338 
REVIEWS OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. 
The explanation of this vast alteration in climate, from the ardent sun of a 
tropical climate to the deadly cold of the polar regions, is, however, puzzling in 
the extreme. 
Having thus briefly explained a few of the more important laws propounded 
by Geology, and discussed other points suggested by a perusal of Professor Phil¬ 
lips’s book, we shall proceed to comment upon the state of geological inquiry, 
and upon our individual opinions thereon. 
Some persons will probably blame us for the opinions promulgated in the pre¬ 
sent article, and for the supposed blasphemy of questioning the accuracy of any 
part of the Scriptures. Were we, in reply, to advance that our views are in 
many respects similar to those fearlessly taught by Reverend Professors , we 
should err equally with our opponents in an overweening attachment to authority. 
We, however, make no plea of the kind: our only appeal is to reason —the 
noblest gift of God to Man. But reason, we are told, is impious when applied to 
the Scriptures; and equally impious is it to test the latter by an impartial 
observation of Nature—impious in the former case because the authors of the 
Bible were inspired, in the latter since our observation of Nature may freqently 
fail in accuracy, both as mere observation, and in its application.— Of the inspi¬ 
ration of the mosaic writings, we reply, we see no adequate proof, but rather the 
contrary, and therefore we are but discussing the writings of one whom we 
believe to have written as little directly inspired as any author of the present day. 
The account given by Moses of the creation, e.g., appears to us nothing more than 
a tradition : in no other way can we explain its numerous errors. The writers of 
the New Testament undoubtedly were inspired: that invaluable book every 
where abounds with indisputable testimony of the inspiration of reason. When 
it shall be proved that the authors of the Bible were directly inspired, then it 
will be time to accuse those of blasphemy who venture so far to outstrip the 
majority of Mankind as to venture to apply the test of reason and common 
sense to this as well as to other works. Thus, were we informed by one of 
the so-called “ inspired writers” (Joshua, chap, x., v. 12) that, instead of the 
earth’s moving round the sun so as to produce the alternate states of light and 
darkness, the contrary took place, should we believe him ? Certainly not, any 
more than a really philosophic geologist would credit the mosaic account of the 
creation. When so much doubt hangs over the question of inspiration, it cer¬ 
tainly appears the safest plan to submit every thing to the scrutiny of reason; and 
if the opponents of Science should eventually be convinced that they have been 
reverencing, as divine, works simply human, their position would be any thing 
but enviable. 
The second question, respecting the impiousness of preferring observation of 
Nature to implicit reliance on the Bible, yet remains to be considered. Some 
persons seem to believe that the Bible is the only work of God, and that there 
