some unseen mischief tending to serenity of the Church militant. affect the comfort and But, the animals fly, because they neither think, nor reason. How far, and to what purpose, my Reviewer does either of those two things in the subject of which he has appointed himself judge in the last appeal, I shall now proceed to shew, by means of the opportunities with which he has been pleased to supply us. When a literary judge takes his seat on the critical bench under his own Commission, and only displays his incompetency and injustice whilst he sits there, he cannot lay claim to any very large measure of our deference; and, a British Reader will not condemn a plain exposure of that incompetency and injustice, when it is made in the course of equitable and requisite self-defence, and when it is, moreover, rendered necessary, by the respect due to the Reader himself. 20. In the first place, then, my Reviewer, avoiding, by a prudential silence, any collision with the first and grounding part of my argument, begins his criticisms by collecting all his energies to engender and condense an axiom, the explosion of which shall shatter the sequel of the argument to its foundation, and render the overthrow of its parts an easy operation; and he intonates it thus "there is no such thing in the Bible as a MOSAICAL "GEOLOGY 1." 1 This is a formidable dictum. But, it is unfortunate that this ingeniously devised engine should prove, on examination, to be only a quibble of words as uncreditable to a judge in a court of letters, as it would be to a judge in a court of law. That Moses formally and didac 1 British Critic for April 1824, p. 388. tically propounds a system of geology, is not alleged, assumed, or implied in the Comparative Estimate, as the critic himself must perfectly well know; but, if Moses has recorded any facts respecting the primitive history of this Globe, paramount and fundamental facts, such as those which have been above recited, then it would be as foolish as it would be fruitless to deny, that he has imparted to us geological facts. To geologise in exclusion of those facts, would be to geologise un-Mosaically; and to geologise with inclusion of those facts, would be to geologise Mosaically, or, in conformity with the authentic information communicated to us by Moses; and, the geology grounded on those communications, will be rightfully called Mosaical. Such only, is the Mosaical Geology opposed in the following treatise to that other geology, which takes no account of the geological facts that Moses was commissioned to impart, but only of such as it imagines are sufficiently declared, and attested, by mineral phenomena alone; and which has, therefore, with equal propriety, denominated itself Mineral Geology1. And thus, the reader will perceive the real quality of the Reviewer's ariom, and, at the same time, the measure of his respect for his readers and for himself, when he proceeds to assert, that I "see in the first chapter of Genesis a well-connected " and most luminous compend of an ENTIRE GEOLOGICAL SYSTEM 2." 66 the " 21. With the same complexion of mind, he speaks of theory" of the Comparative Estimate; he might, with just as much sense, have spoken of its metre. It is not much to require of a Reviewer, that he should under 1 See vol. i. p. 17, of this Work. 2 Br. Crit. p. 388. See above, § 12. stand the meaning of the words which he uses; that he should know what theory is; that he should comprehend the difference between arguing from theory and arguing from facts; and that he should be able to distinguish, whether the conclusions of which he appoints himself the arbitrator, are deduced from the one or from the other. In fact, he appears to consider theory as synonymous with premises; and, that conclusions which are deduced at all, must necessarily be deduced from theory — quasi premises. The Comparative Estimate does not contain a theory, first imagined, and then fastened upon the Scriptural narrative; as, when Buffon first imagined, that this earth was a lump of matter struck off from the solar orb by the blow of a comet, and then compelled the Mosaic narrative to conform itself to that imaginativé conceit: it consists, wholly, of inferences deduced, directly and in the first instance, from the terms of the narrative, compared with the known operation of established causes. Buffon reasoned from a physical theory to the statements of revelation; the Comparative Estimate reasons from the statements of revelation to physical facts. The great events inferred, had no previous inventive existence in the mind, but were originally induced into the mind, bonâ fide, from the terms of the record, as its true and genuine expression when closely studied and passively listened to; and, this fact renders the correspondence of the "results of independent physical research" with the " terms of the narrative," the more solemnly impressive. Theory, originates in the human brain; and, that which originates in the human brain, can never yield results commensurate with the works of God in creation; but, that which originates in the express terms of Scripture, may yield those com 66 mensurate results. The conclusions from theory, are determined by the theory; those from facts, are determined by the facts. Theories, may be as numerous and as various as the individuals of mankind; facts, must ever remain one and the same. The conclusions in geology of the Comparative Estimate, are all ultimately deduced from the geological facts declared in the revealed record of Moses; and therefore, they are not deduced from any theory. 66 66 66 1 22. Our sensitive Reviewer is exceedingly indignant, because I have distinguished between the Divine creation of the world, and the Divine maintenance and perpetuation of it after creation. It is nothing to him, that Bacon and Newton and every body else, it is nothing to him, that Moses and all the inspired writers, do the same thing; his zeal, derives particular offence from that distinction in the Comparative Estimate. "Creation (he affirms didactically) is a term, which, as it expresses an act altogether incomprehensible to the “human mind, conveys no meaning; and, of course, presents no topic for analysis or research 1." How a term expresses an act and yet conveys no meaning, or, how it conveys no meaning because it expresses an act, arè points which have been left for the discovery of this peracute Critic. Does he think that the term "incom"prehensible" conveys no meaning, because we cannot comprehend that which is incomprehensible? That the term "creation" presents no topic for analysis or research, is undeniable, and therefore no one, I apprehend, was ever yet so absurd as to attempt to analyse or investigate the operation which it implies; but, I also apprehend, that it is the meaning expressed or conveyed by the 1 British Critic for April 1824, p. 391. term that deters from the attempt. If it " 66 conveys no meaning," how came the sacred writers, in theology, and Bacon, Newton, &c., in philosophy, to use it so familiarly, as a term which conveys a meaning to every capacity? which readily understands it to express that Divine operation, by which " God calls those things which "are not as though they were." But, though he says this term conveys no meaning, he yet "deprecates the 66 attempt to found a distinction between the exercise of "Divine Power in creating the world, and the operation "of the same Power in perpetuating its existence." Does this last term, then, convey no meaning also, since the two are not to be distinguished? Those who differ from my learned censor, and who are of opinion that each term conveys its own proper and distinguishing meaning, will apprehend a distinction between the operations of calling into existence, and of maintaining in existence ; nor can he hope to efface that distinction from their minds, until he can transmit to them the extraordinary confusion of his own. "There is no real distinction (he 66 says) in the exertions of Omnipotence: - the power "which sustains the earth, is as boundless as that which "first called it into existence." Who questions this? and what is it to the purpose? This Reviewer reasons of power, which is cause, and of operation, which is effect, as if they were one and the same thing, and is totally insensible of his own entanglement. 23. Advancing in the same labyrinth, the Reviewer takes new offence, because I conform to a conventional phraseology, and speak of the operation of secondary causes; "a doctrine (he says) which has a much greater 66 affinity to the atheism of Epicurus, than to the simple |