in this yet infant science, that the following points, embracing all the elements of the problem, have been satisfactorily solved:-first, that accidental, or, as they are called, sporadic varieties, may arise in one race, tending to produce in it the characteristics of another;-secondly, that these varieties may be perpetuated;-thirdly, that climate, food, civilization, etc., may strongly influence the production of such varieties, or at least render them fixed, characteristic and perpetual. I say that these points, if proved, embrace all the elements of the proposed problem, which is, 'could such varieties as we now see in the human race, have sprung up from one stock? For, if this is demonstrated, we have removed the grounds whereon the adversaries of Revelation deny the unity of origin which it teaches. And, moreover, every sound philosopher will, if unobjectionable, prefer the simpler to the more complex hypothesis." p. 116.

Lectures V. and VI. are "on the Natural Sciences," in which, however, he confines himself almost entirely to Geology. He opens the subject with the following pertinent remarks:

"In all pursuits,' says the amiable philosopher Fronto, 'I think it better to be wholly ignorant and unskilled, than half-learned and halfexpert. Philosophy, too, they say, it is better never to have touched, than to have but partially tasted; inasmuch as those become most malicious, who, pausing in the porch of science, turn away without proceeding farther.' Nothing has proved the accuracy of these observations so well, as the connexion between the natural sciences and revealed religion. It has been the malice of superficial men, who had not patience or courage to penetrate into the sanctuary of nature, that has suggested objections from her laws, against truths revealed. Had they boldly advanced, they would have discovered, as in the cavern temples of India and Idumea, that the depths which serve to conceal her darkest mysteries, may the soonest be changed into fittest places for profound adoration." p. 157.

In these, as in the preceding Lectures, Dr. W. gives a history of the science, and a succinct account of the various systems which have been framed to harmonize and account for geological phenomena. To one not familiar with the history of this science, it would be a matter of no little surprise to learn the innumerable hasty and vacillating theories that have been devised from isolated, obscure and insufficient data, and the positiveness with which they have been brought by sciolists and sceptics to bear against revelation.

"From the time of Buffon," says our author, "system rose beside system, like the moving pillars of the desert, advancing in threatening array; but like them they were fabrics of sand; and though, in 1806, the French Institute counted more than eighty such theories hostile to Scripture history, not one of them has stood till now, or deserves to be recorded." p. 172.

And such, it would seem probable, must be the fate of most, if not all, the theories now held by Geologists, if we judge from their collision and their ever-varying phases. We speak, however, of the minor details,-of the superstructure, of a complete scheme of the science, rather than of its foundations, which we believe to be as firmly laid as the solid rocks from which they are derived, and will never be removed. As a science, it is yet recent, and much remains to be gathered from the depths of earth,-many hidden mysteries yet to be opened by patient toil and research,-before it shall stand up complete in fair proportions, to claim the ready homage of men. Yet its foundations alone are aweinspiring by their wondrous grandeur, and are covered all over with the history of ages far beyond the birth of man, written by the finger of the Almighty, and challenging the faith of all who read.

It is quite impossible to give any thing like a full synopsis of these two Lectures, as the details, to be complete and intelligible, would trench too far upon the limits we have assigned ourselves. We shall state, although it is of little moment, that on some of the minor points, we have adopted a different theory from that of the author. The general principles we deem to be sound and well-substantiated.

Dr. Wiseman shows the defects of some former systems, and then presents and illustrates the prevalent theory for harmonizing and classifying the various geological phenomena which appear within and upon the earth. The "points of contact" between Geology and Scripture are the Creation and Deluge. Objections have been made to the Mosaic account of the Creation, that Geology proves the earth to be much older than the date of events therein described. This difficulty is easily removed, by the received theory of a pre-existent chaotic state of indefinite duration, during which successive changes were gradually wrought down to the time described by Moses in the account of the six days work of creation. In the sacred narrative we are informed, first, of the creation of matter and its chaotic state;*

We use the word chaotic here because so commonly applied in this connexion, although it by no means expresses the import of the words translated without form and void. Rosenmuller says,-"If we follow the usage of the language, the Hebrew phrase has this sense, the earth was waste and desert, or, as some prefer, empty and void, i. e., uncultivated, not furnished with those things with which it was afterwards adorned by the Creator." Ant. Tell. Hist. p. 23.

secondly, of that organization of it which still obtains, and by which it was adapted to the habitation of intelligent beings. Between these two acts of Almighty power, there is nothing in the inspired record to forbid the intervention of a period of indefinite length, during which all those revolutions may have occurred which are so plainly taught by Geology.

"Nay," says our author, "it would seem as though that indefinite period had been purposely mentioned, to leave scope for the meditation and the imagination of man. The words of the text do not merely express a momentary pause between the first fiat of creation and the production of light; for the participial form of the verb, whereby the Spirit of God, the creative energy, is represented as brooding over the abyss and communicating to it the productive virtue, naturally expresses a continuous, not a passing action." p. 177.

To this we shall append the decision of Professor Sedgwick and Dr. Maculloch, who rank among the ablest Geologists of Great Britain. The former says:

"We must consider the old strata of the earth as monuments of a date long anterior to the existence of man, and to the times contemplated in the moral records of creation. In this view, there is no collision between physical and moral truth." *

Dr. Maculloch says:

"All that Geology requires for the utmost scope of its great investigations, is comprised in the time which is included in the first and second verses of the history. This is the undefined period with which it is alone concerned; and if the time be truly here indefinite, the difficulty is solved. The historian has left the interval between the creation of the universe, and that of light, indefinite, as he is silent on what may have occurred; and here science is free to pursue the investigation by its own rules."†

Dr. W. gives a sketch of those phenomena which are supposed to testify to the fact of a powerful current of water having once swept over a part or the whole of the earth,— such as deposites of gravel, denuded vallies, erratic blocks or boulders, animal remains, etc.,-and concludes that they point with greatest probability, though not demonstratively, to the Noachian deluge. We cannot conceive of any very probable method likely to be discovered, for positively determining the date of a past deluge or deluges from geological

Sedgwick's Discourse on the Studies of the University, p. 154. + System of Geology, i., 63.

data, and consequently we cannot anticipate the actual iden. tification of one of them with that described by Moses. But although the precise epoch of the former cannot be ascertained, and yet Geology furnishes evidence of such a cataclysm, it is not unphilosophical to infer their identity, unless their phenomena can be proved to be inconsistent. This inconsistency has never been demonstrated, and probably never will be. Geology, therefore, cannot be said to contradict Scripture in this particular, but may be regarded, on the contrary, as affording evidence in its favor.

Dr. W. quotes the following statements from distinguished Naturalists, in support of the comparatively recent origin of the present state of the earth:

""This observation,' says Saussure, speaking of the devolution of rocks from the glaciers of Chamouny, 'which accords with many others I shall make later, gives us reason to think, with M. Deluc, that the actual state of our globe is not as ancient as some philosophers have imagined it.' "

"Dolomieu writes as follows,-'I will defend another truth, which appears to me incontestible, on which the works of M. Deluc have enlightened me, and of which I think I see proofs in every page of the history of man, and wherever natural facts are recorded. I will say, then, with M. Deluc, that the actual state of our continent is not very ancient.'" "

"Cuvier has not only assented to these conclusions, but has laid them down in far more positive terms. It is, in fact,' he says, 'one of the most certain, though least expected, results of sound geological pursuits, that the last revolution which disturbed the surface of the globe, is not very ancient.' And in another place, he adds,-'I think, therefore, with MM. Deluc and Dolomieu, that if there be any thing demonstrated in Geology, it is, that the surface of our globe has been the victim of a great and sudden revolution, of which the date cannot go back much further than five or six thousand years.' And allow me to observe, that Cuvier intimates with sufficient clearness, that in his researches he has not allowed himself to be swayed by any wish to vindicate the Mosaic history." p. 216.

To these testimonies we will only add that of a later and equally able writer. D'Halloy says:

"The revolutions which have given to the mountains their actual forms, and to the rivers the beds they now occupy, cannot be very remote; so that the distance of 4000 years from the present time, assigned in Genesis as the epoch of the Deluge, agrees very well with natural chronometers." "" *

The subject of Lectures VII. and VIII. is "Early History."

In the seventh, the author examines and refutes the historical records of those eastern nations which run back for millions of years, and which were at first so eagerly caught up by unbelievers for the purpose of impugning the veracity of the Scriptures. The Doctor says, in conclusion:

"In glancing back over the chronology of the different nations of which I have treated, you cannot help being struck with the circumstance, that every attempt has failed to establish for any of them a system of chronology derogatory to the authority of the Mosaic records. In most of them, even when we have granted a real existence to the most doubtful portions of their history, we are not led back to an epoch anterior to what Scripture assigns for the existence of powerful empires in eastern Africa, and enterprising States on the western coast of Asia." p. 249.

Balbi, who spent a life in ethnographical studies, has recorded a similar conclusion:

"The books of Moses, no monument, either historical or astronomical, has yet been able to prove false; but with them, on the contrary, agree in the most remarkable manner, the results obtained by the most learned philologers, and the profoundest geometricians."

Lecture eighth is taken up with an interesting account of the historical monuments of Egypt, and the astronomical monuments at Dendera and Esneh. Under the first head he gives a history of the progress and results of those discoveries by which the mysteries of Egyptian hieroglyphics. after being sealed for so many ages, have at length been opened to an admiring world. These studies, like many others in their early stages, were for a time regarded with timid eye by some who feared they might tend to the injury of Divine revelation. But, as observed by Rosselini, “they do little justice to the truth by being so timid on account of it. This truth is founded on eternal bases, neither can the envy of man disprove it, nor ages deface it." So far from having supplied material for impeaching sacred history, they have in many instances furnished the most interesting confirmation of it, as will be seen in the portion of a letter which we now give from Champollion, the original of which is presented by Dr. Wiseman:

"I have shown that no Egyptian monument is really anterior to the year 2200 before our era. This is certainly a very high antiquity, but it offers nothing contrary to the sacred records; and I venture to say that it confirms them in all points. It is, in fact, by adopting the chronology and the succession of kings given by Egyptian monu