collected within a part only of that surface, leaving the other part dry; that, at a later period, He caused all that dry part, with its inhabitants and productions, to be destroyed by a refusion of the ocean upon it; and, that the part of the globe, or earth, which man now occupies, is not the same part, or earth, which man originally occupied; if He has been pleased to communicate to us these great and paramount facts, and, if the Earth is seen to abound, universally, with monuments corresponding directly and intimately with those several communications; what are we to think of a Doctrine which would inculcate, that we are not to connect those communicated facts with the Science of the Earth, or Geology? or, of a Geology, that would attempt to establish itself at all, in total exclusion or rejection of them: although they reveal so manifest a relation to the results of its own researches, which have caused it to view the constituent materials of the Globe as dividing themselves, sensibly, into four corresponding general classes of mineral formations; for which four classes, and for their differences, there must have existed as many different and distinct causes?

66

66

66

66

66

"That

some such general laws as a successive order or arrangement in the rock formations of the globe in general should actually be discovered, is (says this geology) what we think might have been expected à priori from the uniformity which is, in other respects, "observable in the mineral kingdom1." But, the problem which is of most immediate importance to the intelligence, and which it cannot solve by any à priori principle with which it is supplied, is- the uniformity of DISORDER

1 Ed. Review, vol. xxix. p. 72.

66

and DERANGEMENT, manifest in that " uniformity of ORDER and ARRANGEMENT which it thinks it might “have expected à priori.”

6. Whether those great paramount facts are really imparted to us, is a question to be tried and proved in the following work; I here only state them hypothetically, in order for common sense to judge, what weight they must have, if true, or even if supported by powerful moral and physical probability, in the Science of the Earth; and, what must be the nature of that prudence, which would banish them altogether from that science, and would strive to prevent the understanding from taking any cognizance of them, even so far as to scrutinise the evidences by which they are sustained? For, common sense cannot fail to discern, that they are as probable à priori, as any thing that the versatility of geological invention has devised or proposed in opposition to them; even without taking into account, the authority of the testimony by which they are certified.

7. If there is any thing that tends more than another to perplex the thoughts of the believer in Revelation in this age of geological inquisition, it is unquestionably the objects with which he sees himself surrounded in the disordered scenery of the globe, when he is urged to contemplate them as they are adventurously expounded by persons who resist all connexion of them with the narrative of Scripture; and when, moreover, their expositions are dogmatically asserted, to be the proper dictates of philosophy. And, as the exposition of those objects has hitherto been almost exclusively adventured by persons who have systematically resisted that connexion, a reflecting mind is bewildered by the difficulty of recon

ciling the Author of the objects which are seen, with the Author of the statements which are read; and seems often driven near to the distracting doubt, whether they can be One and the Same, and consequently, whether the first and introductory record of the body of Scripture can be truly of divine original: for, we are sure, that Nature is of divine original. To trace their connexion, is therefore of the first importance, in Man's relation to God under Divine Revelation.

8. A valuable reverend writer on Geology, whose scientific work appeared a few months after the publication of the first edition of the Comparative Estimate, has declared his inclination to adhere to that prudential reserve, which would still avoid an intimate connexion of physical phenomena with the record of Scripture; and he appears to regard every attempt to prove the connexion, as an" injudicious interference of advocacy1." As his motive is entitled to the greatest attention, and as his volume is now become a text-book in the hand of the geological student, it is of the greatest importance, that the grounds alleged by him for the dissociation which he inculcates, should receive a full and a particular examination. Those grounds are laid, in the two following propositions:

First, "That the professed object of Revelation, was to "treat of the history of man only; and that, even but as far as affects his relation to his Creator."

66

Secondly, "That to have made physical truth generally "the subject of Revelation, would have been to destroy its great use, namely, that its investigation might form at once the most delightful resource and the most in

66

66

! Introduction to Geol. of England and Wales, p. lviii. note.

66

66

66

vigorating exercise of the powers of reason, bestowed upon us as our distinguishing prerogative 1."

66

9. But, those two propositions are introduced by the following extraordinary axiom : Before we examine the bearings of physical science on Revelation, our ideas should be first settled as to what may be reasonably expected from Revelation in this respect 2.'

66

I must, in limine, resist this most dangerous and unconsidered principle; which, if it be true in the present subject, must be equally true in every other subject for which Revelation is asserted. It propounds, that man's expectations, formed by the indefinite and insecure rule of what he may deem reasonable for Revelation to have imparted, constitutes the test of what has been really imparted by Revelation; consequently, whatever may be contrary to those expectations, cannot have been revealed by God. Such, is the inevitable issue of the principle. Now, it is most certain, that in "settling our ideas" à priori on this great point, it may very possibly, nay, very probably happen, that we may settle them quite wrong; for, God may have actually revealed that, which man might not have expected that God would have revealed, and which he might not have thought it at all reasonable to expect that God would have revealed; and so, the real bearing of physical science on Revelation, may be in direct opposition to what man may have deemed most reasonable to expect. It is not by any à priori reasoning, that the human intellect is capable of ascer taining what is reasonable for God to have revealed; for, "who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been

1 Introduction to Geol. of England and Wales, p. 1. li. 2 Ib. p. 1.

66

"His counsellor 1?" It is, by à posteriori reasoning only. Whatever God shall be found to have revealed, is reasonably revealed, because it is His revelation :-" Dei sermo, sermo rationis?" There is no method for truly ascertaining this point, as it relates to the circumstances of our Earth, but by comparing the declarations of Revelation with the discoveries of science; and it is by the correspondences of these only, that the bearing of physical science on Revelation can be truly determined. So long as the physical evidences were unapparent, the mind rested, in full and entire security, on the moral evidences. But, when physical evidences are at length disclosed and superadded, in collateral confirmation of the moral evidences, the intelligence is not free to disregard them, but is bound, by virtue of its" prerogative of reason," to contemplate them in combination with the moral evidences which they are manifested to corroborate. If, we correctly ascertain à posteriori what is revealed, and if we accurately compare with it what is discovered, then we cannot fail to perceive clearly, how far the discovery bears upon the revelation. I shall now proceed to consider the learned and scientific author's two propositions.

"

10. With respect to the first of these, that "the professed object of Revelation was to treat of the history of

man only;" I would respectfully ask the reverend writer, what said the Creator when He enforced the observance of His seventh day on the Hebrew people? "In "six days the Lord created the Heaven, and the Earth, "the Sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh

day; Wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and

Rom. xi. 34.

* TERTULLIAN, de Oratione, in princip.