has been made by eminently qualified judges, in relation to the vegetable kingdom :-"The result of this investigation is well worthy of attention. It shews that, so far from ' a gradual perfection of organization having been going on from the remotest period, till the latest geological epoch,' [the words of an able adverse writer,] some of the most perfect forms of each of the three great classes of the vegetable kingdom were among the very first created; and that, either the more simple plants of each class did not appear till our own æra, or that no trace of them at an earlier period has been preserved." Lindley and Hutton's Fossil Flora; Vol. I. pref. p. xix.

It would appear almost incredible that Dr. Y. should say, "Fishes, zoophytes, ammonites, belemnites, terebratulæ, &c. occur in almost every portion of them [the secondary strata;] but those in the inferior strata have as much similarity to the living races as those in the superior.” P. 9. An assertion full of extreme inaccuracies! Can he, for example, push out of sight a most remarkable circumstance in the caudal prolongation of the back-bone, which distinguishes all the fish of the Magnesian Limestone and the earlier formations, from the subsequent; and from almost all existing species? This, and many other striking peculiarities in the fossil ichthyology, were discovered by the distinguished investigator, M. Agassiz. See Lyell's Elements, p. 417. And who ever heard of ammonites or belemnites, of "living races?”

I thankfully avail myself of the authority (can there be a higher?) and testimony of Mr. Murchison. "The fossils of the Silurian System here represented, and amounting in all to about 350 species, are, with the exception of a very few (chiefly doubtful casts,) essentially distinct from any of the numerous and well-defined fossils of the Carboniferous System; and further, that the Old Red Sandstone which separates these two systems is also characterised by

fossils peculiar to sit. Having for a series of years collected fossils from every stratum of the Silurian rocks, throughout a large region, in which the stratigraphical order is clear, I now present the results. Professor Phillips had previously completed a valuable monograph of the organic remains of the Carboniferous System; [in bis Illustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire; Vol. II. 1836.] If the naturalist will compare the figures in these, the only two works yet published upon the older fossiliferous rocks, which combine geological description with zoological proofs, he will at once see the truth of my position.

"Beginning with the vertebrata; Are not the fishes of the Old Red Sandstone as distinct from the Carboniferous System on the one hand, as from those of the Silurian on the other? M. Agassiz has pronounced that they are so.

"Are any of the crustaceans, so numerous and welldefined throughout the Silurian rocks, found also in the Carboniferous strata? I venture to reply, not one.

"Are not the remarkable cephalopodous mollusca, the Phragmoceras, and certain forms of Lituites, peculiar to the older system?

"Is there one species of the Crinoidea figured in this work, known in the Carboniferous strata?

"Has the Serpuloides longissimum, or have those singular bodies the Graptolites, or in short, any zoophytes of the Silurian System, been detected in the well-examined Carboniferous rocks?

"And, in regard to the corals, which are so abundant that they absolutely form large reefs, is not Mr. Lonsdale, who has assiduously compared multitudes of specimens from both systems, of opinion that there is not more than one species common to the two epochs?→→

"Such evidences are-additional supports of the important truth which Geology has already established; that each great period of change, during which the surface of the

planet was essentially modified, was also marked by the suc cessive production and obliteration of certain races." Silur. Syst. pp. 581, 582.

1

With astonishment I read in Dr. Y., "The general conformity of the strata and their undisturbed succession, indicate that they must have been deposited about the same æra." P. 23. He admits indeed of some exceptions, but he confines them to the elevating force of "volcanic agency." One might almost fancy that the worthy author had never fixed his eyes upon any rocks but those of his own Yorkshire coast, and that he had explored even them but cursorily. That all strata were at their origin deposited horizontally or nearly so, is not the question. But, is it possible for him to be ignorant of the instances innumerable, in almost all parts of the world, where the formations of the secondary series, and many even of the third, follow with most remarkable disconformity? How often a deposit has been laid, long after the underlying one has been raised and bent and broken? The Sections published in the Geological Society's Transactions, and innumerable other works of unquestionable authority, furnish the most ample proofs of the contrary to Dr. Y.'s assertion.

"The

If possible, I am still more surprised to read, breaks, or faults, in the strata affect the whole mass of rocks, in almost every instance where they occur; instead of being limited by the boundaries of particular formations.' P. 24. So far as, in a subject including many and various conditions, one can lay down general positions, I must say that what he affirms is not the fact, and what he denies, and builds largely upon his denial, is the fact.

It is painful to me to remark thus upon the writing of a very estimable friend; and to be obliged to acknowledge that to me his book appears to abound in misconceptions of the sentiments of others, and wrong imputations to them, in assertions positively made, but often hazardous or de

cidedly erroneous, in narrow investigation and defective induction, and in too rapid conclusions from imperfect premises. I should not, however, have brought forward these observations, which might be considerably extended, but for this reason; Dr. Young's character as a Christian and a minister of the gospel, gives weight and currency to his opinions, and some persons have not failed to display his authority as if it were a sufficient refutation of the doctrines commonly maintained by geologists.

[L.]

Referred to at page 229.

ON THE COMPARISON OF THE

EGYPTIAN AND THE

MOSAICAL COSMOGONIES.

IN Mr. Lyell's Principles of Geology, Book I. chap. ii. under the title "Oriental Cosmogony," he has given ample and interesting descriptions of the doctrines held by the ancient Hindoos and Egyptians, and those brought from the east into Greece and Italy by Pythagoras, concerning the changes which the surface of our globe has undergone. Now, as every reader knows that, under the name Oriental, the documents of the Hebrew Scriptures cannot but be included, the expectation is raised (I might say almost necessarily) that some direct and specific notice will be taken of the Mosaic Cosmogony. This expectation is strengthened by the fact, that certain writers of the German antibiblical school have maintained that Moses derived his materials for the commencement of the Pentateuch, from Egyptian sources. From these considerations I cannot but fear that the total silence upon what most readers will think the chiefly interesting branch of the subject, will be

construed into the inference, that the author deemed the Hebrew account to be no more than a human production, and to be justly thrown into the same class with the allegorical, mythological, or fabulous traditions of the grossest idolaters. It would have been happy and signally beneficial, if Mr. Lyell had pointed out the differences between the Egyptian and the Phoenician Cosmogonies, and the simple, beautiful, and majestic description of the Hebrew Genesis; and if, which he might have briefly done without entering into philological discussions, he had said that the Scripture account of the Creation is susceptible of a fair interpretation, in perfect consistency with the facts disclosed by Geological research.

With respect to the identity or similarity alleged by the critics just adverted to, I may remark that it is assumed by them in a way little better than a gross begging of the question. Because Moses was educated as the adopted son of an Egyptian princess, and must therefore, they say, have been instructed in all the histories, traditions, and doctrines of the Egyptian priests; as also the first martyr testifies concerning him, that he " was educated [èraidevon] in all the wisdom of the Egyptians ;" and because Simplicius (a Greek philosopher of the sixth century, zealously adherent to the expiring cause of heathenism,) calls the relation of Moses concerning the origin of the universe, a certain mythic tradition, drawn from the Egyptian mythi;" the inference is boldly drawn that he made that tradition the basis of his narrative, simplifying and accommodating it to his fundamental doctrines, the unity of God, and the creation by him and dependence upon him of all other existences. But, if we look at the earliest authorities that we have, (and they are 1400 years later than Moses,) Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch, we find but a scanty resemblance; and so much as does obscurely appear, suggests the idea of being a far-removed and adul