18 
been at the same time moving in a north-westerly direction. One or r the pother 
must have been moving in a south-easterly direction, since you cannot ^hy any 
art, make all three eome within a single hemisphere ; and Aeyc^oM^ 
fore on this view, have all been moving to the north-west. In one or other 
"e then I do not in the least care which of the three, so far from these 
astronomical changes involving a change of climate winch ^<>uld account 
the geological phenomena, they involve a change quite the other way^ 
theory does not then, even at its best, account for the facts of the case. 
Now to apply another and very different test. Hitherto I have been dealm 
with this subject on purely theoretical grounds ; now “ to by 
test of positive historical fact. I propose to test the worth of the theory oy 
what we know of the ancient climate of Palestine the land of which we Caveat 
once the earliest and the most authentic historical account We taiow fro 
Scripture to a certain extent what the climate of Palestine was 3,400 yea 
ago P Now, if Mr. Hopkins’s theory is correct, if the land of Palestme has 
been moving at the regular rate of twenty seconds North Latitude, and y 
seconds Weft Longitude every year, then it follows that 3^400 years ago 
Palestine was not where it now is, but where Madras now is , a . , 
very heart of the tropics. If you look carefully to the evidence of the Pen- 
tateuch, you can prove to a certainty that there has been no alteration ^n 
elevation or general geographical situation in Palestine during the tet 3,400 
years • you can prove that the sea-coast lay m the same place, that t 
mountains were of the same height, since the views seen from their summits 
then are the same as those to be seen now ; that the whole state of things in 
fact exactly corresponded with what we now see ; and we thus are not at 
K t Lme any change of this kind to 
I ask then, does Biblical evidence show US5 that m the days 
ti"e was in the tropics 1 Was the climate, then, such as it must have been 
if Mr. Hopkins’s theory is true ? Let us look at the subject .care u y. 
the first place, we notice that the vegetation now observable in Palestine 
is identical with the vegetation mentioned in the Pentateuch. You ave oa , 
the terebinth, &c„ as the characteristic trees then just as 
tioned but seldom, and as found only m certain places, as in th • y 
Jordan, just as at present. In the same way, also, with regar 0 e zoo ogy 
of Palestine, we know perfectly well— for it is one of the t mgs we a vance 
as proof that the Bible is authentic, that the plants and animals, the zoo o y 
and botany of the country at the present day are exactly those which the 
Bible describes. Is this credible, if a change of climate has taken place 
during the interval from the tropical climate of Madrasi But now, 
bring this home to particular instances. It might_ be said, Ah but 
these plants will grow also quite as well in the tropics This is not the 
case ; some of them will not grow in the tropics ; and ^ have instances 
such mentioned by Moses as growing m his days in Palestme. F 
Hu, I Will mention the olive. Humboldt says that the olive wd 
not grow in the tropics. I suppose few men have studied ^re deeply the 
subject of the distribution of plants than Alexander Von Humboldt , we may 
