character, that we can decide upon its merits without reference to the credentials which it professedly advances? Are not miracles themselves necessary to give a crowning evidence of the authenticity of a dispensation, into the dusky borders of whose extended influence our eyesight is too feeble to pierce ? Our vision is too limited, and our judgment too weak to enable us to decide intuitively of the absolute merit of a system so extended, from its consequences alone, and our chief resource must be the examination of the historical evidences which it affords. We can imagine a man, who, grown giddy with wisdom, can look forward a great distance in the channel, through which the gospel may run, and see it distributing blessings wherever it moves; so that, in the contemplation of the prospect before him, he may be led to magnify the evidences which it affords of the truth of the system it illustrates, and to underrate those miraculous demonstrations, by which it was first accompanied. But, had it not been for miracles, Christianity would never have spread; were it not for the report of them, it would still be but feebly spreading. We depend on them, as the principal anchor of our faith. There may be some, who, like Christian and Faithful, may be cheered on when in the valley of shadows by the distant prospect of the glories of the delectable island; but to those whose sight is more dim, and whose step less steady, we believe that the solid consolation, which by the more substantial evidences is afforded, forms the staff on which they can most courageously rely, both against the terrors of Giant SlayAll, and the seductions of Vanity Fair.

**

ART. III. On the Relations between the Holy Scriptures, and some parts of Geological Science. By JOHN PYE SMITH, D. D., F. G. S., Divinity Tutor in the Protestant Dissenting College at Homerton. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1840. pp. 364. 12mo.

THE apparent opposition of geological deductions to the account given in Genesis, concerning the creation, has caused the religious world to look upon this science as a "dark art." And

it is not wonderful, that a strong prejudice should have arisen against it in the minds of believers, when we remember that it disclosed phenomena which appeared utterly irreconcilable with the Mosaic cosmogony, as they understood it. And in addition to this, it is also to be borne in mind, that unbelievers applied the facts disclosed to the subversion of the Divine authority of Moses. The religious community were startled as much, therefore, at the disclosures which geology made, as they would have been had one of the monsters, whose image is impressed upon the everlasting rock, swept through the air before their eyes. We ought not to be surprised that it was so. It is always thus at the disclosure of any scientific truth, which demands a new interpretation of Scripture. It is by no means clear, that we are not as much attached to our opinions as our fathers were to theirs. While, therefore, we smile at the horror which seized upon many minds at the revelations, which were made respecting the formation of the world by the investigations of geologists, let us see to it that we are less bound by prejudice, and less exposed to raise the cry of infidelity against those, who now appear to us, through our ignorance of the subject, to be prostrating all the authority of revelation, by still further researches in Natural Science.

The contents of the volume before us consist of eight lectures, delivered before the "Congregational Library." This “Library" was established with a view to the promotion of ecclesiastical, theological, and biblical literature, in that religious connexion, with whose friends and supporters it originated. A series of lectures is delivered annually, in connexion with the Library, and Dr. Smith's appears to be the "sixth series." We must confess our ignorance of the former “ series; both of the lectures and subjects, and for our present purpose it is of but little consequence for us to know them.

The "sixth series," the one we have under consideration, was delivered by John Pye Smith, of Homerton College. He selected the subject of the connexion of "Scripture and Geology," and has treated it with commendable candor. Indeed, how a man could be otherwise than candid, when he had before him such choice specimens of narrowness, and bigotry, and total ignorance of geology, cannot easily be conceived. This series consists of eight lectures, two of which are divided into three parts, and an appendix of sixty pages, fine print. This contains more full discussions of some topics, which are barely

hinted at in the lectures, and could not well be discussed before a popular audience. They consist of separate papers, written at different times, and hence contain much repetition, and not a little that is entirely irrelevant to the subject-matter under consideration. All the notes might have been compressed, and half of them omitted, without harm. We are not disposed to carp at the occasional prolixity of the lectures, for they were delivered before popular audiences, and we have the authority of Burke for so expanding a topic, and lingering round it, that it may produce an impression upon the mind. We think the lectures must have been listened to with attention, as they now afford pleasure, notwithstanding their prolixity, in the perusal.

We have already intimated that geologists are not spoken of in the kindest terms by their opponents. It is not to be expected, that a member of the Geological Society should pass such language by unnoticed. He complains grievously of the uncharitableness of the opponents of geology, and intimates more than once, in the course of his lectures, that if they knew more about it, they would be more candid in their judgments, and more correct in their statements. He gives us a few specimens of anti-geological rant, which would be really amusing, did we not often hear the same kind of language from other quarters, and on other topics connected with religion, too frequently to render them ridiculous. We will give a specimen, however, as it is choice, and has been gathered with no small care from work entitled "Popular Geology subversive of Divine Revelation," by Rev. Henry Cole. The writer is contending against that interpretation which fixes "the beginning" long ante"This first cedent to the six days spoken of in Genesis. day' is the beginning. [This is] the self-evident definition of the beginning which God himself has given. And we here defy all the combined ability of infidelity, philosophy, and geology, to prove the beginning' to have been anterior to the first day God here intends. No geologist, who may read these pages, will henceforth remain ignorant of his war against Omnipotence and Everlasting Truth. And we again sacredly defy all the combined ability of sophistical geologians, to the end of time, to prove either our Scriptural positions false, or their geological positions true. We have insubvertibly established it from the lips of Eternal Veracity, that neither the earth, nor the material of which it was formed, nor any creature that is found therein, had existence before the first day' VOL. XXIX. 3D S. VOL. XI. NO. III. 43

6

of the revealed creation; that truth we have undeniably and everlastingly established, insubvertible and immovable by human ability. Certainly, of all the lately discovered or extended sciences, which the enemy of God and man has thus pushed to his destroying ends, no one has been found so appropriate to his purposes, nor has been so insidiously and industriously driven forward to the accomplishment of his aims, as the popular 'new science' of geology. To enumerate all the infernal artillery, which the subtle enemy of God and man has put into the hands of his vassals to aim at this everlasting monument of revealed truth, would require his own unspent breath and unwearied tongue. Suffice it to say, that sophisticating geologians have been allured, by his implacable subtleties, to enlist themselves in the service of his infernal policy." We will pause here, for we think we have given our readers a sufficient morsel of this choice language. Dr. Smith undoubtedly thought this was unkind, and he utters his "solemn protest against the assumption, which runs through the whole book." He had not been accustomed to hear such language used respecting himself, because he and his friends chose to interpret Scripture differently from others. We cannot but hope, that the position in which the Doctor finds himself, will lead him to observe the equal impropriety of speaking in such language concerning any body of men, or individuals.

To answer the "impassioned author" of the above remarks, the Dr. is led to lay down some very correct principles, respecting the difference between Scripture, and interpretations of Scripture. "The impassioned author," says he, "ought not to put his own interpretations, supported though they be by the expositions of eminent scholars and divines, upon a level with the express declarations of Scripture itself. That he believes his interpretations to be just, cannot be doubted; but he ought not to affirm, in so high and peremptory a tone, that they are infallible, and incapable of being subverted." This is all true, very true. And yet, are we not every day seeing men set up their interpretations as infallible, and deny the name of Christian to those who will not accept their interpretations as of equal authority with the Scripture? And is not Dr. Smith himself of the number, who do this? We are not very conversant with his writings, but he is attached to a body of Christians, who are daily doing the very thing, against which he "solemnly protests." Putting "interpretations upon a level with the ex

press declarations of Scripture itself" is the very foundation of the Exclusive system. Dr. Smith protests, with all his soul, against the charge of want of respect and reverence for the Holy Book. He utters a dignified rebuke against those "who bury the Christian dispositions of humility and meekness under their imperious dogmatism and assumed infallibility;" and so have we ever done. We respect revelation, we will not say more, but we will venture to affirm no less, than those who sometimes charge us with disaffection towards it.

This controversy, respecting the infallibility of human interpretations, leads to some liberal and just views of responsibility for opinions. They are worthy of their author; and how he can make such declarations, and yet act in harmony with those, whose avowed principle of action, and whose conduct under that principle, are both directly opposed to his sentiments, we cannot understand, unless he has a mental reservation in regard to all, who do not interpret as he does. "If we have done our best," says he, in reference to the formation of our opinions, "and fail, we have not forfeited moral truth; we are sincere, though mistaken; but, if we have not done our best, we cannot be blameless." If the Christian world would remember this, how little need of backbiting, exclusion, and all uncharitableness. We profess to have "done our best " in seeking for religious truth; why, then, not admit, that we are blameless? Why hold us up as objects of suspicion, and shut us out from Christian fellowship, as enemies of revelation, or in the beautiful language which Rev. Mr. Cole has applied to geologists, "vassals of the enemy of God and man?" These things cannot long continue, when they, who are leaders of those who do such things, lay down principles of action and judgment, which are directly opposed to them. We most heartily thank Dr. Smith for the avowal of those sentiments, and our constant prayer shall be, that he may have life and strength to propagate them amongst his brethren.

We cannot say as much, however, in reference to a principle of interpretation expressly stated in one place in these lectures; yet, everywhere violated, when applied in practice. In Dr. Smith, as in many other great men, extremes seem to meet. "Interpretation, as well of the Bible as of other ancient writings, is to be conducted by a rigorous process of examination into words and phrases, a process solely grammatical, and which must not be checked or turned out of its straight-forward