to pursue this subject further. But we | felt it the more needful to state briefly the grounds on which we consider the argument to be inconclusive, inasmuch as Dr. Harris's work contains so much to recommend it to the student of the ways and will of God, that we feel confident it will exert a considerable influence on the minds of many intelligent persons. And let it be remembered, that if the argument taken as a whole is not conclusive, this failure does not at all lesson the value of the inductive proofs which Dr. Harris gives of the divine attributes. We would gladly extract many of his illustrations, but the length to which our remarks have already extended forbids. We must content ourselves with recommending our readers to study the work for themselves. The illustrations and proofs will often charm them by their beauty, and if they do not agree with the author in his whole argument, they will, nevertheless, if we may judge from ourselves, find the perusal of the work to be alike refreshing and beneficial.

Scripture Evidences of Creation; or, The
Mosaic History of the Creation Illustrated
by Geological Discoveries. London:
Seeley. 12mo. pp. xvi. 295.
The Mosaic Creation, viewed in the light of
Modern Geology. By GEORGE WIGHT.
Recommendatory Note, by W. Lindsay
Alexander, D.D., F.S.A.S. Glasgow:
Maclehose. 12mo. pp. xx. 256.

WE had intended to include our notice of these two works in the preceding article; but the geological part of Dr. Harris's treatise is so completely subordinate to his main design, that we found ourselves unable to touch on that branch of the subject. We may now remark, that in his rapid sketch of geological phenomena, Dr. Harris recognizes as facts the discoveries of modern geology, and has no sympathy with those who shrink from the investigation of nature, lest its voice should be contradictory to the word of God. In this respect, the second of the two works at the head of this article agrees with Dr. Harris. The other work is of a very different character in every respect. The object of the author of the "Scripture Evidences" is to assail the positions which geologists believe they have established as being in his view con

tradictory to the statements of Moses; and to explain the facts of geology in accordance with what he conceives to be the Mosaic account of the creation.

It would be utterly useless to give an account of the writer's arguments, since the work is so full of errors of fact, in regard to all subjects on which it touches, that the conclusions at which the author arrives can have no weight. Whether in biblical criticism, astronomy, chemistry, physiology, or geology, the author seems to have acquired his knowledge, either from a very unintelligent perusal of the books from which he quotes, or else from a vague and frequently erroneous recollection of statements something like those he so gravely puts forward. His notions of biblical criticism may be gathered from the fact, that in proof of the excellence of the LXX. version of the Old Testament, he brings forward the exploded legend of its production by seventy or seventytwo translators, each of whom was shut up in a separate cell until he had produced his copy, and that the several copies so made, on being compared, were found to agree verbatim with each other," page 94. In one instance he speaks of "the Hebrew and Greek versions of the bible," page 109, and uniformly places the Greek version on an equality at least with the Hebrew original. In astronomy his blunders are really astonishing, seeing that he has

66

"in

taken Sir John Herschell's excellent treatise as his guide. Thus he informs us that "the sun is estimated to be 1000 times larger than the earth," page 20, and on the same page quotes Herschell's treatise, from which he might have also learned, that linear magnitude it exceeds the earth in the proportion of 111 to 1, and in bulk in that of 1,384,472 to 1,”Herschell, page 192. We are further informed that the calculation of the velocity of light is "proved to be so perfectly accurate as to enable astronomers by its means not only to describe (!) the ordinary revolutions of the heavenly bodies, but even to predict the tortuous (!) motions of a comet for many years before its appearance," page 23. In chemistry our author is equally original. Most chemists will be surprised to learn that gases are 66 now admitted to be the elements of all metallic, as well as rocky substances,' page 166; and that as the heat at the

earth's centre is intense, "we may fairly assume that the metallic bases are fused and converted into oxygen, or any other gases of which they may be composed, at some distance from this centre," page 148. We cannot help wondering how it is that granite should be so enduring when we are informed that felspar, one of its constituents, "is fusible at a heat of 120 or 130 degrees,' page 161; so that if we put a piece of granite into boiling water, we may expect that the felspar will be dissolved and the rock crumble to pieces! His notions of physiology are of the same crude kind. On the authority of Buffon he reduces the number of species of fourfooted animals to 200 or 250, page 120. He further states that "the present iguana of the Ganges may be considered to have descended" from the fossil iguanodon, the latter however "being 100 feet in length, or twenty times that of its present representative," page 256. In both these statements he is unconsciously advocating Lamarck's theory of development and change of species. Again we are informed that the organs of the fossil reptiles "were fitted to the consumption of the large portion of carbonic acid gas then prevailing in the atmosphere," page 256, thus presenting the germ of a new theory of respiration. After these proofs of the extreme inaccuracy of our author's knowledge of the subjects on which he professes to treat, we shall not expect much satisfaction from his geological theory. It is briefly this.The original creation is that which Moses describes as the work of the six days; but the greater part of the present crust of the earth formed then the bed of the ocean. During the interval between the creation and the deluge, the secondary strata were deposited in this ocean bed, and portions of them were successively left dry. Still further changes were effected by the deluge, though the author does not consider that any great changes were wrought by its effects in the primary or secondary strata." The author gives a diagram to illustrate the supposed original disposition of land and water as contrasted with their present positions, according to which all the land was originally comprised within thirty degrees on each side of the equator. This theory seems to be framed in order to avoid the objections so powerfully urged against

those who have maintained that the sea and land changed places at the deluge. But the author seems quite to have forgotten, in his zeal to maintain his view of one part of the Mosaic account, that his whole theory is opposed to another, viz., the very precise topographical description of the garden of Eden. According to our author's own diagram the site of the garden of Eden was originally part of the ocean bed. There could not, at that time, have been any such rivers as the Euphrates or the Tigris; the whole of Asia, north of twenty degrees N. lat., was then in the process of formation at the bottom of the ocean. This one circumstance is fatal to a theory expressly framed to preserve the literal interpretation of the Mosaic account. Why should we be called to reject the account of the site of Eden given by Moses in order that we may embrace a particular view of his account of the creation ?

We are sorry to be obliged thus to censure a work written, we doubt not, with very good intentions; and we gladly turn to Mr. Wight's little book, which treats of the same subject in a very different manner. With equal reverence for the word of God, Mr. Wight possesses far more knowledge of the subject on which he undertakes to write. Taking the facts of geology as they are at present ascertained, he fairly meets the question, How are they to be reconciled with the Mosaic account? And though we should demur to some of his positions, he at least shows that a pious mind may receive and hold as true, with equal firmness, both the facts which are gathered from the works of God, and the statements of his word. For our own part, we prefer postponing the attempt to reconcile geology with the scriptures. We are perfectly satisfied that there can be no real contradiction between the works of God and his revealed will, and are therefore ready to believe whatever geology proves to us. But we think the science itself has not yet arrived at that state of maturity which will assure us that we have the true explanation of the Mosaic account, whatever may be the theory we adopt. And as, on the one hand, we strongly deprecate the attempt to impede the investigation of natural phenomena by forcing on nature our pre-conceived in

tion of the whole man that follows. It is William Knibb himself that Mr. Hinton has endeavoured to present to us, and he has been successful in delineating a noble-minded Christian, full of tenderness and benignity among those who needed his aid, and dauntless in the midst of danger when contending with their mighty oppressors.

to

It would be too much to expect that so large a volume should be without faults, or that a story of so diversified and exciting a character should afford no room for differences of opinion; and though it is an ungracious task, as soon as a friend has finished an arduous undertaking to to call attention blemishes, there are one or two matters in reference to which our position seems to require that we should supply some correctives. In his zeal for Mr. Knibb, and his anxiety not to digress into what was "beyond the record," as gentlemen of the legal profession say, we confess that we think that Mr. Hinton has occasionally lost sight of what was due to others. In some cases, it appears to us that the committee of the Baptist Missionary Society has scarcely received justice from his hands. For instance: Mr. Knibb, as is well known, was sent out as a schoolmaster. He was furnished with no certificate as a minister. Two years after his arrival on the island, it was found that without this, the Court of Common Council at Kingston would not permit him to preach. Mr. Hinton says, "It was no doubt of the utmost importance that a licence should be obtained for him, and an application was made to the committee of the Baptist Missionary Society for the necessary certificate. Can the world learn without a smile that so grave a body, and of such a denomination, hesitated-not long, indeed, but they did hesitate to give Knibb the requisite document, because he had not been academically educated?" Now if we smile, it must be that so grave a member of the body as Mr. Hinton should believe that the committee did hesitate on this ground. The letters that follow show that Knibb and his friend Tinson 80 understood the matter; but without the plainest evidence to the contrary, we must maintain the opinion that they were mistaken. Who were the men who are supposed to have hesitated because Knibb "had not

VOL. X.-FOURTH SERIES.

been academically educated?" Mr. Dyer, the secretary? He had not been academically educated himself. The Central Committee? We have referred to the list, and find that the majority of ministers upon it at that time had not been academically educated. Of the London members of the Central Committee, there were but two that had received an academical education; while there were Ivimey, Chin, Pritchard, Upton senior, and others, in whose presence no individual could have ventured to express hesitation on this account. There must have been a misunderstanding: the charge is incredible.

This is a trivial matter; but there is connected with it that which we regret exceedingly, and when the biographer perceives it, he will regret it as much as ourselves. It is quite unintentionally on the part of the author, we are sure, but the book will give to persons to whom the late Mr. Dyer was not known a very unfavourable impression respecting him. This arises, not from any sentence or phrase in the narrative, but from his being brought forward so frequently as a defendant, in Mr. Knibb's correspondence, without any opportunity to speak for himself, or a single word being said on his behalf. He is so often placed before the reader in equivocal circumstances, that he gradually comes to be regarded as a suspicious character. Mr. Knibb had occasion to complain to Mr. Dyer, to urge upon him facts and opinions that were startling, and sometimes to remonstrate with him, as the official representative of the society, when Mr. Dyer was, as Mr. Hinton would readily admit, nothing but the exponent of the committee, and the committee nothing but the exponents of the religious public. There was no man living at the time more thoroughly antislavery in mind and heart than Mr. Dyer. There is no man living now to whom the interests of the oppressed and afflicted might be entrusted with greater confidence than they might have been formerly to him. Cautious he was, but caution was needed in those days and any wise man would have assumed a cautious style in corresponding with Knibb, whose temperament required no provocatives or stimulants. The fact is, that we were all very much in the dark about slavery, till the destruction of the chapels and the declarations of the

2 G

Knibb went to Jamaica, the most kindhearted men were seeking to mitigate slavery, not to destroy it. Thomas Clarkson himself, but a short time before, in a private parlour where none but friends of the negro were present, declared in the hearing of the writer of this article, that he should deprecate the immediate emancipation of the slaves, believing that if they had their freedom they would run up into the mountains, and either starve or become freebooters. The society of which Clarkson, and Wilberforce, and Buxton were vice-presidents, when Knibb began his labours in Jamaica, was "The Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery throughout the British Dominions." John Dyer was as advanced an abolitionist as Thomas Clarkson: both were brought by degrees to the perception of truths which now seem to many to be self-evident and obvious. It grieved Knibb sometimes that Mr. Dyer seemed to have been giving ear to charges against him; the truth being that Mr. Dyer had to defend him day after day, and year after year, from all sorts of accusations, from the misapprehensions and doubts of friends as well as from the hostility of foes, that he needed to make inquiries and ask explanations, and that he sometimes found it difficult to defend courses into which his high-spirited client was prone to rush. If we have ever known any genuine philanthropists, one of the purest was John Dyer-the kind-hearted, candid, considerate, gentle, and persevering John Dyer: but the impression respecting him conveyed by this work to those who knew him not, will be, we fear, the reverse of this.

Even as early as the year 1823, before Knibb left his native land, the committee of the Baptist Missionary Society had taken a decided stand against slavery, in its most lenient and ostensibly benevolent form. A missionary had from motives of kindness purchased two domestics; the subject was laid before the committee, and their advice requested. It was in consequence resolved, "That in the opinion of the committee, if any circumstances would justify the purchase of negroes, Mr. Coultart was justified in the cases he has specified, but that, as the purchase or sale of slaves is decidedly opposed to the fundamental principles of the mis

The most important events of William Knibb's early life having turned on his relation to his brother Thomas, his forerunner both at home and in Jamaica, a little more information respecting him might, we think, be advantageously given in future editions. Mr. Hinton seems to believe that Dr. Ryland was mistaken when he said, "William is a good lad, but not equal to Thomas:" he adduces it as a proof that men, even sagacious men, are shortsighted. Thomas was certainly not destined by Him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will to do anything so important as that which William lived to perform; but we have no evidence that Dr. Ryland's opinion respecting them was incorrect. Be this as it may, we hope that when the work is reprinted, it will not be thought by the biographer too remote from his subject to tell that when Thomas died he left an infant only a few weeks old; that the mother brought him to England, but endured much hardship in her voyage, under which her constitution sank; that the orphan was deprived of both his parents before the first year of his existence closed; that William, his uncle, took a lively interest in his welfare, successfully pleaded his cause before the committee, and eventually took charge of him in Jamaica; and that under his uncle's guidance the young man became a schoolmaster and was occasionally engaged in preaching. When Knibb was last in England, he said to the writer, "There is not a more useful man than Thomas in the island.”

Sorry should we be if any of the preceding observations should lead an individual to suppose that in our judg ment Mr. Hinton has not done his work well, or that any other person would have done it better. The more