430 Bibliographical Notices. 



too often intolerant oj^ponents, with the weapon of rational and tem- 

 l)erate argument. 



It is on these grounds that geologists may feel grateful to the au- 

 thors of the two treatises which are under our notice. We trust they 

 will have the effect of rescuing geology from the calumnies which 

 have been cast upon it, and of allaying in the mind of the sincere be- 

 liever any misgivings on the subject which may have arisen from the 

 intemperate language used by some of the opponents of the science. 



Dr. Pye Smith's little volume is written in a strain at once pious 

 and philosophical. He has bestowed much diligence in consulting au- 

 thorities, and in applying the resources of criticism to the elucidation 

 of Scripture ; and to these requisites he has superadded an element 

 which is often wanting in the writings of those who have attempted 

 this subject, — a complete practical knowledge of the details of geo- 

 logical science. Devoted to the truths of Revelation no less than to 

 those of Science, and regarding them both as proceeding from the 

 same Divine Soui'ce, he will allow of no compromise, distortion, or 

 subterfuge, with respect to either. 



The points at issue in this controversy may be thus stated. After 

 a most extensive induction of facts collected in all parts of the globe 

 by a numerous body of laborious and diligent observers, the more 

 philosojihical geologists have deduced from them a mass of new and 

 most extraordinary results, all tending to prove the 2)ower and pro- 

 vidential care of the Deity from the Creation to the present day, and 

 thus widely extending the field of Natural Theology. Among the 

 generalizations thus arrived at, there are two or three points on 

 which nearly all geologists are agreed, but which are inconsistent 

 with the generally received interpretation of certain passages in the 

 book of Genesis. Now it is imjjortant to observe two things : first, 

 that these apparent discrepancies relate to points wholly unconnected 

 with the essential objects of Scripture, namely, the moral history 

 and duties of Man ; and secondh% that they refer to events long an- 

 terior to the commencement of written history. Subsequent to that 

 period there is not one single circumstance recorded in Holy Writ which 

 can in any way be brought into connexion either favourably or other- 

 wise with the discoveries of modern geology. If then the passages 

 in question relate to points foreign to the objects of the author of 

 Genesis, and were compiled from local traditions or very ancient 

 writings, even though secured by direct inspiration from the possi- 

 bility of actual error, yet it is plain that there is a greater liability 

 to obscurity of language and consequent erroneous interpretation in 

 this portion of Scripture than in those later narrations which were 

 recorded by ej^e- witnesses and contemporaries. And it is further evi- 

 dent that a very large allowance must be made for the necessity of 

 adapting the language of Genesis to the people to whom it was ad- 

 dressed. Moses wrote indeed prospectively for all mankind, but im- 

 mediately for the Jews, a nation just released from slavery, and in a 

 state of mental advancement little suj^erior to that of children. The 

 utmost condescension of language was therefore necessar)'' before the 

 sublime truths of religion could be brought home to the comprehcu- 



