to say

absolute fact to the senses, although in reality he only sees by an image produced by rays of light at the bottom of the eye. In like manner, that one man hears another's voice expresses a fact to the senses, although, according to acoustics, he only perceives a vibration of the tympana of his own ears. Does Dr. H. consider it an inaccuracy to ascribe to objects colors, odors, tastes, and other qualities, which are mere effects, or forms of sensation? Is it not a fact to the senses, that snow and wool are white; that grass and the foliage of trees are green, and that the rainbow has the hues of the prism? Is it an inaccuracy to speak of seeing, and smelling, and painting a flower? This and all similar language of the senses is used on precisely the same principle as that which he quotes respecting the sun, and is employed as universally in conversation and every species of composition, scientific as well as that which relates to the ordinary affairs of life, as it is in the sacred writings. Every single fact, indeed, throughout the domain of geology, and every one of its theoretical doctrines, is expressed in this language. Is it not, then, to be interpreted as denoting identically what the facts which it expresses are to the senses? To deny it were at one blow to subvert the whole fabric of the science! For what are the facts of geology if they are not what they are to the senses? They have never been exhibited as anything else by any of those

who have hitherto treated of them. But if this language is to be taken as denoting what the things which it expresses are to the senses, then how is its use in the instance he alleges to aid him in his argument? Does he regard the mode in which the Scriptures speak in respect to the sun, as parallel to the mode in which they exhibit the work of creation? Does he hold that that representation of the creation is to the facts of geology, optically considered, what the language of the Bible in respect to the motions of the sun is to the facts as they are to the senses? That were again to demolish his whole theory; for if the facts of geology are to the eye, in harmony with the account the Bible gives of the creation, then they present no visible indications of the earth's existence through an immeasurable period anterior to the epoch of that creation, but confirm the sacred narrative. If, however, there is no parallel between them, why does he quote that usage in respect to the creation? But he does not regard them as parallels. Instead, he holds that the facts of geology, optically considered, are irreconcilable with the representation of the sacred history, and the aim of the new element which he wishes to introduce into hermeneutics is, not to reconcile those facts to the inspired record by showing that they are what that record represents— not what they optically seem to be; but, instead, to show that that history does not teach what it literally

means, but on the contrary, what the facts of geology optically indicate! The case which he alleges to illustrate what he wishes to accomplish, in place of presenting a resemblance, is thus a direct converse of it.*

He is equally unfortunate in the statement that "the cases are too common to need particularizing where the interpretation is essentially modified by civil history." Let him produce an example, if in his power. He may find instances in which, in one passage, a fact is related that is not mentioned in another that treats of the same subject; but none in which a fact is mentioned that renders it necessary to depart from the laws of philology in interpreting another.

But the great fallacy of his remarks lies in the representation that the facts of geology contradict the Mosaic record of the creation, and make it necessary to modify the interpretation of that record in order to bring them into harmony with each other. It is his construction of those facts, or inferences from them, not the facts themselves, that contravene the inspired

* The logic of his argument, seems, therefore, to be the following: -Inasmuch as the language of the Scriptures, of science, and of common life, used to express facts as they are to the senses, is not in accordance with the truth, philosophically considered; therefore, the record inscribed on the strata of the earth, as it appears to the senses of geologists, is to be considered as in harmony with the philosophical and absolute truth! This is no airy hypothesis," it seems, but a "striking fact," and an "inference drawn according to the strictest rules of the Baconian philosophy."

66

account of the creation-things as distinct and as unlike as a false conclusion is from the premise from which it is drawn; as a creature's error is from the truth of God.

Geologists themselves, however, instead of adhering to this rule of interpretation, and applying it to the record, dismiss it on reaching the narrative of the creation of man, and assume that he was in fact first called into being at the epoch which that represents; and they accordingly allege the fact that no human bones are found fossilized in the lower or intermediate strata, as a proof that he did not exist till ages after the creation of vegetables and animals. But that is to desert their own principles. If they are justified in the construction they put on the history till they reach the narrative of his creation, they must, to be consistent, carry it through; and conclude, therefore, that the circumstance that no human skeletons have hitherto been discovered in the strata in which vegetables and animals are found, is no proof that they are not in fact imbedded in them, and will not be discovered in great numbers, when more extensive examinations are made. And should such discoveries be made, they will be compelled by their law of interpretation, not to relinquish their theory, but to apply it, in the light of that new fact of geology, to the history of the creation of man, and assume and assert his existence as well as that of vegetables and ani

mals, through the immeasurable periods, whose duration we cannot estimate, anterior to the six days' creation. A single human skeleton, or fragment of one, found in the depths of the earth, amidst the relics of plants, fish, and land animals, which they refer to those fabulous periods, must drive them, by a logical necessity, to an instant rejection of the truth and inspiration of the whole of the history God has given us of the creation! Can a more decisive proof be asked of the total error of that system? According to them, the credibility of Genesis i. and ii., and thence of the rest of the Pentateuch, and consequently of all the other parts of the Old, and the whole of the New Testament, depends on the mere possibility that no fossil human bones are buried in the fossiliferous strata;-a possibility that not only cannot be proved, but that may be confuted any hour. A blow like this at the Christian system will hardly be regarded by prudent men as having an ample compensation "in the large addition" geology "has made to the evidences of natural religion.”

In the next place, their theory of the existence of the earth with its fossil plants and animals through those imagined ages, is forbidden by their own principles, as well as by the divine word. In order to reconcile the creation of plants and animals recorded in Genesis with their theory, they suppose the races to which those buried in the strata belonged, to have