HIM, for the noblest purposes of intellectual improvement, of personal virtue, and of diffusive happiness. It is formed by strict induction from the works and the word of God; natural notices, and positive revelation. It is the friend of all science; it appropriates all truth; it holds fellowship with no error.

2. It is impracticable. This kind of ban upon a reasonable, an inevitable query, is never submitted to by any person of sound understanding. Either he receives the assumption,—and, as its consequence, he rejects covertly or openly the truth and authority of the Bible; or he searches out the matter fairly and fully, and then he learns that the assumption is false.

Is it then the fact, that such fair and impartial inquiry will bring out this result? Is it, after all, an erroneous assumption, that the declarations of Scripture and the sensible demonstrations of geological science, pointedly contradict each other? Does not the Bible teach that the moment of the Supreme Being's first putting forth his creating power, was only about six thousand years ago? And do not the undeniable phenomena of stratification, and other facts, demonstrate that our globe (to say nothing of the rest of the solar system, and the astral universe,) has existed, has passed through countless changes, such as are continually in progress, and others of a more intense character, which rational estimation must suppose to have required a period for their production so vast as to fill us with astonishment,-which no calculator ventures to lay down, which probably amounts to millions and millions of years?

Fully admitting the assumptions in the last query, I deny that of the preceding one.

It is to be lamented that the common habits of expression nourish the opinion, that the authority of Scripture maintains the commencement of dependent nature to have been as has been stated: and it is scarcely less to be lamented that theories have been propounded for conciliating the facts of nature and the Scripture narrative, which rest upon either a defective acquaintance with those facts, or a disregard to the plain use of language in that narrative. Of the former kind are the schemes for finding the time requisite for the terrene formations, in the period from the creation of the first man, to the Noachian Deluge; of the latter, those which interpret the days of successive operation, laid down in the primeval record, as if they were indefinite periods.

It will appear evident to any one who will reflect upon the case, that the records of revelation must have been written in the phraseology and idioms of the people and the age to which they were given; or they would have been unintelligible. Upon this principle we account for the manner in which natural phenomena are currently described; and for the expressions which impute to the Infinite Spirit the form, the organs, and the mental affections of a human being; and various other characteristics of the parabolic style of the Hebrew Scriptures. Such language was a condescension to the infirmities of mortals, and best adapted to the instruction of the general mass of mankind but it is self-evident that it must be interpreted in a manner congruous with the perfect attributes of the Deity, and the reality of things.

A philological survey of the initial section of the Bible (Gen. i. 1, to ii. 3,) brings out the result :

i. That the first sentence is a simple, independent, allcomprehending, axiom, to this effect-that matter elementary or combined, aggregated only or organized, and

M M