much higher, since we have undoubted evidence of some existing species having remained permanent during the countless ages since the tertiary deposits up to the present time." If this admission is restricted to "some," and not extended to all species, it is only because the preserved relics of some enable us to know and speak of them at those remote periods of time; while the absence of such remains in regard to others forbid us a similar knowledge and ability to speak in respect of them. But even as thus limited, we are contented to take the admission of Mr Powell, and to argue that what is true of some species, must, according to his own doctrine of uniformity, be true of all; and that the influence of his first element of time, which has had no effect during the "countless" ages since the tertiary deposits, can hardly be reckoned of much account in the argument, if it come into play only in a series of ages that are more than "countless." And second, With regard to the other element of which he speaks as necessary to transmutation of species, namely, adequate and appropriate changes of condition, we cannot help saying, that the statement of such an element is, according as it may be understood, either the cover of ignorance or the concession of the whole question in dispute. If, by a change of condition, adequate and appropriate to effect the origination of life, or the transmutation of species, be meant a change of physical condition, then we have only to remark, that no such physical condition is known to us, -that we are utterly ignorant of any such thing,-that we have no experimental acquaintance with any thing of the kind, and that Mr Powell ostentatiously admits and asserts we have none. If, again, by a change of condition adequate to effect these results, he means such an alteration of things, that not physical, but supernatural influences come into operation; then we admit and know the possibility of such a condition, and under vague and indefinite language Mr Powell is calling to his aid the very doctrine which his opponents maintain.

But we must be allowed to give, in better language than our own, the bearing of the argument from experience on the development doctrine:

"In tracing the history of the existing organisms," says Mr H. Miller, "which has been pursued upwards far beyond the human period, not a change appears in any of them from the passing time till we lose them amid the hoar antiquity of the past. Cuvier showed that the birds and beasts embalmed in the catacombs were identical in every respect with the animals of the same kinds that live now, and framed an argument for the fixity of species on the fact. But what, it was asked, was a brief period of 3000 years, compared with the geological ages, or how could any real argument be founded on a basis so little extended? We now know that species have undergone no change from the time of the middle tertiary, downward. The native trees of

our country, such as the oak, beech, and Scotch fir, have been traced up beyond the times of the boulder clay, when the great northern elephant pressed its way through their branches and the great British tiger harboured in their thickets. And yet, during a period of such immense extent that all human history is compressed into its nearer corner, none of these woods altered in a single fibre. They were, at their first appearance, just what they are now. The same remark applies to our existing shells, many of which date from the times of the coralline crag. They made their debut in geologic history exactly the same shells that they are now; and when we rise a single step in advance of their period, we find other shells of entirely different species and appearance, from which it is palpably impossible they could have descended. And such, generally, is the history of paleontology on this question, a testimony so definite that no great palæontologist was ever yet an asserter of the development hypothesis.'

But we must bring our remarks to a close with one word as to the theological bearing of Mr Powell's theory. Although the doctrine of development has, in the hands of Professor Oken and some of his continental allies, been associated with a vague and unintelligible system of Pantheism, yet it were unjust to assert that it necessarily contradicts the first truths of natural theology, as to the existence and personality of God. But as defined and advocated by the author of the "Vestiges of Creation" among ourselves, it undoubtedly involved a denial of the immateriality of the soul; and whether that denial may be held with the doctrine of immortality or not, it carried with it the inference that man differs from the brutes in nothing that involves moral responsibility. The development hypothesis, in the shape advocated by Mr Powell, cannot be charged with any such doctrine; but in making it consistent with the fact of man's moral and responsible nature, he has made it inconsistent with itself,-advocating the notion of an animal man, subject to the law of physical development, and a spiritual man, owing his being to an act of supernatural power. Apart from this, there is very much in Mr Powell's views that we grieve to say runs counter to Scripture representations. He speaks with something like a sneer of the anxiety manifested by some authors, as to how they are "to place their theology" in relation to scientific fact; and he rids himself of this difficulty by being careful to have little or no theology to place. We have already seen that he plainly denies the biblical doctrine of proper creation. He denies, also, the scriptural account of the recent origin of man on the earth, and announces his belief that there is no reason why, in deposits of date far beyond that of the Hebrew chronology, there may not be found the remains of "an extinct and lower species" of the human family. He denies, if we understand him aright, that the different races of men are

varieties of one species, and descended, as the Word of God tells us, from a single pair. Further still, he denies, if we read correctly a somewhat vague and indefinite statement of his views, the Scripture doctrine of the creation of man in a state of original perfection. He asserts, in the strongest possible language, the irreconcilable contradiction between the facts of science and the statements of the Word of God. And, as we have already intimated, he avows opinions utterly inconsistent with. almost any view, even the lowest, of the inspiration of Scripture, or of its infallible authority, in so far at least as regards its historical statements. We mention these things reluctantly; but it is impossible, in any notice of such a volume as Mr Powell's, to speak of them not at all. He himself particularises, and denounces in strong terms, certain religious feelings and prepossessions, which, as he believes, have dono much to mislead scientific inquiry in connection with this question of development; and in a manner that might have provoked resentment, if it had not first moved our sincerest sorrow on his own account, he has made an unworthy assault on Mr H. Miller and his writings, as biassed by such influences. Neither the theological opinions of Mr Miller, nor his scientific standing as a palæontologist, needs any defence of ours, and they cannot be affected by any rude attack, even from Mr Powell. But, with deference, we must be permitted to say, that there are other feelings and prepossessions of an opposite nature, and not at all religious, equally strong, and far more misleading, in the way of biassing a man against the vital and distinctive truths of God's Word; nor is there any exemption found from the influence of such feelings, in the fact that of that very Word he may be the professing minister.

ART. IX.-There must be, and therefore there really is, a Positive Revelation from God.

[The following tract is translated from the German of the celebrated Roman Catholic Professor, Hirscher, and contains some good thoughts in refutation of a favourite notion of Rationalists.]

Is it merely to the power of his own intelligence that man owes his knowledge of God and divine things, or does he owe it to the grace and instruction vouchsafed by God? This is a question of the highest importance. For if man's own power be the exclusive source of all religious knowledge, then all that is called positive religion is nothing else than the product of the human mind; its doctrines are, like every thing human, subject to error; its commands, without higher

VOL. V.-NO. XVII.

2 Y

Of

sanction; and its promises and threats mere human words, which, because they proceed from man, can neither comfort nor alarm. Then, up to the present day, we cannot know whether truth be in the world, or how much there is; every one of superior talent has the right to bring into question again that on which men have lived and died for thousands of years, and the millions, who are incapable of independent investigation, are again brought back from nature to faith,-faith, however, not in the infallible God, but faith in fallible man. course, all is quite different if there be a positive divine revelation. What answer, then, are we to give to the question proposed? The majority of men are possessed with the firmest belief that there exists a positive divine instruction or revelation. But many eminent men in the learned world deny it, and in many brilliant circles this belief of the majority is treated as the belief of the mass of the people, and regarded as something antiquated by those above them. What side are we to take? And should we join in the faith of the majority, shall we not expose ourselves to the compassion, and even the derision, of many very learned and celebrated men?

My opinion is, that the believer in revelation need never blush to appear on scientific ground beside the denier of revelation, and be ready, on the right hand and on the left, to give account of his faith to every one. In regard to it, he can justify himself either in this way, by proving from a definite revelation, placed historically before him, how perfectly reasonable, yea, how necessary it is, to recognise it as divine; or he can justify himself a priori,—that is, by showing that there must be a divine revelation, and that the presumption of such a revelation existing in the world is something to which every one feels himself forced by fair reasoning.

The writer of the present tract, who is also a believer in revelation, here endeavours to justify his faith in the second way mentioned above, by stating briefly, how strongly, on reflection, he is impressed with the conviction that there must be a positive divine revelation, and, consequently, that there really is one.

The existence of a personal God is, of course, here taken for granted. Among the deniers of this it is evident that we could not speak at all of a priori grounds for the existence of a positive divine revelation. With them the first thing to be done would be to prove the existence of a personal God.

The proposition we have announced is this:-There must be in the world a positive divine revelation, and, therefore, there really is one. What is it that impresses this conviction on the reflecting mind?—

I. The observation of certain general laws and arrangements in

the world.

A. There is a law which prevails through the whole extent of creation known to us, that for every creature that is to be developed, something external is provided to promote its development; and that which is provided for this end is of necessity something congenial to the creature that is to be developed. Thus, for example, the seed springs up, and the flower unfolds itself. But they are developed only by means of the external influence of moisture, light, and heat.

It is

true, indeed, that the vital principle is in the grain of seed and the bulb of the flower; but it is inoperative if it be not stimulated from without by light, moisture, and heat, and decisively moved to the development of itself. If we apply this general law of nature to the constitution of man, in this case also something external is needed analogous to it, and homogeneous, by means of which the vital principle in him may be awakened, and its development promoted. What external thing is this? We answer, It is man. It is by those of his own kind, by men that man is developed. It is by his parents that the child is developed. The mind of the father is the light, the heart of the mother the warmth, by which the child springs up and becomes a man. But now, we should like further to know by what means father and mother have themselves become what they are. If we reply that they have become so by means of those who were once light and heat to them, just as they now are to their children, then we have not answered the question, but only set it aside. We cannot go back for ever. We must inevitably be led to the conclusion, that before and above all the parental feelings of men, there lived a paternal Spirit, who first introduced a father's and mother's feelings among men, and placed them in the world as civilising principles; and that all human development and civilization took their beginning from a Teacher existing before them, and presiding over them. This, indeed, we are told in the most ancient of historical records, the first man was instructed by God.-(Gen. ii. 19, 20.)

If we, then, find ourselves unavoidably led to the belief, that originally there must have been in the world a positive revelation from God, then we have only further to ask, Whether we can think that such a revelation was still necessary at a later period, after the human race had learned to act the part of fathers, mothers, and teachers? I answer, That although men had learned to act the part of teachers, so far were they from being able of themselves to carry forward their development, they were not able even to preserve what they had originally received. This also we learn from history. It shows that all the old religious systems of the nations contain some truth, and that this truth, and for the most part the purest of the ideas occurring in these systems, are the oldest. It shows how, through speculation and inventions of the human mind; how, through national and climatic influence, what was original and oldest, instead of being further developed, has been deformed in many ways, and sometimes very strangely. And it shows how the revelations which are regarded by the Christian as divine, were nothing else than a contest carried on for thousands of years against the product of the human intellect and heart, which sent forth a progeny of their own.

B. Let us now look at a second law of nature. What we call religion is found after its sort throughout the whole visible creation. Thus every creature feels itself bound for ever to that power in nature by which it has taken its origin, and by which it is continually sustained and animated. How gladly, for example, does every living thing rejoice at the rising of the sun! Behold, every living being has religion; that is, it feels itself bound to it [the sun], as to the divinity from which it derives its animating ray of life. What do we infer from this? We infer, that in the world of spirits also there is a Sun