ing of a term. Many specimens of this could be pointed out, especially in his Treatise on the Will.

But despite his occasional errors he is one of the very best reasoners the world has produced, and the son of New-England who does not often peruse his Treatise on the Will, Original Sin, Nature of Virtue and God's chief end in Creation, is false to his trust.

Butler was remarkably free from self-confidence and dogmatism. In this he presents a strong contrast to many philosophers, falsely so called. The ignorance of man was one of his favorite themes. With all his strength he knew the weakness of the human mind, and was careful to keep its inquiries within legitimate bounds. His modesty and reverence for superiors and distrust of himself is finely exhibited in his correspondence with Dr. Samuel Clarke.

He was remarkable for comprehensiveness of mind. This term is employed in delineating the character of almost every eminent man. There is a glorious indistinctness about the terms comprehensiveness and depth which renders them admirable substitutes for thought. But these terms have a legitimate meaning. There is such a quality as comprehensiveness of mind. Butler affords one of the best examples of it. We never find him following a chain of reasoning attentive only to the connexion of the links. He always views the truth under examination in connexion with truths already known, and we never for a moment find him pursuing as true, a proposition that clashes with any truth previously acquired. He embraces the whole circle of related truth at a single view.

We have thus glanced at a few of the characteristics of bishop Butler. We have received our reward in the pleasure attending their contemplation. We shall rejoice should any be led to a higher reverence for, and a more diligent study of his works.

[Many of our readers will be pleased with the remarks which are made on Coleridge by the writer of the preceding piece. We trust such readers will not find fault if we occasionally admit articles which may contain remarks indicative of a higher estimation of Coleridge and his works than the author of the above article seems to entertain. EDITOR.]

ARTICLE IV.

THE HISTORICAL AND GEOLOGICAL DELUGES COMPARED.

By Edward Hitchcock, Prof. of Chem. and Nat. Hist. Amherst College.

In the number of the Repository for January, 1837, we came to the conclusion that the opinions of standard geological writers of the present day on the subject of deluges, are reducible to three classes.

Those of the first class, deny that any traces of a general deluge remain on the globe.

The second admit that a general deluge has happened, but place the date of its occurrence previous to the existence of man. The third maintain that there are distinct marks of a general deluge which may have been identical with that of Noah.

In proceeding now to make a direct comparison between these opinions and the facts both of geology and revelation, we may group the first two classes together; since they agree in maintaining that no traces exist in nature of the Noachian deluge. Let us now see whether such an opinion brings its advocates into collision with revelation.

In the first place, we maintain that it is unreasonable to expect any traces of the Mosaic deluge in the secondary or tertiary rocks.

Were we addressing geologists alone, an attempt to prove this position would be superfluous; since they all assent to its truth. But we have seen that many very respectable writers still appeal to marine petrifactions in the solid rocks, that is, in the secondary and tertiary formations, as proof of the occurrence of Noah's deluge. Indeed, this is the prevailing opinion among the religious reading part of the community. This is quite an advance upon the dogma of physico-theology which broke up and even dissolved the entire crust of the globe by the last deluge; yet in fact the two opinions are almost equally opposed to the principles of geology; still it is not an easy matter to make their absurdity manifest to such as have not a familiar acquaintance with the science. We will, however, present the argument in as popular a form as possible.

It may be necessary here to premise, that in the secondary and tertiary rocks, we include all the stratified rocks containing

organic remains, except those in the loose sand and gravel scattered over the earth's surface, and called diluvium, and those in the deposits that are daily taking place, and which are called alluvium. In other words, we include nearly all the solid rocks in which there are petrifactions. And in these we maintain, contrary to the prevalent opinion, that it is unreasonable to expect to find any marks of the Mosaic deluge.

In the first place, the action of such a deluge must have been for the most part violent and tumultuous, tearing up the surface in some places, and sweeping the detritus into others; whereas a large proportion of the fossiliferous rocks appear to have been deposited in quiet waters.

Moses represents the deluge to have been produced by a rain of forty days and the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep. Those rains, that often in the present state of the globe produce wide-spread havoc, rarely continue more than a week; yet they enable us to form some idea of a storm continued more than five times as long; and the impression left on the mind by this comparison is one of violence and desolation. The breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, has always been understood to mean the pouring forth of water from subterranean reservoirs beneath the ocean; though it may mean simply that the sea rose over the land. * But in either exegesis, the action of the rain must have been rendered more rather than less tumultuous by the inundation of the ocean. And when the waters began to subside, Moses represents a wind as passing over the earth to urge them from the land. So that both in their rise and fall they must have passed over the surface in currents, more or less powerful according to local circumstances. How, in view of such facts, writers as distinguished as Linnaeus and Dr. Macculloch, can assert that "there is nothing in this history (of the deluge in Scripture) from which we can infer a state of turbulence or violence in the water, we are unable to

see.

Nor are we able to reconcile with such an opinion the fact that the ark was almost hermetically sealed, having in it

* Prof. Stuart, by a faculty for which he is so justly distinguished of giving the meaning of the Scriptures definitely and accurately, has very happily expressed the literal meaning under consideration. Says he, "the fountains of the in, the great deep, the ocean, were opened (), as well as the 'windows of heaven;' i. e. the ocean overflowed, while the rain descended in vast quantities." Hebrew Chrestomathy, p. 150,

but a single window; so shut up, indeed, that until its covering was removed, Noah could not distinctly see, from his lofty station, whether the earth was dry or not. Was it not thus closed because it was exposed to the violence of tumultuous waters ?

Admitting now this turbulence, how could so large a proportion of the fossiliferous rocks have been formed of the finest materials, and have contained so many organic remains with their most delicate parts uninjured? These deposits, if made by such a deluge, ought rather to be composed of those coarse fragments which are now swept along by floods, with broken fragments of animals and plants intermingled.

In the second place, the materials and entombed organic relics of rocks, formed by such a deluge, ought to be found confusedly mingled together; whereas the several groups of the fossiliferous rocks are actually arranged with great regularity. They are as regularly arranged, indeed, as the leaves of a book. Each successive group contains organic remains almost as distinct from one another as the contents of successive pages in a book. In a book, the paper and the form of the type remain essentially the same; but are differently grouped, so as to make out very different senses on different pages. So in the rocks; while their general characters, mineralogical as well as palaeontological, remain similar in different strata, they are so modified in the successive layers as to reveal a very different history of the various periods in which they were formed. Had they been produced by the deluge of Noah, their mineral and organic contents must have been blended promiscuously together, just as we find them in that confused mixture of sand, gravel, and organic relics, spread over the surface of all countries hitherto explored, and which is denominated diluvium.

In the third place, the duration of Noah's deluge was too short to have allowed of the production of such immense numbers of perfect petrifactions as the fossiliferous rocks contain; and too short for the numerous distinct changes in the materials and organic contents of those rocks, which must have taken place during their deposition.

In

The process of petrifaction, or the conversion of a substance into stone, whenever it has been observed, is a slow one. those cases, indeed, where an organic substance is immersed in a solution of some compound of iron, as for instance, in copperas, it does not require many years to produce a considerable degree of mineralization. In this case, however, the pores of the sub

stance are merely filled with mineral matter, but the harder parts of the animal or vegetable remain; and we know of no facts that show how long it will require to effect a complete substitution of mineral for organic particles. To imagine, however, that the whole period occupied by the Noachian deluge, supposing it to have been a year, was sufficient to have produced a single petrifaction, according to the laws that now operate in nature, is contrary to experience. But the fossiliferous rocks are of immense thickness; so that if those that have been described in Europe were to be laid one upon another in a particular spot, they would form a pile eight or ten miles in height. And the successive strata contain petrifactions of thousands of animals and plants, which must have been successively buried and converted into stone. In many of the layers, indeed, especially the uppermost, the process is only partial; though in all the formation, we find some instances of perfect petrifactions; and through two thirds of the thickness, reckoning upwards, the exceptions to a perfect change are very rare. No reasonable man can believe that such a vast work could have been accomplished by the diluvial waters, unless he suppose the petrifying power of the waters to have been at that time vastly more active than at present. But of this there is no proof; and since there are so many proofs of the constancy of nature's operations at all times, we are not at liberty, without strong necessity, to sustain a favorite theory by imagining an indefinite potency in the operation of causes in early times. True, geologists have thought themselves obliged to admit the greater energy of some natural processes in former periods, than at the present moment. And why? Because they think they see proofs of more powerful former action? Let similar proof be produced in the case of petrifactions, and they will admit a greater rapidity of the process of petrifaction in former periods: though the chemist would probably doubt whether this is a process that could be greatly accelerated by any conceivable circumstances. We admit, indeed, that a miraculous agency might have petrified all organic life on the globe in a moment. But the moment we call in the aid of miracles to account for the phenomena of petrifactions, or any other effect, we of course exclude all natural operation and therefore all philosophical reasoning. We are willing to admit a miracle where a miracle can be proved, even in nature; but we contend that when we have admitted any event to be miraculous, we must cease to attempt to explain it philosophi