99 
oi the Gulf of Bothnia, within a century, towns have undergone a spontaneous 
removal front the shore, and are now some thousand paces distant from the 
original site of their port. And similar things have happened to other places 
on the same coast. And this may serve to prove that all these circumstances 
were not occasioned by the universal deluge, but that for a long time after- 
wards, the northern countries especially lay under a deep ocean, and that as 
the sea gradually subsided towards the north, they emerged and formed a 
habitable land. Should this view be established by the future discoveries 
of scientific men, it will furnish a reason for thinking, although not for 
positively asserting, (1), that even the horizontal pressure is liable to change, 
which follows if, according to the allowed opinion, the seas be depressed 
towards the north, and elevated towards the equator ; (2) and, consequently, 
that the distances of the latitudes vary between the poles ; (3), that certain 
countries in the far north, agreeably to the notion of modem, as well as to 
the accounts of ancient authors, may once have been islands, which, in 
process of time, as the sea subsided, united into a continent or contiguous 
land. Besides these, there are many other things which I shall not venture 
to publish until I am strengthened by still more numerous proofs, and 
enabled to proceed on a firmer foundation.” 
_ Mr ; P - V - Smith— As a member of the same University as Professor 
Challis, I would venture to say one or two words in his defence in reference 
to two charges which have been made against him. First, as to his mixing 
up miraculous and physical causes. I think the mixture he has suggested 
is no greater than the mixture necessarily involved by the other hypothesis : 
I mean, that of the alteration of the earth’s axis. Those who adopt that 
hypothesis must assume that there was some extraordinary physical cause which 
pioduced the change in the position of the earth’s axis. In what respect then is 
theie less ol a mixture of the miraculous and the physical in this hypothesis, 
than in Professor Challis’ idea that an abnormal increase of the earth's 
internal heat was the immediate cause of the Deluge ? He would of course 
attribute that increase to some extraordinary or miraculous occurrence. His 
mode ol argument and his language appear to me to be fully borne out by 
the descriptions we have of miracles in the Scriptures. Take that of the 
ciossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites. We all recognize that to have been 
a miracle ; and yet the Scriptures say, that a strong east wind divided the 
wateis. I do not pretend to say which theory of the Deluge is to be 
accepted— whether that held by Professor Challis, or that of a change in the 
earth s axis. I would only say that the attack which has been made on 
Prolessor Challis on the ground of his importing a physical cause, appears to 
me to be unfounded. I would also suggest a defence of Professor Challis in 
reference to the other charge which might be brought against him — that of 
not understanding the Scriptural narrative in the way in which we under- 
stand it as regards the animals being saved by means of the ark alone, and 
all the rest being destroyed. It appears to me that we find a justification 
ol Professoi Challis view in the same part of Scripture as that to which I 
