1. It would seem from this history, that the "fowls" were created out of the water, as well as the fishes. Though the nineteenth verse of the second chapter rather appears to support the notion, that the “fowl of the air" were formed out of the ground.

2. The creation of fishes and fowls, as Moses has given it us in this narrative, cannot possibly subsist for a moment under the supposition that the Geological Theory is true. For it is in this part in the first instance where they clash most extensively and directly.

This is the first creation of things "having life." And all sorts of fishes, even to the whale itself, are here formed at once. But Geology proclaims a succession of shell-fish; then of amphibious reptiles; and scarcely any fishes worth the mention in their earlier strata. Nay, it is essential to the very existence of M. Cuvier's Theory, that numerous races of shell-fishes, of quite different character each from the ones preceding, should have lived, died, and become inclosed in solid rocks, succeeding one another, from the primitive rocks to the flaetz form→ ations, while next to nothing else existed in the ocean. One revolution after another is supposed to have occurred both in the place and nature of the ocean. And this for undefined ages before any fishes, such as the large ones here mentioned, and such as are now known, had any being. Yet,

3. Nothing can be more evident, than that Moses means in this narrative, to give us a detail of the very first races of fishes and fowls ; indeed, of all the races that ever the sea produced. When the Almighty says, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly, the moving creature that hath life", could any one, not versed in the dialectics of modern geology, dare to assert, that the waters had contained millions of moving creatures which had "life," for thousands of years before this period? And when it is said, "God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly who could have supposed that all this meant only one amongst numerous such productions?

And when their Creator blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas", can any sane man, who does not wish to insult the Almighty and disgrace the historian, assert that this was said after the unchangeable God had just destroyed a whole sea full of fishes, and had created a sea full of fresh ones!! Such folly and trifling may be suitable to heathen poets and fabulous historians; but he is unworthy of the name of Christian, who conceives them to beseem the dignity and simplicity of Divine record.

4. There is no possibility of making this narrative consistent with this geological "Theory." For, were we to take the liberty of lengthening the "six days" and destroying the "Sabbath", by adopting the hypothesis" which supposes the sacred historian to describe the actual state of the existing strata, our liberty would be all in vain. For in that case, this history, if it be a history, records the immediate creation of all the fishes and fowls, under one command, and as one transaction. But this is as destructive to the claims of Geology, as any other supposition. For it makes a gradual progression, and a long series of successive changes and advances in the scale of perfection, among the fishes, necessary to its very existence. And were we to adopt Mr. Buckland's

supposition; namely, that all which Moses has detailed respecting these "six days" labour, is confined to "the preparation of this globe for the reception of the human race"; nothing can be further from the truth than such an "hypothesis."

For, beside an infinitude of difficulties, as we have before shewn, there is one of itself a most destructive position, which is this; Geology supposes that the sea, for "thousands of ages" before the creation of man, swarmed with living creatures. But, to make even common sense of the Mosaic narrative, we must contend that every one of these living beings was previously destroyed, and so made way for an entire new creation of all sorts of living creatures, as Moses relates it. This, however, would be perfectly ruinous to their Theory in more ways than one. It would imply two miracles, one for destruction, and another for recreation, neither of which, as may hereafter be considered, is at all admissible in this science. It cannot, consistently with its own existence, resort to any, beyond "physical and chemical causes" in geological revolutions." Vol. I., pp. 137-140.

The Scriptural history of the Deluge is the subject of the -ninth chapter. It is very concise, and presents to us little more than general considerations respecting that dreadful catastrophe. They are, however, in some respects of a striking character. In subsequent parts of the work, this topic is resumed; and many ingenious remarks illustrative of the biblical narrative of the event, will be found where the Author treats on diluvial operations. The waters of the Deluge, he observes, were forty days advancing to their greatest height, and two hundred and seventy-five days in decreasing; the period of their returning, from off the earth being seven times as long as that of their rising. Taking the height of the loftiest elevations of the earth, the snowy mountains in India, at the measurement of twenty-eight thousand feet above the surface of the ocean, the rate of increase would be seven hundred feet per day for the rising of the waters, and one hundred feet for their daily decrease. The "fountains of the great deep", he explains of immense reservoirs of water in the interior of the earth; and as, in his view of the process of creation, he had represented the waters as originally covering the tops of the mountains, and retiring to their beds at the Divine command, he conceives that," in the same manner, they came forth to overspread the world.

< What a scene of terrific and awful desolation does this narrative of the Bible convey! If the reader be affected as the writer was, when he first contemplated the scriptural character of this dread transaction, he' will literally tremble when he meditates on this awful catastrophe.He will moreover discover, how inadequate, how puerile, and infinitely below the fact of the real case, are all those representations of the Deluge to which we have been accustomed; and those comments which exhibit animals and men as escaping to the highest grounds and hills, as the flood advanced. Even Mr. Buckland supposes that

animals, when the waters began to enter their caves under ground, might have "rushed out and fled for safety to the hills." (Dil. p. 38.)

The impossibility of any such escape may be immediately seen. Neither man nor beast, under such circumstances, could either advance or flee to any distance. Any animal found in the plain when the flood began, would thus be merged in water seven or eight feet deep in a quarter of an hour! independent of the overwhelming torrents dashing upon his head. And were he to attempt advancing up the rising grounds, a cataract of sheet water, several feet deep, would be gushing all the way in his face, besides impending water-spouts from the "flood-gates" of heaven, momentarily bursting over him; he would instantly become a prey to those " mighty waters.' Vol. I. p. 170.

The data on which the Geological system is founded, comprise the fossil remains which are found imbedded in the strata, and the physical characters of the strata themselves. The physical state of the strata, however, is not viewed by geologists as an original, primary, independent source of evidence. If there had existed only formations or strata, in which there were no extraneous fossils, it could never have been asserted, they say, that these several formations had not been simultaneous. Extraneous fossils alone, therefore, afford the presumption, or the evidence, of successive epochs in the formation of the strata. In respect to each of these, the Author proposes the following

tests:

I. THE FOSSIL STRATA.

Before the strata can be allowed to force upon us any general conclusions as to the relative epochs of their formation, it is quite obvious that they must be proved to be,

1. Distinct in their character.

By this I mean, that they must be so specific and peculiar in their composition and appearance, as to be distinctly known and ascertained by NAME and Nature.

2. Distinct in their situation.

Their situation must be regular and uniform with respect to the accompanying strata. They must have uniformly the same strata beneath and above themselves. That is, the strata which are found beneath in one place, must be beneath in all places; and so of the strata above. Any deviations from this order, must be only such as may be accounted for consistently with the "regular succession" of the strata. 3. Their extent.

The extent of the strata which is to prove general, or rather universal catastrophes, must be itself equal to the extent of the catastrophes indicated by it. To speak of strata proving general revolutions throughout the earth, which strata themselves are only of a local and circumscribed nature, shews a total failure in the nature of the evidence resorted to.

II. THE FOSSIL REMAINS.

The "extraneous fossils" or "fossil remains" found in the strata, are the sole indications, as we have seen, of the numerous revolutions

in the strata, which the modern geological theory assumes to have taken place. And the indications, we have further seen, arise from this circumstance," their species, and even their genera, change with the strata." It appears further, that these genera and species begin with the most inferior race of animals, and advance by regular gradation, from shells, fishes, amphibious reptiles, birds, and so up to quadrupeds. These last, however, we shall find, are also distinguished among themselves, and form the most decisive evidence of numerous revolutions.

This Theory, we have seen, (p. 180,) asserts, "that certain fossils are peculiar to, and only found in particular strata." And that the fossils change with the strata, and denote the successive strata and epochs of formation. The same authority declares,

"That exactly similar fossils are found in different parts of the same stratum, not only where it traverses this island, but where it appears again on the opposite coast."

It is plain, therefore, if the species or genera are to prove regular successions by the disappearance of former species, and the re-appearance of subsequent ones, that those species and genera must be universal, exclusive, successive, non-recurrent.

1. Universal.

By universal, I mean that they must exist everywhere, in every part of the world where animals do exist, and where the strata to which they are peculiar, are found.

2. Exclusive.

That is, they alone must exist, to the exclusion of every other animal. For if other animals are found in the same strata, these strata cannot be peculiar to certain animals only.

3. Successive.

That is, not continuous,-not the same sort of fossils in successive strata ;--but fossils of a different species or genus. This is the essence of the theory.

4. Non-recurrent.

'As they change with the strata, and form with the strata a "regular succession" from the "lowest strata" upwards, the lower fossils must not appear again in any of the upper strata, for this would be more directly in violation of the Theory than even a continuous order; for, the further we recede from the primitive and early formations, the further we depart from the nature of the fossils contained in those formations.

The consequence of all this will necessarily be, that if there have been "numerous revolutions", as the Theory asserts, not only the "species", but even the "genera" imbedded in the lowest strata will become extinct and lost, long before we arrive at the surface of the earth, and entirely new species and genera will appear. This, however, is professedly a part of the system. The great rule of judgement in this matter is "extinct animals." Vol. I. pp. 182-185.

These tests are subsequently applied, minutely and extensively; in some instances less successfully than in others; but in many examples, they are directed very skilfully and very power

VOL. I.-N.S.

F

fully against the subjects examined by the Author, of which he gives an account altogether opposite to the representations of Cuvier and his followers. Many of his objections are very weighty ones, and will not easily be deprived of their force; nor does his own mode of solving difficulties appear less probable than any of the several methods which his discussions bring under our notice.

The Guadaloupe skeletons' are the subject of examination in the Sixth Chapter. One of these curious remains, most of our readers may know, was sent from the West Indies in 1814, by Admiral Cochrane, to Lord Melville, and deposited by his Lordship in the British Museum. A high antiquity has been denied to these bones by geologists. Cuvier considers the rock in which they are imbedded as nothing else than a tuff formed and daily augmented by the very small debris of shells and corals which are detached from the rocks by the waves, and of which the heap attaches itself firmly to the parts which are most frequently dry; and he describes them as possessing the character of those fossils which are of modern formation, and covered up by incrustation. Professor Jameson, too, represents them as an instance of a fossil human petrifaction in an alluvial formation. Examples, we believe, may be produced, of the formation of calcareous sandstone composed of minute fragments of shells; and the manner in which the loose materials are consolidated so as to assume the appearance of compact rock, has been, perhaps, truly explained. The Author of the work before us, however, denies that the rock in which the Guadaloupe skeleton is imbedded, is a modern formation; and he concludes, that the skeleton itself is as genuine and as ancient a fossil as any shell or bone in existence. In opposition to Cuvier and Professor Jameson, he is of opinion, that the skeleton was lodged in a mass of tenacious mud at the time at which it became stationary, and that it was not covered over gradually, or by a quantity of loose, sandy debris; and he supposes, that the dislocations and losses which the body has sustained, were occasioned by some hard matter, such as fragments of rocks or stones, or forked branches of trees, being forced over it as it lay. We have not room to lay before our readers the grounds on which these opinions are formed: they are derived principally from an examination of the situation of the bones in the block which has preserved them, and comprise many ingenious observations, as well as discover the patient research and minute investigation which the Author, from an apprehension of the value of the dis cussions in which he was engaged, has bestowed upon his subject. It would seem difficult to meet many of his objections to the notions which have been formed respecting this relic; and he has anticipated the most plausible of the replies which they