increase of the saltness of the sea, a separation took place, the inhabitants of the shells, which are at present found in the fresh water formation, having migrated to situations more congenial to their natures.

A dispute now commenced between these naturalists, and Cuvier and Brongniart, on the points of distinction between marine and fresh water shells, and in the course of which, the reader will find, 1st. that some shells live both in fresh and salt waters, thus the Patellæ of rivers and those of the sea, differ hardly at all, in their shells. 2nd. That in many other instances, besides that mentioned by Cuvier, land and sea shells have been found mixed with each other, thus at Grignon, Lamarck found forty-eight river and land shells, among those which were decidedly marine, and all of them in the fossil state. 3d. It appears that the comparative thinness of land and river shells, as a distinctive mark between them and those of the sea,

though often a true test, is not always so. And 4th, it appears that Cuvier and Brongniart, had founded their opinion of the fresh water origin of the upper bed of gypsum, in the Paris formation, on the presence of two shells only, which they considered, of course, to be of fresh water growth; but one of which, Lamarck supposed to be a sea shell.

Now all these appearances may readily be accounted for, even admitting that there do exist fresh and salt water formations over each other, by supposing that such places were once the estuaries, or outlets of rivers, into the sea. At the mouth of every river may be found more or less fresh water shells, mixed with those of the sea. It cannot be otherwise, since the current floats these light bodies, after being separated from the animal, to considerable distances, and of course must occasionally deposit them among those thrown along the coast, by the sea. It would hence seem, that the revolutions of the earth, insisted on by Cuvier, and in consequence of which the sea is supposed several times to have changed its bed, and to have alternated on the land with fresh water, are no longer to be considered, in accounting for the changes which the earth has undergone.

It has been already shown that the facts observed at the mouth of the Rhone, will account for the mixture of marine and land shells, under the most common circumstanSeeDelta of the Rhone in the Sea."

ces.

COINCIDENCE OF GEOLOGY WITH THE MOSAIC HISTORY.

Almost from the commencement of geological investigations, designing men have attempted to show, that the physical history of the earth, and that of the creation by Moses, could not be reconciled-that the former, presented facts which were incompatible with the statements of the latter, and therefore, that revelation and reason, were here in direct opposition.

Hence it was, that in the early history of this science, the church looked with jealousy upon these investigations, and even went so far as to restrict philosophers in their pursuits, or at least in their publications, and to denounce those who pretended to make discoveries, which they could not reconcile with the Mosaic record.

At that time, it is true, that little was known on this subject, and these alarming facts have long since been shown to accord entirely with revelation. But as the earth has been more extensively explored, new and unexplained facts have been constantly unfolded; and these, in their turn, have been made to bear against revelation; and have consequently, in many instances, operated against the free inquiries of those who had determined not to lift their hands against the Holy Scriptures, though, they were made to believe, that geology presented facts, which could in no way be reconciled with the common understanding of revelation.

Judging from the effects of causes now operating on the surface of the earth, it has been supposed impossible, that the deep strata of its crust could have been formed within the period assigned by the sacred history. The whole earth, indeed, seemed to bear such marks of antiquity, as could not be reconciled with any hypothesis of its recent origin. Time was, therefore, wanted: for the cosmogonist found that it was impossible to bound his speculations within the narrow limits allowed by the sacred historian. It was consequently neccessary that he

should either come out boldly, and deny that authority, or invent some new interpretation of the text, by which the scope of his speculations should be free and unbounded.

In this dilemma, the celebrated theorist, Whiston, in about 1696, first proposed that the book of Genesis should be so interpreted, as to allow theoretical geologists full and ample scope for their cosmogony, without being suspected of heretical opinions; and thus were the Scriptures made to bow down before geology.

This, we believe, was the first innovation which was made upon the Mosaic history, for the accomodation of geologists; but certainly not the last; for at the present day it is the practice of some philosophers, and even those who profess their belief in the truth of the Scriptures, to interpret them for the express accomodation of their own understandings.

Now if a geological, or any other fact contradicts the Scriptures, they are not the words of truth, and if this is the case, let the fact be shown; for if the Scriptures contradict the truth, they cannot be of, divine origin, and, therefore, ought not to be the rule of our faith; for it is certain, that truth can never be inconsistent with itself. But before we reject or misinterpret this record, let us be certain that our facts are true ones, and that they do not coincide with the plain and obvious meaning of the sacred text.

We have the satisfaction of believing, that the systems of Inspiration and Nature have both emanated from the same Divine authority, and that when both are understood they will harmonize with each other; and it will be our object to show, in the following pages, that even taking the Scriptures in their most obvious sense, there is no want of harmony between inspiration and natural phenomena, so far at least, as relates to the Mosaic history, and the facts of geology.

Our knowledge of the primitive or ancient world, is derived entirely from two sources, viz. first, The history of the Creation by Moses, as contained in the first chapter of Genesis; and, second, The investigations of geology.

The information to be derived from Genesis is of various kinds, and of the highest importance, since it is the only source whence we gain any consistent account of the

origin of the universe and of ourselves. We shall, however, confine ourselves chiefly to such parts as relate to geology, and shall proceed with the understanding that this history is from an inspired pen;-that it is written in a manner by which its great outlines are adapted to a plain and common apprehension, and that the author, in this respect, intended his words should be received in their most obvious meaning.

CREATION OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen. i. 1.

That is, in the beginning of time, the earth was created, for, before this, there was nothing by which time could be measured, or its beginning dated. All was eternity.

"The earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." V. 2.

How long the earth continued without form, and in darkness and chaos, we have no means of knowing. Had this information been of importance to man, God would have revealed it to Moses, and he would have recorded it for our use. On this point, therefore, we have a right to conjecture, and may believe, without the least violation of the sacred text, that the materials of which the earth is composed, were created a thousand, or a million of years before they were brought into a form fit for the habitation of man.

That the earth was not from eternity is shown by the first words of the history; for eternity has no beginning, and what is created cannot always have been. Besides, we have the direct testimony of inspiration, that there was a period when the earth did not exist. "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth, and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." Ps. xc. 2. Hence, although we are bound to believe that this world had a beginning and was a part of the work of creation, still there is nothing on record which restricts us with respect to its antiquity. Theoretical geologists may, therefore, allow themselves full scope in this part of the history, with respect to time, provided they do not go beyond the "beginning." The primitive rocks, in which no organic remains exist,

we may consider, without violation of Scripture authority, as having been millions of years in forming, but, it is much more reasonable, we conceive, to suppose, that at some unknown period, they were, like the other parts of creation, brought into existence at the immediate command of the Creator; for, not being stratified, there is no reason to believe that their formation was a work of time. The secondary rocks, containing the remains of organized beings, stand in a different relation with respect to time. These show, by their stratified structure, that they were gradually deposited from a fluid, and, therefore, that time was consumed in their formation. But every one, who believes the Scriptures, is bound to believe also, that since these rocks contain organized substances, they were formed since that period, when it was said, "Let the waters, under the Heaven, be gathered into one place; and let the dry land appear," for, before that period, there is no account of the creation of either plants or animals.

Whence did the first Light emanate? And God said let there be light; and there was light. In Hebrew, light was." V. 3.

66

This is the first particular creative act, stated in the history; the first verse containing merely a general declaration that the heavens and the earth had been created; the manner in which the latter was brought from its chaotic state, into a condition fit for the residence of organic beings, and the succession in which these beings were created, forming the succeeding narrative.

Various opinions have been advanced, concerning the nature of this light, and the source whence it proceeded. Some have supposed that it was electrical, and others that it was phosphorescent, and in both cases, that it did not emanate from any particular point, but that it was diffused through the space surrounding the earth. Others again, have believed that it proceeded from a meteor, which was created for the purpose of enlightening the earth during the first three days, and before the sun was called into existence. But there exists no analogy for such a hypothesis; and it would even be derogating from the Wisdom and Power of Him, who three days afterwards, set the great lights in the firmament, to suppose that He should have made an evanescent one, for the use of the earth, while as yet it contained neither plant nor