surface; the only portion of the works of the Great Creator, with which it was needful that man should be acquainted. This interpretation the Doctor conceives to be perfectly admissible; as much so as the other. He also brings authorities to shew that the passage was so understood in ancient times,-which certainly favours the interpretation. It is, moreover, the express object of the Reliquiæ Diluvianæ to prove that the facts elicited by geological research, are not to be reconciled to the inspired word on any other reading of it. Now, we would request the author of the work before us, whose motives we fully appreciate, and thoroughly respect, to consider how very frequently it happens that God's two books of nature and revelation in this manner check each other. The truth which God would have us to learn from them is obscured by our misapprehensions of the one or of the other of them: sometimes we misinterpret both. But when God's time comes for men to know the truth upon the misapprehended point, some fore-ordained event brings to light the secret of the natural world, which is connected with it, and then it is discovered that this secret had been long ago disclosed in the Bible; though we could not read it, then, until the scientific discovery had furnished us with the key to its interpretation. Thus wonderfully has it appeared in innumerable instances, and will ever appear, that " every word of God is true." We do not hesitate at all in expressing our conviction that the reading of the Dean of Westminster is perfectly admissible and such being the case, the question of the geological periods will remain an open one so far as Scripture is concerned, and under this impression, we will lay before our readers a few of the considerations which oppear to us to render groundless the apprehensions of many pious minds, as to the discoveries of geology.

This new science professes to unfold a page of past eternity, and to read there a succession of creations on the earth's surface, each perfect in itself yet each excelling that which preceded, in the fuller development of the type of animal existence. There is not a single particular line which is not in beautiful harmony with what the Scriptures have revealed to us regarding the divine attributes. God not only always was, but He is and even will be, that which He always was. Now we read in the Bible, that two successive creations have already occurred on the surface of this earth, and a third is promised. In what respect the second differed from the first, we are not informed; but we are assured that the third will exceed all that appears in the existing world, in a measure far surpassing our present powers of comprehension. So that so far as the God of the Bible has been pleased to reveal himself, he was to the utmost limit to which the past history of his dealings

extends, always creating; and this last act of his future dealing, which he has been pleased to shadow forth to us on the page of prophecy. will also be an act of creation. But from the facts of geology it has been inferred that, in those remote periods of past eternity, which precede the inspired history, God not only always was, but always was creating'; and when we compare together the remains of these several past creations, we find the plain intimations of a progress in structure, in powers, in capacity for happiness, exactly the same as that which is declared concerning the first and last of the three revealed creations. Thus, then, the facts disclosed by geology, regarding creation, are exactly in accordance with those revealed by the Bible.

The analogy by no means stops here. The creations, the fossil remains of which have been displayed by geology, did not wear themselves out, and gradually cease through inability to go on further, but were suddenly brought to an end by violent convulsions of the earth's surface, the harbingers of further changes in its construction. The agents by which these destructions were effected were fire and water. Here again the harmony is perfect. Two destructions of existing creations are revealed in the Bible. The one is past, the other future. Both take place, when that which they destroy is in the full vigour of existence; and wonderful to tell, the one destruction is accomplished by the agency of water, the other by that of fire.

Our space prevents us from dealing with more than the rough, broad, undoubted outlines of the discoveries of geology. We were at first tempted to regret this; but on consideration, it is exactly in this general, unfinished manner, that God's creative works are set forth in the page of Revelation. They are therefore in the best possible condition for comparison, and we venture to present that comparison to our readers, as one of the most striking proofs from analogy of the truth of Scripture that has ever been elicited.

Having thus endeavoured to set before our author our reasons for concluding that the discoveries of geology are neither so opposed to the letter of Scripture nor to its veracity, as he has assumed, we return with pleasure to his work.

We doubt the necessity, and even question the propriety of the defence of the genuineness of the five books of Moses, with which our author commences. His defence is not a strong one. It rests upon minor and worthless authorities. Thank God, this portion of his word is too firmly established, as an integral part of his truth, to need any help from Bishops Tomline and Mant, in order to its reception. (pp. 3--5.) The citation of an insufficient authority is always a bad defence; and a

bad defence is one of the greatest damages that can befal a good cause. We also would suggest, that the genuineness of the books of Moses is no part of the matter in debate. Inasmuch as the Dean of Westminster (in common with Professor Sedgwick, Sir Roderick Murchison, Dr. Mantell, and every other geologist of any note whatever) is entirely agreed with him upon it. But to commence with this defence is in effect to convey a painful imputation on those whose views upon all other points he so strenuously opposes. Of the intention to do this we at once acquit him; but we trust that in a future impression he will see the propriety of altering this portion of his work.

His account of the present state of the chronology of the sacred text (Chapter v.) is most valuable, and we beg to thank him for it. To our conviction he has clearly made out his case, that the numbers of the Hebrew Bible have been altered, by the Jews, in order that it might not appear that the Saviour was born at the commencement of the seventh millennium from the Creation, as it was then universally expected would be the case. We are aware that in thus deciding for the chronology of the Septuagint, we oppose the conclusions of many eminent divines, and among them no one more eminent than Mr. Elliott (Horæ Apocalypt. Vol. iii.) We are, however, by no means certain that his deductions as to the second advent, at the commencement of the seventh millennium from the creation, according to the common chronology, may not have something in them after all; even though that chronology should itself be a falsified one. We must bear in mind that a true deduction from false grounds, however paradoxical in logics, is by no means impossible in theology. The special Providence of God has never ceased, for one moment, to watch with an intensity we might safely term miraculous, over the integrity of the sacred text. It was just as vigilant in the second century (when in the cells of the school of Tiberias the malignity of the Jews devised and executed this falsification) as at any other period and there would be nothing inconsistent with the dealings of Him who put blessings into the mouth of Balaam while curses were in his heart, and who attuned the envy of Caiaphas the High Priest, to a prophecy (John ii. 49-52,) if He should also have presided over this wicked Sanhedrim of bigotted and scoffing Rabbins, casting their devices in the mould of His Providence, and thus working his own ends through the agency of their malignity; that so, "the truth of God may abound, through their lie, unto His glory!"

We have one suggestion to offer to the author of this work before we finally leave the subject. He truly informs us that three

several systems of chronology exist in the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the Septuagint copies of the Pentateuch, and that the claims of all of them to acceptance are so strong, that the decision becomes a question of formidable difficulty. The difference in these three systems are by no means trifling and unimportant, as the following synopsis will fully demonstrate.

It will be seen that the Septuagint makes the world 1386 years older than the Hebrew text. We extract these details from the pages of our author. Nor is this by any means the only part of the chronology of Scripture which is beset with difficulties. Now it is of course impossible to doubt that He who inspired the Scriptures is perfectly cognizant of the present uncertain condition of the dates in these various versions; or that He might, had it seemed good to Him, have preserved the numbers in the same state of marvellous integrity as the rest of the text. He then, who neither does nor suffers any thing in vain, had assuredly some purpose in this permission. What that purpose may be we do not presume to conjecture: but to this conclusion the discrepancies in the Scripture dates point unerringly. The Bible was not given to man to be dealt with as a mere chronological table. By a parity of reasoning, we arrive at the same conclusion with regard to all other matters collaterally mentioned in the Bible, but not in themselves a part of that system of religion for the teaching of which it was revealed. To no passage does this apply more forcibly than to the first chapter of Genesis. It is by no means to be dealt with as a system of cosmogony. It is a true and bold, but very bare outline of that which actually occurred at the creation. Every word of it will be found to be true, when we are in a position, by the accumulation of facts, to compare it with the phenomena presented by geology as a complete science; but meanwhile, like an unfulfilled prophecy, it has its obscure passages and doubtful interpretations.

The work before us displays great research in the works of geologists, though the writer has evidently not himself studied the science. This of course detracts from the weight of his opinion on the question. There is also a tone of dogmatism in many parts of it, which we never quite relish in these discussions. could also have wished that his conclusions had been more satisfactorily deduced from his reasonings in many passages of his

We

book; especially in those comparative criticisms by which he attempts to establish his own interpretation of the two first verses in the Bible. Nevertheless, we are glad this book has appeared. It contains, we believe, all that can be said on behalf of what has been termed the literal rendering, and as such we can safely recommend it to those who adopt that mode of reading the inspired history of the creation of all things. We have given at length our reason for coinciding with the interpretation of the Dean of Westminster rather than with that of the Dean of York.

LETTERS TO MY UNKNOWN FRIENDS. By A LADY. London: Longmans. 1816.

THOUGH strictly an original work, this little volume borrows its title from the "Lettres à ses Amis Inconnus" of Lavater, the object being to mark out and distinguish a particular class of persons to whom the Letters are specially addressed, persons whom a peculiarity of intellectual nature and habits has constituted friends, though unknown ones, of the writer. The subjects of the Letters-ten in number,-are, Contentment-Temper-Falsehood and Truthfulness-Envy-Selfishness and Unselfishness-Selfcontrol-Economy-Cultivation of the Mind (two Letters)Amusements. "All of the rules and systems recommended in these Letters," the author assures us, "have been the test of long-tried and extensive experience. There is nothing new about them but their publication." The volume indeed bears marks of maternal observation, and though somewhat wanting in interest and persuasive power, cannot be read without profit. It is the production of an accomplished, thoughtful, earnest mind, and being intended for the higher class of readers, takes a wide range on the subject of mental cultivation. The religious tone, though not in all respects so general or correct as might be wished-and the references to authors somewhat objectionable-is invariably serious and devout. We give a single extract-the conclusion of the ninth Letter, on "the Cultivation of the Mind."

"Finally," observes the writer, "I would again refer to that subject which ought to be the beginning and end, the foundation and crowningpoint, of all our studies. Let whatever you do be done to the glory of God.' Earthly motives, if pure and amiable ones, may hold a subordinate place; but unless the main spring of your actions be the desire to glorify your Father which is in heaven,' you will find no real peace in life, no blessedness in death. As one likely means of keeping this primary object of