be printed for the use of Members of Assembly." Such is the uniform and beneficial practice of the Houses of Parliament, of another Church Assembly, and of the Synod of the United Presbyterian Church,—and how it should be uniformly disregarded in the Assembly of the National Church, is a matter of astonishment. It is hoped that no future Assembly will be without the rolls of business regularly distributed to the members at the door, and by this there will be a great saving of time, and removal of many just complaints. The present mode of taking the votes of the House is open to animadversion. In the first place, amendments, one or two, are put to the House as against the motion. But the motion is not put by itself as is done in Parliament, and other deliberative assemblies. There may be many who cannot vote either for the motion, or for the amendment, and unless met by a direct negative or by the previous question, they have no means of recording their vote. The only mode adopted of ascertaining the vote is by calling the roll in extenso, though often a third of the House may not be present to answer to their names,—and indeed no small number, it is vexing to report, never deem it worth their while to take their places in Assembly. The calling of the roll is a task of usually an hour's duration. A second reading where there are a motion, and more than one amendment, is intolerable, and the change obtained in the result is often quite infinitesimal. It is well worth consideration whether the opinion of the House could not, as in other assemblies, be gathered by the members standing up in their places on the question being put, yea or nay. Where the preponderance (as often is the case) is very great, few members would be so uncourteous as to require the very unnecessary task of the roll call, but the motion could be recorded as passed or negatived without a vote. Where again a vote is insisted on in a thin House, the numbers could, with ease, accuracy, and speed, be ascertained by counting them, arranged on each side the Moderator's chair and table. This was successfully done one session, on the suggestion of the late Mr Pringle of Whytbank, and what was then so satisfactorily accomplished may be done at any time. In this way the calling of the roll would be limited to a very few important questions, where there exist a great diversity of opinion in the Assembly. In conclusion, it is well worthy of consideration whether some arrangement should be made for a more full and accurate report of the proceedings of the Assembly. Happening as its sittings do at the same time as those of Parliament, and the Assembly of another Church, the details in most of the newspapers are most meagre and unsatisfactory. The numerous adherents of the National Church throughout the country are deprived of the means of hearing the transactions of her supreme judicatory, and such ignorance is productive of no small misconception and evil. The proceedings of the other Assembly are reported at great length and minuteness in her peculiar organ, and it is unworthy of the National Church that she does not possess an equal advantage. It is matter of still more regret that the annual abridgement of her proceedings are so excessively skeletonised as to show the mere dry bones of her proceedings. As this publication is the only record for future reference and historical authority, it is worthy of consideration whether something more of the res gestue of the Assembly should not be preserved. The decisions of the civil courts are of authority because the grounds of decision are given. No attempt to do so has ever been attempted with ecclesiastical decisions. The authority of a train of Church authorities is therefore impossible to be had, for if there be a train of such, it is found that in the same assembly one is an up and another a down train coming in direct collision with each other. It is not meant that the debates should be given at length in the annual abridgment. But if there were a full report in the newspapers, it would require no great ability to gather the grounds set forth by the mover of the successful motion, and on which he carried the House along with him in its adoption. At present even the names of movers and seconders are not given. In many other respects, the annual publication might be extended, and made a valuable repertory of the acts and proceeding of the Church to future ages. These observations have been presented to the Church, with the hope that they may be successful in drawing the attention of its members to many safe and important improvements of the order of procedure in the General Assembly, which would greatly add to its authority and the dispatch of business, without, as at present, entailing on individuals lengthy midnight and morning sittings, to the injury of health, especially of those of advanced age, and matured experience, whose valuable advice and help are often thus not to be obtained, at these most unnecessarily prolonged sederunts. THEORIES OF RECONCILIATION BETWEEN GEOLOGY AND THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION. (Concluded from last Number.) Powell's "Christianity without Judaism." London: Longman & Co. 1857. "Harmony of the Mosaic and Geological Records." Edinburgh: Constable & Co. 1854. Miller's "Testimony of the Rocks." Edinburgh: Constable & Co. 1857. Anderson's "Course of Creation." London: Longman & Co. 1850. Pye Smith's "Geology and Scripture." London: Bohn. 1852. Wight's "Geology and Genesis." London: John Snow. 1857. In our former article, we considered four theories of reconciliation between geology and the Mosaic account of creation, which have been advanced and supported by learned men. The first of these was what we named, the theory of a distinct and independent creation, being the old theory of Dr Buckland and Dr Chalmers, but now in general relinquished as being untrue to fact. The second was the mythical theory, advanced by Professor Powell in his "Connection between Natural and Divine Truth," and again brought forward in his recent work, "Christianity without Judaism." The third was the theory of the Mosaic vision of creation, which forms the ground-work of an anonymous work entitled "the Harmony of the Mosaic and Geological Records,"* and which receives its importance from being partially adopted by Hugh Miller in his "Testimony of the Rocks." The fourth was the theory of indefinite periods, being the old theory of Cuvier, De Luc, Parkinson, and Jamieson, and more recently adopted by Professor Silliman of America, Dr Anderson of Newburgh, and Hugh Miller. There still remain two other theories of reconciliation to be considered, and which by reason of their importance and plausibility require to be more fully discussed than any which we have yet mentioned. V. The fifth theory of reconciliation, then, to which we would direct attention, may be called the theory of a creation limited to a particular portion of the earth. This theory, so far as we are aware, was first advanced by the late Dr Pye Smith in his "Geology and Scripture." Dr Smith, with perhaps the single exception of Professor Sedgwick, and who has declined advancing any theory, was better qualified than any other man to solve this great geological problem; he united in himself the qualifications of being at once an accomplished geologist and a profound theologian. He was a man, to use the words of Professor Hitchcock, "whose skill in sacred philology, and profound acquaintance with the Bible, none will question, any more than they will his deep-toned piety, and enlarged and liberal views of men and of things." Dr Smith supposes that by the term earth is not meant the whole, but a portion of the world. He endeavours by philological arguments to prove that this is the meaning of the term in the Mosaic narrative of the six days' work. Considering," says he, "all the evidence of the case, I can find no reason against our regarding the word, subsequently to the first verse, and throughout the whole description of the six days, as designed to express the part of our world which God was adapting for the dwelling of man and the animals connected with him." And the narrative of the six days' work he considers to be, “a description, in expressions adapted to the ideas and capacities of mankind in the earliest ages, of a series of operations, by which the Being of omnipotent wisdom and goodness adjusted and furnished, not the earth generally, but, as the particular subject under consideration here, a portion of its surface." And this portion of the earth he conceives to have been "a part of Asia, lying between the Caucasian ridge, the Caspian sea, and Tartary on the north, the Persian and * The author of this work has now given his name—Mr Sime, the Rector of the Free Church Normal School. Indian seas on the south, and the high mountain ridges which run at considerable distances, on the eastern and western flank." This portion of Western Asia, the cradle of the human race, he supposes "was by atmospheric and geological causes of previous operation, under the will of the Almighty, brought into a condition of superficial ruin, or some kind of general disorder." This was the chaos mentioned in the second verse of Genesis, where it is said "the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Afterwards elevations of land took place, and in the course of six days this district was prepared by a series of creative acts for the residence of man, and of the several plants and animals which are peculiar to that region.* Such is a brief outline of the celebrated theory of Dr Pye Smith. We have not space to enter into its details. It has been advanced with great ingenuity, supported with much learning, and defended with remarkable candour and liberality. This theory has since been defended and illustrated by various writers. In particular, this is the ground-work of a recent publication of much merit," Geology and Genesis," by the Rev. George Wight. In this work, Dr Pye Smith's notion is adopted and carried out to its legitimate consequences. The theory of Pye Smith depends upon the restriction of the term earth to only a portion of the world. This restriction is favoured by the fact, as is now agreed upon by the generality of biblical geologists, that a similar limitation must be given to the term in reference to the deluge. The reduction of a portion of the earth to a chaotic state is in itself by no means an improbable hypothesis; it is what must frequently have occurred in past geological ages; and even in modern times we have an example of it in the effects produced by the eruption of Skaptar Jokul in Iceland, in the year 1783; and Mrs Somerville tells us, that in that island there is "a low valley, a hundred miles wide, extending from sea to sea, which is a tremendous desert, never approached without dread even by the inhabitants; a scene of perpetual conflict between the antagonistic powers of fire and frost, without a drop of water or a blade of grass; and where no living creature is to be seen, not a bird, nor even an insect."+ This theory of restricting the six days' creative work to a small portion of the earth, if otherwise admissible, certainly removes the geological difficulty, arising from the fact of the existence of many of the present species of plants and animals before the creation of man. The scene of creation is here restricted to a definite centre; and whilst it was reduced to superficial ruin and disorder, the world around it was the seat of animal life and enjoyment. We are not aware of any geological objections which militate against it; and indeed Hugh Miller, although on other grounds opposed to it, candidly admits that this scheme "certainly does not conflict with the facts educed by geologic discovery." And of all the objections brought against it, the Smith's Geology and Scripture, pp. 249-251, Bohn's Edition. most absurd is that advanced by the author of the "Harmony of the Mosaic and Geological Records," and which he regards as a complete refutation. "The sun," he observes, "was hidden during the second and the third day; and this theory supposes that the assumed darkness had not cleared off until the fourth day. These are manifestly contradictory facts; for how should the darkness have cleared off sufficiently to allow clouds to be seen, while it was still so deep as to conceal the sun for two days after? A contradiction so glaring as this, in a theory devised expressly to reconcile revelation and science, shows the straits into which the friends of God's word have been brought by geology."* But surely two consecutive cloudy days are neither a physical impossibility nor a "glaring contradiction." Still, however, we are far from asserting or believing that this is the true key to the understanding of the Mosaic narrative-the true solution of the question. It seems to be a theory adapted to the present state of geological science, but which may not stand the test of future discovery. In short, it is an hypothesis which requires confirmation; and until this confirmation, we would hesitate to assert that the term earth in the Mosaic narrative of creation denotes only a portion of the world. The description given us in the first chapter of Genesis appears to be too magnificent and grand to admit of such a limitation to only a small portion of the earth, and to the creation of only a few species of plants and animals. And the phrase employed in the fourth commandment appears to be too universal an expression to admit of so restricted a meaning:- "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." To these and similar objections, Dr Smith replies, that the importance of the Mosaic creation arises, not from its extent, but from the introduction of such a rational and immortal being as man into the world. - VI. The sixth theory of reconciliation, which we mention, is what may be called the theory of a new geological era. This theory intervenes between the views of Dr Buckland and Dr Pye Smith. It agrees with Dr Buckland in supposing that by the term earth is meant the whole world, but it differs from him in this material point, by holding that there was only a partial, instead of a total destruction of previously existing plants and animals. Prior to the six Mosaic days, a geological convulsion or catastrophe took place, co-extensive with the earth, when, probably by igneous agency, a great revolution was effected; part of the dry land, it may be, having subsided below the level of the sea, and a portion of the bottom of the sea being elevated; and this was the state of chaos or confusion mentioned in the second verse of Genesis, where it is said, that "the earth was without form and void," or more literally in ruins. But by this geological convulsion, is not meant that there was a total extinction of life-a destruction of all created beings; several animals and plants survived the convulsion, although perhaps by far the greater number, not only of individuals but of species, were destroyed. In short, there was here the termination of an old formation-the end of a geological * Harmony, &c., |