We shall content ourselves with a single illustration. It may have been clear enough to the Lecturer, that if the commonly received Bible chronology, as established by Archbishop Usher, was erroneous, it would still be no argument against the facts of Revelation; and that, in the failure of this scheme, we can still fall back upon the chronology of the Septuagint, as amply sufficient to meet the high antiquity of the monumental chronology of Egypt; but it seems to have utterly escaped his mind, that many of his audience would not perceive it perhaps as readily as himself, and might need a word of explanation even as to what the Septuagint is. Nay, he appears to us to have studiously kept this fact out of sight, notwithstanding that Mr. Gliddon, from whom he has derived so large a portion of his materials, bas gone at length into the subject, and adopted the chronology of Usher himself as far back as the Exodus, and from thence to the Deluge the chronology of the Septuagint. There was, in the first place, no necessity for any disquisition at all upon the various chronological schemes, and especially upon that of Usher, which many learned men had long since supposed to be disproved; and, in the next, there was no justice to his subject, his audience, or himself, in leaving the whole matter so much in obscurity, when a few words from his favorite Gliddon would have sufficiently elucidated it. We are extremely sorry that he has seen fit, when there was so little, and indeed no occasion, to "involve theological points;" and we think the reason he has given for it,—that he knew "others will do it,"--but an indifferent apology for the attempt.

We quote the following passages for the study of others, as we confess ourselves unable to comprehend the allusion:

"Astronomy has struggled through all opposition. Geology and Natural History, though still under the ban of the inquisition, are rapidly progressing towards perfection."-"My firm conviction is, that great injury has been done to revealed religion, by forbidding the study of God in the vastness and majesty of his works." p. 5.

It is proper, and we do it with much pleasure, that we quote a statement illustrative of the writer's position in relation to Christianity, because the general tone of the Lectures is well calculated to excite suspicion of the contrary:

"The words and works of God, if properly understood, can never be opposed to each other. They are two streams which flow from

the same pure fountain, and must at last mingle in the great sea of truth. In my Lectures, I distinctly and honestly disclaimed any wish or intention of throwing doubts over the divine_origin of either the New or Old Testaments, and went on to say,-"Take away even the Divinity of the Bible, and he is no friend to man who would wish to pull the fabric down. It is necessary for our welfare in this world, that good morals should be taught, and where, I would ask, can we find a system so pure and so conducive to our happiness as that of Christ?'" p. 5.

To this we fully and cordially assent. But in what immediately follows, we again find cause of complaint, as what appears to us both disrespectful and erroneous:

"It should be borne in mind, that we are now in the nineteenth century, which is marked by an advanced state of the sciences hitherto unknown, and that Biblical commentators have been forced to make large concessions to Astronomy, Natural History and Geology." p. 5.

The italics are his own. Now, if this imports that Biblical commentators have been forced to concede their own opinions to these sciences, it is said with no more truth of them than of any other class of men, and amounts to a simple truism that is not worth the utterance. If he means that they have been forced by modern discovery to adopt a different interpretation from their predecessors, of the import of words and passages which relate to natural phenomena,-then he says no more than that commentators have always understood and interpreted such words and passages according to their prevailing theories on those subjects. Of course, they could do no otherwise. So is it with the facts of science. Natural phenomena have been explained according to the received import of the Book of Nature. And when new discoveries have required a modification of existing theories, of what have philosophers made concessions? Of the actual import of the Book of Nature? or, rather, of their own opinions of its import?

We desire to do no injustice to the writer, but we fear that something more than these is implied in the above extract, and that he means that the statements of Scripture are actually falsified by the discoveries of science. We are led to this interpretation, not only by the language itself and by its scope, but by a passage on page 21st, where, after quoting from Pritchard a statement which he says "all naturalists admit," he continues :

"Now, it will be seen that Mr. P. has been compelled to distort the

Mosaic account to reconcile it with positive, indisputable, scientific facts. He has abandoned the whole Mosaic account of the creation of the heavens, the earth, and every thing upon it but man."

What! the word of God "compelled to be distorted." in order to "reconcile it" with his own works? "The whole Mosaic account of the creation" to be "abandoned,” as inaccurate, as false, and irreconcileable with the works of God? We had thought that "the words and works of God, if properly understood, can never be opposed to each other." So we still think, and in a proper place, we shall show who has misunderstood them in this particular.

If Scripture should in any instance, be contradicted by any really demonstrative science, we should then have reason to hesitate quoad hoc in our belief of it. If, for instance, it had explicitly asserted that the earth was square and immoveable, or that the sun moved round the earth, we should of necessity be obliged, in our present state of knowledge, to disbelieve it. Several discoveries have been made in modern times, which have obliged theologians to modify and change their opinions of what, it had been before sup posed that Scripture had taught; but never has it yet been shown, that any demonstrated truth of physical or moral science has contradicted the sacred word. Sceptics have often availed themselves of new discoveries, to point out a seeming inconsistency with Revelation, but in all cases, have the "new facts" been found to accomplish no more than to correct the erroneous deductions of man, while Revelation has remained untouched. Such has been the case in Astronomy, but more especially in Geology. The uninformed are sometimes alarmed by the promulgation of new theories of the earth, etc., but the man of faith, will always believe that the God of nature and the Bible is one, and cannot contradict himself. He may indeed fear, as he has abundant reason, that false or hasty speculations, may sometimes unsettle the minds of the unstable and weak, and may often have occasion to complain that philosophers, so called, should attempt from few data, or from the facts of an ever fluctuating science, to derive conclusions with all the show and pretence of certainty. But though he may fear, that evil effects may accrue to men from such modes of speculation, he will always feel assured, that further investigation will triumphantly sustain, as ever hitherto, the harmony of the word and works of God.

Having said more than was intended upon this outlying question, we shall omit further remark upon similar exceptionable passages, and come to a consideration of the main point discussed in these Lectures, which is thus introduced by the author:

"The question of the unity of the human race is a grave one-it has elicited a vast deal of talent and research, and is deserving of the profoundest study-most candid men have acknowledged its difficulty, and that all past time has afforded no data, by which it can be definitely settled. My object is to place before the world new facts, which may assist in forming a rational conclusion to this vexed question." p. 3.

We might here raise a question upon the modesty of the writer his qualifications will be considered hereafterin supposing that he can himself "definitely settle," what has hitherto baffled such a "vast deal of talent and research." He does not appear in his treatment of the subject, to regard it as encompassed with any kind of difficulty, although "most candid men have acknowledged it." He affects to have proved his positions by "positive, indisputable, scientific facts. He says,

"My conclusions may be disputed, but they cannot be disproved in the present state of the science of Natural History." p. 4. But we would be glad to know, if "all past time" furnishes "no data" for the solution of the question, how we are to get light from the present, upon a fact buried in the darkness of a remote antiquity, and to which we are not led by a single ray of light in all the past? And what pertinence. have mummies and hieroglyphics, the Hykshos, Herodotus and Manetho, and physical phenomena which have been known for ages, if they are not data for an argument on the question? Or are these the "new facts," which are given to the world for the settlement of "this vexed question?" We were greatly disappointed after this promise, in finding nothing as to facts, or their application, that we were not before familiar with, except in a single instance, where we are unfortunately compelled to doubt the fact.

Dr. Nott gives us "a chain of propositions," which, although he does not directly discuss them, as we shall soon have occasion to make some use of them, it will be proper to quote:

"1st. Have there not been several creations and destructions in

the animal and vegetable kingdoms, previous to the creation spoken of by Moses?

"2d. Is it not admitted by naturalists, that many of the animals now upon the earth, are entirely different from those which existed before the flood, and that if the flood was universal these animals have been created since?

"3d. Is it not admitted by naturalists, that the Ark only contained the animals which inhabited the part of the earth in which Noah dwelt, and that it is a zoological and physical impossibility, that the Ark could have contained pairs and septuples of all the animals now on the earth?

"4th. Is it not a fact, that islands newly emerged from the ocean become covered with plants, differing from all others in other parts of the globe-thus showing that the creative power of the Almighty is still exercised, whenever circumstances are ready for it?

"5th. Does not all this prove that the account given by Moses is imperfect, and that much has been omitted of the infinite works of the Creator, both before and after the creation of which he speaks? "6th. Has God any where said that he never intended to create another man, or that other races were not created in distant parts of the globe? I would ask, after all these admitted truths, is there anything so revolting in the idea that a Negro, Indian, or Malay, may have been created since the flood of Noah, or, .f the flood was not universal, before this epoch ?" pp. 6, 7.

We have no objection to assenting to the first three propositions. To the fact of the fourth we agree, but are not certain that the conclusion is necessary. To the fifth we

assent with a slight alteration. We do not like the word imperfect, because we believe, that as to all the purposes contemplated in Revelation by its divine author, it is full, complete and perfect. But we are ready to allow, that in "the account given by Moses much has been omitted," etc. which appears to cover all the ground contemplated by our author. The sixth doubtless involves a truth, but, like the fifth, only amounts to one of those negative generalities, that can never be made the basis of an argument. As to the conclusion from these propositions, whether the idea of a Negro or Malay, having been created since the flood be revolting or not, we would suggest that this is not a question of feeling but of fact.

Dr. Nott thus enunciates the proposition, which his Lectures are intended to illustrate:

"I set out then with the proposition, that there is a genus, man, comprising two or more species-that physical causes cannot change a White man into a Negro, and that to say this change has been effected by a direct act of Providence, is an assumption which cannot be proven, and is contrary to the great chain of nature's laws." p. 7.