hope. Those uniting evidences our respected author calls "incidental only," and he views them as "not contri

66

buting much additional support to the truth of the "Mosaic record1." But, if they exist at all, (and they do exist,) we may be perfectly sure that they are not "inci"dental only," but "essential;" and, that the fundamental facts which "happen to be mentioned," will not have been mentioned by Chance but by Providence, and will, therefore, as they were designed, contribute MUCH additional support to the truth of the Mosaic record.

16. I am perfectly well aware, that all this is entirely new language to Physical Science in general; but, the Physical Science of Christendom stands urgently in need of hearing this new language. It has long "called "darkness light, and light darkness;" and, in some cases intentionally, in other cases unconsciously, it has persisted in playing the cards of infidelity, as will be abundantly manifested in the progress of the following treatise. But, the long period of its competition with the authority of Revelation has reached its term; and, as the rod of Aaron consumed the competing rods of the magicians, and confounded the Sophists of Egypt - τους σοφιστάς της ALYUTTOU (LXX.); so the pen of Moses, of which the former may be regarded as in some manner symbolical, will confound all the physical sophisms and alogisms which have been advanced, in contradiction or perversion of the record which that pen was commissioned to inscribe. This is not the language of self-confidence, but of perfect confidence in the tried and closely examined Word of God; and, it is a confidence which I am not in the smallest degree disposed to relinquish, merely lest some cynical

1 Introduction to Geol. of England and Wales, p. lvi. lvii.

critic should think good to represent it as the former. Such a critic, would readily find the language of selfconfidence in the declaration "I am wiser than all my teachers, because Thy testimonies are my medita"tion 1;" yet does that declaration express no more than the devout acknowledgment Thy testimonies "have better instructed my ignorance, than the doctrines "of all my human teachers." And, in the confidence which I here avow, I affirm no more, than that the Record of God imparts to the darkness of my intelligence an infinitely greater light to illustrate the questions of the FIRST FORMATIONS and CHANGES of this Globe, than any that I have been able to collect from the instructions of all the principal geological teachers of the age; whose doctrines, nevertheless, I have with the utmost care and diligence studied, scrutinised, and compared.

17. The able Edinburgh Reviewer of the Reliquia Diluviana, however, regards this whole argument as threatening to take us back again to the darker ages of geology." This is whimsical; because, I find my mind relapsing into darkness, in proportion as I recede from it towards that which he would preferably advocate. If, finding precisely the terminating point of human knowledge and tracing that knowledge to the point beyond which it cannot proceed, be taking us back again to darkness, the Reviewer's fears are not unfounded; but, if the process does not attempt to pass that point, it then becomes the surest safeguard we can have to prevent the mind from plunging into darkness; for, such must be the sphere into which it would necessarily pass, if it attempted to expatiate beyond the point that termi

1 Psalm cxix. 99. VOL. I.

с

2 Edin. Rev. No. lxxvii. p. 206.

f

nates the retrospective knowledge which our intellect is naturally capable of acquiring. "It seems at present to "be universally admitted, (observes this critic,) that the object of Revelation was the religious and moral dis

cipline, not the literary and scientific instruction, of "mankind'." But, does he well reflect, that the inquiry which he would discountenance and prevent, is far more intimately connected with religious and moral discipline, than it is with literary and scientific instruction? that its connexion with the former is essential, but with the latter only incidental? This writer, unquestionably brings to the discussion a mind strongly charactered by intellectual ability and integrity; although, not entirely liberated from the influence of inveterate prepossessions. The principle which he lays down as the canon of inquiry, is an evidence of the former qualities: " to speak of the support to the "Sacred narrative afforded by extrinsic inquiry, if the "narrative itself be made to form a part of the evidence, "is (says he) a mode of reasoning which appears to us to "be altogether inadmissible." No doubt, it is so; for, it would be to reason in a circle, which could never establish any thing. Again; " if the testimony of science "can ever be of any value in support of Scriptural history, "the physical researches, by which it is intended to "confirm the historical statements, should be most strictly

independents." This is only another mode of presenting the same undeniable principle. Sound and unimpeachable, however, as this principle is, it is in no manner applicable in the way of opposition, to the argument of the Comparative Estimate; as this critic would himself ingenuously acknowledge, if he could resolve to bring his mind

Edin. Rev. No. lxxvii. p. 196.

2 Ib. 230.

Ib. p. 198.

to a thorough examination of it. The Comparative Estimate does not reason in a circle, nor does it desire to impair the independency of physical research; on the contrary, its strength is in that independence. It, first, produces the genuine statements of the Scriptural record and assumes them to be true, generally, upon moral grounds probably similar to those on which the Reviewer professes his own firm belief in the truth of Revelation1; these are its premises; and it, then, confirms the assumed truth of those statements, specially, by the results of the independent researches of physical science. It distinguishes, indeed, between the results of the researches, which are facts, and the conclusions of the science, which are opinions, and, whilst it accepts the former, it rejects the latter; because, as the facts prove the truth of the Scriptural statements, so they necessarily prove, at the same time, the error of the opinions. This upright Reviewer certainly does not mean to say, that we may not take the facts without taking the opinions annexed to them; granting, then, the equitable right of separating the one from the other; the Comparative Estimate conforms rigidly to his own rule-" confirming the historical

56

66

statements of the Scriptural record, by the results of physical researches most strictly independent." I will cherish a hope, that the wider development of my argument in the present extended Edition, may succeed in making a nearer approach to the seat of conviction of this able and ingenuous critic. At all events, I am sensible of the courtesy with which he qualifies the force of his dissent; and especially, of that with which he disclaims a note sur

Edin. Rev. No. lxxvii. P. 229.

reptitiously appended to his article in its progress through the press1.

18. I wish I could speak in the same tone of my distempered flagellant of the British Critic; but

66

66

qui

"admonent amicè docendi sunt, qui inimicè insectantur repellendi." This ardent critic should have lived at least three centuries ago, when reviews ad excommunicationem might have acquired some measure of power. In the fervid zeal with which he appears to copy the proceedings of the Pontifical College of 1622, he thus fulminates his Inquisitorial sentence against this Work: " "The Compa"rative Estimate has more rudely assailed our feelings "of religious decorum, than they were ever assailed by the most extravagant hypothesis of the most daring speculations of the French and German schools."The Mineral Geology, with all the freedom of its assumptions and the daring spirit of its hypothesis, "has never ventured to insult the common sense of "mankind with such absurdities. The reveries of Buffon, are pious and philosophical compared with "it: Hutton's eternal renovations, and Cuvier's numerous debacles, are innocent postulates when weighed in "the balance against the sacred cosmogony of this modern dreamer. No serious reader will tolerate so gross. a misapplication of Scriptural language as We find in "almost every page.-It attempts the union of two things, "which have nothing in common. It brings no acceptable

66

66

56

66

tribute, either to philosophy or religion:-its labours "tend most obviously and directly to the disparagement of "both" Such is the summary and definitive judgment

1 Edin. Rev. No. lxxviii. in fine.

2 British Critic for April 1824, p. 387-402.-The model of this miniature imitation (which, it must be acknowledged, has not