lioyal Society of Udinhurgh. 



309 



" It is surely mere misapprehension to suppose that the reve- 

 lation with which Moses was really entrusted could traverse the 

 path of the modern geologist, or contain any thing that would 

 either confirm or contradict his readings of those buried rocks. 

 From whichever side the error comes, we are bound to shake our- 

 selves free from it, not by saying with some that Grod cared not 

 though His instruments should make mistakes on scientific subjects, 

 but by pointing out that there can be no error where there is no 

 assertion, and that a purely theological revelation contains no 

 assertion which falls within the proper sphere of science." 



I say then the two parties, the scientific inquirer and the Mo- 

 saical scholar, both earnest for truth, would have come to some 

 understanding, not surely to conceal or shut out the truth, but to 

 give each full license to inquire and experiment, and to draw all 

 legitimate inferences from facts discovered ; for after all, the dis- 

 putes between theologians and geologists relate rather to inferences 

 from facts than to the reality of the facts themselves. The theo- 

 logian infers certain truths from the words of the first chapter of 

 Genesis ; the geologist infers certain notions from what he sees in 

 an open quarry. The inferences are mutually contradictory ; but 

 as the theologian and the geologist are both capable of drawing 

 false inferences, such inferences may be contradictory, and neither 

 may be true. A new light on the meaning of the word "Day," 

 in the Mosaic language, might end the controversy ; so might some 

 evidence that the best instances of hand-formed flint implements 

 found in ancient drift were fictitious and fraudulent. 



We must suppose that a candid student of the Divine books will 

 take what help is in his power for explaining their difficulties, and, 

 be sure, he will not neglect the testimony of the rocks— the history 

 of creation written in other letters but by the same Author. So a 

 candid geologist, who reflects that the purpose of Moses was clearly 

 not to teach natural philosophy, but to inculcate and enforce the 

 worship of the true Grod, will acknowledge that the order of creation 

 given in G-enesis does agree marvellously with the inverse order of 

 the fossils actually found — plants, marine or aquatic animals, birds, 

 mammals, man. 



I say these disputants might have come to terms— explaining 

 the Scripture history of the creation by the help of a careful and 

 reverent study of the created universe. But a third i)arty has 

 lately rushed among the combatants, and now fight with two-edged 

 weapons. These are theologians too — at least they are churchmen, 

 and Hebraists, and mighty arithmeticians ; but, with a singular 

 view of their duty to their Church, they cavil at the foundations of 

 its history and doctrine, and think it necessary to tell the world so. 

 These critics insist, that no interpretation, construing of a phrase, 

 word, or numeral of the Mosaical books shall be admitted — that all 

 shall stand or fall together ; and then, having picked out some 

 words, especially some numbers, which they judge erroneous — 

 though not affecting a single point of doctrine or morals, or the 



NEW SERIES. VOL. XIX. NO. II. APRIL 1864. 2 R 



