a demonstrative confirmation of the Mosaic history: while many an infidel has seen with equal clearness, in those same natural monuments a refutation of the sacred record. And this is one of those subjects about which men are clear and positive just in proportion to the looseness and superficialness of their knowledge. The consequence has been, that the world has been flooded with a multitude of very weak and crude productions upon cosmogony. At the beginning of the last half century, indeed, these productions, called "Theories of the Earth," had become so ridiculous that for a number of years the press was much less prolific on the subject. Since the commencement of the present century, however, the discussion has been revived with fresh interest; though it is not so much between the infidel and the Christian, as between Christian and Christian; the one defending, and the other opposing, certain theories. And there seems to be prevalent, as in former times, a strange delusion, which makes almost every intelligent man fancy himself amply qualified to write upon these points with the most dogmatic assurance. Hence a multitude of productions have been poured forth on the community, many of which exhibit such a want of maturity and such entire ignorance of some parts of the subject, that the men thoroughly versed in all its bearings have passed them by in pity or contempt. We, however, have caught the cacoethes scribendi, and must go on; though at the risque of having our efforts treated thus cavalierly, and cast into the same forgotten pile of literary rubbish.

We think it will explain the numerous failures of writers on the connection between the Bible and geology, to state, that most of them have been merely theologians, or merely philologists, or merely geologists, or at best but slightly acquainted with more than two of these branches. Being accurately acquainted with one or two of these departments of knowledge, they have overlooked the importance of a thorough acquaintance with the rest. But it is quite clear to us, that without at least a respectable acquaintance with them all, no man can successfully discuss their connection, or reconcile their apparent discrepancies. If he be not familiar with theology, how can he judge correctly of those theories of interpretation which modify essentially every institution and doctrine dependant upon the Mosaic chronology? If he be not acquainted with the rules of exegesis, now constituting a distinct and extensive science, how shall he determine whether those theories do not offer violence

to the sacred writers? And if he be ignorant of geology, how shall he know what modifications, if any, of the common interpretation of the Bible, are necessary to reconcile it with the records of nature's past operations? Nor is a mere theoretical knowledge of these subjects sufficient. Especially is this the case in geology; in which the fullest and most accurate descriptions convey but faint and inadequate ideas to the mind, in comparison with a personal examination of the rocks in the places where nature has piled them up.

We may inquire too, how readers are to judge of discussions on these subjects, if they have not at least a respectable acquaintance with the three departments of knowledge above named? Now in regard to theology and sacred philology, we may reasonably calculate, from the provisions that are made in our seminaries of learning for teaching them, that all publicly educated men at least, will be conversant with their elements. Nor is any such man respectable in society without this knowledge. But far different is the case in respect to geology. What provision is there in our literary institutions for teaching any thing more than its merest elements by a few lectures? and who feels any mortification in confessing his ignorance of the subject? Were not the community in general profoundly unacquainted with its details, so many statements, contradictory to its first principles, could not pass so quietly as they now do the round of our newspapers and periodicals. Some of our geologists, we happen to know, have been discouraged by the evidence they have seen of so much ignorance on the subject, from attempting to explain or defend the principles of their science when attacked; being quite sure that their statements would neither be understood nor appreciated. In the most enlightened parts of Europe the case is quite different. "In England every enlightened man knows something of geology: it is very much the case in France; and is becoming more and more so in Germany."* We rejoice, however, in the belief that the state of things in this country on this subject is rapidly improving.

Notwithstanding these discouraging circumstances we propose to examine carefully the connection between geology and the Mosaic cosmogony. The two records have been, and still are, supposed to be at variance and to ascertain whether this opinion be correct, will be the great object of inquiry. If they

:

* American Quarterly Review, June, 1830, p. 363.

both proceed from the same infinitely perfect Being, there cannot be any real discrepancy between them. So that if we discover any apparent disagreement, we either do not rightly understand geology, or give a wrong interpretation to the Scriptures, or the Bible is not true. We hope to show to the satisfaction of every reasonable and candid mind, that we are by no means compelled to adopt the last of these conclusions. Nevertheless, we forewarn our readers that if any of them expect that we shall remove all difficulties from the first chapter of Genesis, they will be disappointed. Independent of geology, there are obscurities in that portion of Scripture, which no interpreter has ever been able entirely to remove; nor in the present state of geological science, are we warranted in presuming that no future discoveries will throw any light upon the Mosaic cosmogony. All that can be reasonably expected of a writer on this subject, and all that we shall attempt, is, to show, that there are modes of reconciling the Mosaic and the geological records so reasonable, that to disbelieve the former on account of apparent discrepancies, would be altogether unjustifiable and even absurd. We have our preferences as to the best mode of reconciling the two histories; nor shall we conceal our partiality but we shall not undertake to defend any particular mode as infallibly true; because we do not believe that such positiveness is necessary for the defence of the sacred record, or justified by the present state of our knowledge.

We venture to make another suggestion to our readers. Let no one, however intelligent, imagine that the mere perusal of the best written essay can make him master of this subject. It is only by long and patient thought, as well as extensive reading, that he will be able correctly to appreciate all its bearings, and to plant himself on ground that will not be continually sliding from beneath his feet.

It is very common for writers on this subject to confine their attention to the single point where there is a supposed disagreement between geology and revelation: whereas, in order to form a correct judgment concerning such disagreement, we ought to look at all the points where the two subjects are connected. For if we find discrepancy to be generally manifest, and agreement to be only an exception, the presumption is strong, that a particular marked discrepancy is real and irreconcileable. But if harmony constitutes the rule, and disagreement the exception, the presumption is, that any special case of

the want of coincidence results from ignorance or misunderstanding.

Now we think that we can point out a number of coincidences between geology and revelation, some of which are unexpected and remarkable. And it will constitute the first part of our effort to exhibit these coincidences in detail.

1. In the first place, geology and revelation agree in teaching us that the material universe had a beginning, and was created out of nothing by a Divine Power.

In treating of the connection between geology and natural theology, we have shown how the successive groups of animals and plants that have been placed on the globe have been more and more perfect and complicated, so that in tracing them backwards, we must at length arrive at the beginning of the series. A similar retrospective survey of the changes which have taken place in the matter composing the globe, brings us at length to a point, anterior to which no change can be discovered. And we maintain that it is philosophical to infer that the creation of matter took place at the commencement of such a series of changes and of animal and vegetable existences. At least, it is unphilosophical, without proof, to infer the existence of matter through the eternity that preceded these changes: and no proof can be presented, unless it be derived from the nature of matter; an argument too tenuous to have influence with substantial minds. But the creative power which was put forth at the commencement of these changes in the formation of animals and plants, is a presumption in favor of its having been previously exerted in the no more difficult work of bringing matter into being.

We are aware that not a few distinguished critics and theologians do not regard Moses as describing in the first chapter of Genesis a creation of matter out of nothing, because the words employed are ambiguous in their signification. This point we shall examine carefully further on. But we cannot doubt, after an examination of all the passages in the Bible where the creation is spoken of, that the sacred writers most clearly intended to teach the creation of the universe out of nothing (creatio prima, vel immediata, in the language of the theologians) and not out of pre-existing materials: (creatio secunda, vel mediata).

When we consider how strong a tendency has ever been exhibited by learned men to a belief in the eternity of matter, and how some philosophers and even divines at this day maintain

that belief, we cannot but regard the testimony of geology on this point as of great importance. And if we mistake not, it will be in vain to search the records of any other science for proof equally conclusive.

2. In the second place, revelation and geology agree as to the nature and operation of the agents that have been employed in effecting the changes which have taken place in the matter of the globe since its original creation.

These agents are fire and water. And at almost every step the geologist meets with evidence of their combined or successive operation within and upon our globe. The deposition of the stratified rocks he cannot explain without the presence of water; especially when he finds them filled with the relics of marine animals. But their subsequent elevation and dislocation, as well as the production of the unstratified rocks, demanded the agency of powerful heat.

To the cursory reader water appears to have been the principal agent employed in the revealed cosmogony; and in subsequent times the same agent was employed for the destruction of the world. But a careful examination of the Scriptures renders it at least probable, that fire was concerned in some of the demiurgic processes. There can be no doubt but under the term is, (lux) Moses includes both light and heat, or fire; since he does not describe the latter as a separate creation, and since it is now understood that they always are united, and are in fact probably only different modifications of the same principle. Now although Moses does not distinctly exhibit heat as an agent in modifying the face of the globe, yet there is a passage in the 104th Psalm which quite obviously points us to such an agency. Thou coveredst it (the earth) with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. Here we have a description of that change in the earth's surface which in Genesis is thus described: And God said let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. Moses does not

describe the agent employed in this change; but refers it to the immediate power or command of God. But if there be any fact clearly established in geology, it is, that all dry land on the earth has been elevated above the waters by a volcanic agency:

* Knapp's Theology, Vol. I. p. 341.