think it endangered by the violation of such coincidence; all this is, in fact, the very same thing in principle as to make revelation the guide to philosophy. It is to imagine the letter of its language the proper evidence of physical truth. The very same mistaken principle of reasoning then is chargeable on those who construct systems of philosophy out of the Bible, and those who attempt to force its language into accordance with philosophical results. The very same misconception of the distinct nature and grounds of religious and scientific truth is evinced equally in the speculations of the Hutchinsonian school of a past age, and those of the Biblegeologists of the present day.

It may, indeed, be true with regard to the system of gravitation, and the motion of the earth, that it is not now thought necessary to enter into the discussions of Biblical criticism to find support for them, nor, on the other hand, imagined that the admission of them is dangerous to the authority of faith. Still the very same principle has been and still is adopted by a great number of writers, with regard to the facts of geology and the account of the creation as conveyed in certain passages of the Old Testament. Whether the particular point in question be the nature of gravitation and the production of light, or the motion of the earth and stability of the sun, the speculations thus raised are still only exemplifications of the very same spirit which has dictated similar questions connected with the results of geo

logy and physiology, so much agitated at the present day. And the right view of these, must alike be dependent upon the very same rational considerations which are now generally allowed to apply, in the more obvious cases respecting the system of the world.

Distinct Objects of Revelation.

EVEN in the most general point of view, and without at present entering upon any more precise distinctions, whatever may be the peculiar view entertained as to the nature of a Divine revelation, it must assuredly be allowed that its object and aim must be essentially distinct from the inculcation of physical truth. Upon almost any conception which may be adopted of those objects, we ask what possible reference can the physical expressions used by the sacred writers bear to the religious truths which it was their object to communicate?

Common sense surely suggests the rule, that what is but incidental in any case, should be fairly viewed apart from what is the main object. For example, the character of a history, as such, is in no way compromised, though the author may happen to use terms of art incorrectly. The conclusiveness of scientific research is in no way impaired by inaccuracies of style. In many of the most famous masterpieces of design, the artist has fallen into incongruities and anachronisms; yet the most acute critics are foremost to admit that this in no degree

spoils the force and beauty of the painting. One and the same reason evidently applies in all these cases: viz., that these defects occur only in what is but incidental to the design, and distinct from the main object in view.

To expect to find the truths of science declared by revelation, or to feel a difficulty when the forms of expression adopted by the sacred writers are contradicted by the facts elicited in nature, is as unreasonable as it would be to expect to find the theorems of Euclid enforced by Act of Parliament; or if in the statutes we should chance to meet with any expression not mathematically correct, either to condemn Euclid as illegal, or to think it necessary for vindicating the majesty of the laws, to resort to all the arts of special pleading for explaining away the discrepancy. Scriptural geology is as preposterous in principle as statutable geometry. By the same rule we ought to criticise poetry on the grounds of metaphysics; and establish the processes of chemistry by the precepts of rhetoric.

Yet to allow that these are absurdities, is no disparagement either to law or mathematics, to poetry or to metaphysics, to chemistry or rhetoric, considered in themselves. It is only in the attempt to combine them that the absurdity arises. Each in their proper way, and directed to their proper purposes, are excellent; it is only when we apply the one for the purposes of the other that we act absurdly, both are perverted, abused, and injured.

My object in these remarks has been rather to point out and discuss the great principle of the question than its details; to place the whole subject on what I conceive to be its right ground, rather than to follow up any minor points connected with it. And it is chiefly as conducting their argument upon those details, instead of looking to principles, that I find fault with most writers who have treated on the subject. Even if we should allow that, in some instances, the attempts to reconcile the letter of Scripture with the facts of geology, have been ingenious and plausible, and supported with considerable skill and learning, still the objection which I entertain against them would remain in full force, being directed against the radical defect of their first principle; the idea of seeking for such an accordance at all, and the utter improbability that it should have been contemplated in the delivery of the Judaical law, or in the Mosaic history.

Low Views of Revelation.

SUCH considerations, it might be hoped, would satisfy any dispassionate inquirer. But it is unfortunately obvious that a variety of causes interfere to render many professed followers of Christianity insensible to the reasonableness of these views. Adopting their creed blindly from education, custom, or party, too many hold their religion only by a most loose and uncertain tenure, and are lamen

R

tably confused in their notions of its nature.

Hence they dread a formidable shock to Christianity in every physical discovery; and in the obscurity which surrounds them, imagine danger to the truth in every exposure of error. Insensible to the real strength of their position, they live in groundless alarm for its security; and accustomed to cherish faith in ignorance, they apprehend, in every advance of knowledge, the approach of the enemy of their salvation.

Too many nominal Christians entertain only the most miserable idea of the nature of the gospel they profess to believe; their only notion too often consists in a confused general impression of a certain sacredness in Scripture, which produces little effect beyond that of making them afraid to enter its precincts, and search its recesses for themselves, and yet more fearful lest its sanctity should be invaded by others.

And their dread of openly encountering any contradictions, and their anxious desire to shelter themselves under even the most frivolous explanations, if it does not betray a lurking distrust of the proper evidences of their faith, at least evinces the lowest and most unworthy conceptions of the spirit and meaning of the Bible, and an almost total absence of due distinction between the design and application of the several portions of which it is made up. That such misconception should prevail is indeed a lamentable, but not a surprising instance of the