REVIEWS OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. 
495 
the .former are at variance with each other, and that neither, taken separately, is 
in accordance with reason, but merely in obedience to blind impulses, were no 
difficult matter; but space, and a sincere desire to do our author some kind of 
justice, as well as the objects of our Journal, forbid it. 
Our author divides his book into the following sections 1. the evidence of 
physical truth; 2. the nature of physical truth ; 3. the relation of physical truth 
to Natural Theology; 4. the relation of Physical Science and of Natural Theology 
to Revelation. The subject is so extensive, that we shall select one section for 
consideration, and briefly glance at some of its principal contents. It shall be 
the fourth, as there, we find, we have made the greatest number of marks on 
perusal. 
Natural Theology, says Prof. Powell, is decried at one time as weak; at 
another, as dangerous ; despised by those ignorant of its nature, and 44 dreaded by 
those who tremble at the dawn of truth and free inquiry, for their dogmas, 
whether of atheism, fanaticism, or orthodoxy.” (p. 218.) The history of past 
ages supplies us with familiar examples of this position. And although the 
particular points which now agitate the wmrld are different from what they then 
were, the grand question still is, 44 whether we are to adhere to the letter of 
Scriptural representation in opposition to the testimony of inductive research, or 
whether it is safe,^rational, or consistent with an enlightened and well-grounded 
faith, to stake the reception or rejection of Christianity on the credit of these 
particular expressions.” (p. 236.) Mr. Powell believes Scripture to be inspired, 
but that, seeing the contradictory nature of many of its own statements, and of 
these compared with the results of modern science, it is absolutely necessary to 
test the whole of the Bible by reason and experience. Alluding to the Mosaic 
account of the creation, he says :— 
“ From the time of Moses downwards, no one has ever imagined the secret meaning of the 
description to the present day, and, when disclosed, it affords no instruction, since it cannot be so 
much as understood till the facts have been learnt from geological study, and when they have 
been, it is superfluous.'”—p. 249. 
For a nearly similar opinion of our own see our present volume, p. 444.—The 
claims of the Bible on our attention, justly observes our author, must rest on 
natural-theological testimony; he adds, that those who would construct systems 
of philosophy from the Bible, and 44 the Bible-geologists of the present day, who 
attempt to force its language into accordance with philosophical results,” pursue 
this 44 mistaken principle of reasoning,” and 44 make revelation the guide to philo¬ 
sophy.” (p. 238.) These gentlemen build their houses upon the sand, and fail to 
anticipate the consequences. 44 Scriptural Geology is as preposterous in principle 
as statutable Geometry. By the same rule we ought to criticise Poetry on the 
3 t 2 
