only difficulty which we anticipate in the final determination of the question, will arise from this circumstance that if there be any truth in the theory to which Mr. Scrope is attached, the oldest lavas which have flowed at the most distant epochs ought to be so wasted, and the original surface on which they were moulded, so nearly obliterated, that the proofs furnished by them must necessarily be of an obscure and disputable character.

There is another curious subject of controversy with respect to the volcanos of Central France, quite inseparable from the theory already alluded to. Three hundred cones or more have burst out from independent vents. If the valleys referrible to aqueous denudation were all formed by one general and violent inundation, how many of the cones last mentioned are to be classed as anterior, and how many as posterior to the date of that event? Some of the cones composed of loose scoriæ and ashes are so perfect, that they must be supposed more recent than any violent debacle; others, on the contrary, are so dilapidated, and so nearly annihilated, that they might be considered to have undergone the action of a deluge. Dr. Daubeny, accordingly, divides the volcanos of Auvergne into ante-diluvian and post-diluvian, and adopts this classification as appearing to him the most natural, and without any desire of expressing an opinion ' as to the identity of the particular deluge recorded in the Mosaic History, with the cause to which the excavations of the valleys and the formation of beds of gravel may be referred.'* In opposition to this, Mr. Scrope ffirms that such a classification will merely apply to the two extremes of a series, and that one extreme passes into the other by insensible gradations; and he enumerates specifically the intermediate and connecting links, endeavouring also to show that the state of relative degradation in the cones corresponds with that of their respective lava-currents. It is almost superfluous to remind the reader that they who have a theory to establish, may easily overlook facts which bear against them, and, unconscious of their own partiality, dwell exclusively on what tends to support their opinions. The impression, therefore, made by Mr. Scrope's arguments and illustrative sketches, ought not to be considered as conclusive :-but we must suspend our judgment until his arguments are specifically met by some of his numerous opponents. Their authority alone might be almost conclusive, if we did not know how far the love of system may often mislead, and how prone we areto imagine strong lines of demarcation, where it would be convenient for us if nature had drawn them. The intermediate links between two periods of intense volcanic activity, if few in

number, may have been overlooked by former observers, like those connecting genera and species in zoology and botany, the complete detection of whose characters so often confounds our best artificial arrangements.

But whatever be the merits of the respective theories, we hope that no irrelevant matters will be mixed up with these scientific disquisitions; above all, that none will fall into the error of imagining that the authority of the sacred writings is in the least degree, implicated in whatever determination we may be led to. For neither are geologists as yet agreed as to what effects would be produced on the earth's surface by a general inundation, arguing on physical grounds, nor are divines unanimous as to the proofs of such an event to be expected from a fair interpretation of the Mosaic record. The Rev. Dr. Flemming has endeavoured to show, that, according to the sacred text, the waters rose and subsided tranquilly; and that when God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged,' the surface of the earth had not suffered greatly, but the vegetation was still, in a great measure, uninjured, and the olives not rooted up. If we adopt the opinions of this learned divine, we ought not to expect any decisive marks of the universal deluge. Again, M. Frayssinous, Bishop of Hermopolis, who has now the superintendence of public education in France, observes that a large part of the changes of the earth's surface, ascribed by some to the deluge, may have been produced during those periods of indeterminate duration which, in his judgment, are comprehended under the six days of the creation.* A third authority, and a very considerable one, we mean the Baron de Férussac,† contends, that it is consistent with orthodoxy, at least in the Romish church, to suppose that the inhabited parts of the earth alone were submerged by the deluge, which had for its object the destruction of the human race, then, in all probability, confined to a limited space; refuses utterly to believe that Moses contemplated regions then untrodden by man, as America and New Holland, within the territory inundated by the Noachian flood; and supports this doctrine by the sanction of the Congregation of the Index. We might select a great variety

of

Some of the conferences of M. Frayssinous, touching Moses considered as the historian of the primitive ages, deserve attention, not merely from the high political and ecclesiastical station filled by this prelate in France, but for the spirit of freedom in which he conducts his inquiries. It is matter of regret that in the nineteenth century the example of a Roman Catholic Bishop should be a reproach to a certain class of Protestant writers, small in number, it is true, and in talent, who, abandoning the vantage ground of their own church, have imbibed the very spirit that once dictated a papal bull against the Copernican system.

Bulletin Univ. February, 1827, p. 193.

If M. de Férussac is borne out by the testimony of Mabillon, whom he cites in VOL. XXXVI. NO. LXXII.

2 I

support

of other explanations, to show how easily different men may adopt different theories, and each of them satisfy himself that his alone is in harmony with the scriptures. In truth, no one is entitled to call in question the sincerity of such authors: we must recollect that the Mosaic narration is elliptical in the extreme, and that it makes no pretensions whatever to supply those minute scientific details which some would now endeavour to extort from it. When we call to mind that parts of this record are very obscure that some expressions throughout are very general, and others, in the opinion of some of the most learned commentators, figurative, our only just ground of wonder is, that such transcendant importance should be attached to every point of supposed discrepancy or coincidence between the phenomena of nature and the generally-received interpretations of the Hebrew text.

We cannot sufficiently deprecate the interference of a certain class of writers on this question who have lately appeared before the public. They are wholly destitute of geological knowledge derived from personal observation, and have never rendered themselves acquainted with the elements of any one branch of natural history which bears upon the science. Incapable of appreciating the force of objections, or of discerning the weight of inductions from numerous physical facts, they estimate the value of all theories by one standard-their discordance or harmony with their own preconceived notions. They deem themselves at liberty to set at nought all the generalizations of a science, so long as they can point out numerous in congruities in many of the speculations of its most ardent cultivators; yet they dogmatise themselves upon texts of scripture, which have given rise, and will probably for ever continue to give rise, to the greatest diversity of opinions in the Christian world. While they denounce as heterodox the current opinions of geologists, with respect to the high antiquity of the earth and of certain classes of organic beings, they do uot scruple to promulgate theories concerning the creation and the deluge, derived from their own expositions of the sacred text, in which they endeavour to point out the accordance of the Mosaic history with phenomena which they have never studied, and to judge of which every page of their writings proves their consummate incompetence. We are sometimes tempted to ask ourselves whether the first sentence of the sacred writings has ever made a due impression on their minds,-whether, if the important truth that God created the heavens and the earth,' was ever present to

support of this index, it must be a curious document, for no one will accuse the expur gatory Indices of the Church of Rome of favouring latitudinarian principles. Indeed it would be difficult to find any book or any doctrine, which has not, at some time or other, been proscribed by the infallible wisdom of a papal index.

their recollection, they would not pause before instituting a comparison between the scriptures and the works of nature; and first consider whether, by a total disregard of either description of evidence, they may not incur the most serious moral responsibility. If truth be sacred in their eyes, they must assuredly feel that it is of the highest moment that all engaged in such controversies should attentively study those natural phenomena which, when correctly interpreted, are intuitively recognised by all mankind as the authentic sources of truth. Do they suppose that it can at once be impossible to refuse implicit assent to what is mathematically demonstrated, and possible to reject at pleasure all presumptions arising from the contemplation of probable evidence? Yet such would appear to be their course of reasoning, when they concede, with regard to astronomy, that the words of the inspired writer are not to be taken literally, but as accommodated to the first familiar notions derived from the sensible appearance of the earth and heavens; and insist, at the same time, on the most rigorous interpretation of the text, whenever any phenomena connected with geology are under consideration. We have no great apprehensions that such writers can ever gain much popularity in a country where philosophical information is widely diffused; but if such should be the case, it will be incumbent on those, whether of our clergy or laity, who have already shown themselves fully competent to the task, no longer to refrain from answering their publications, but, by exposing the incompetence of the authors, to dispel all groundless fears and prejudices, and save religion from suffering, through the indiscretion of its friends, an injury which it can never sustain either from free discussion or from the assaults of avowed enemies.

Too much caution cannot be used against rash or premature attempts to identify questionable theories in physical science with particular interpretations of the sacred text; and we may conclude with the admirable piece of advice bequeathed to us by Lord Bacon more than a century and a half before geology had received a name. 'Let no man, upon a weak conceit of sobriety, or an illapplied moderation, think, or maintain that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works, divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and not to swelling; to use, and not to ostentation; and again, that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together.'*

Of the Proficience and Advancement of Learning, book 1.

ART. V.-1. A Practical Inquiry into the Number, Means of Employment, and Wages of Agricultural Labourers. By the Rev. C. D. Brereton, A.M., Rector of Little Massingham, Norfolk. Second Edition.

2. An Inquiry into the Workhouse-System and the Law of Maintenance in Agricultural Districts. By the Rev. C. D. Brereton, A. M., Rector of Little Massingham, Norfolk. Second Edition.

THERE is some good attendant even on the magnitude of an evil. The poor-laws can no longer insidiously creep on, like a dry rot, in the moral character and prosperity of the country. The legislator, philosopher, and practical man, are all equally alive to the subject, and anxious to devise means, if not to abate the nuisance, at least to mitigate the mischief. The works now before us appear to be the productions of a zealous and enlightened friend to the poor. They point out, with forcible reasoning, illustrated by facts, the morbid influence of the present mode of administering the poor-laws. As, however, these have been frequently insisted on, and no remedy hitherto devised which experience has not shown to be insufficient, we shall not follow the author in his details, but avail ourselves of the occasion to suggest a mode of remedy, which we hope may not be found unworthy of public attention. And we deem this effort more especially requisite at the present moment, when plans are suggested, both in and out of parliament, for extending the poor-laws to Ireland; importing into that kingdom the venomous reptile which is gnawing the vitals of this. It is not, indeed, indigenous these: but, instead of dying, according to the popular superstition, as soon as landed, it will thrive and multiply with frightful rapidity; worse than all the evil spirits that possess the country, this will enter in and dwell there, and the last state of that land will be worse than the first. What is it that occasions the crying misery of the Irish peasant but that abject state of mind which is willing to exist in squalid poverty, and propagate on the bare necessaries of life, instead of labouring to acquire its decencies and comforts, and abstaining from marriage till he have a prospect of providing these for his children? If such a character, then, find that, from the establishment of poor-laws, he can exempt himself and his children from absolute want, and from much of the little labour they now perform, by having a right to draw their subsistence from the fruits of the labour of others, into how much more precipitous an abyss of meanness and wretchedness will he not sink? But it will be replied, "He will, by law, have no demand on the labour of others till he cannot exercise or procure it for himself.' Such, no doubt, will be the letter of the law, and the spirit of it,

too,