will not allow that without faith we can possibly please God; the other Apostle denies the soundness of a faith not issuing in holiness. It is not, therefore, the necessity of good works which is disclaimed by the author of the Epistle to the Romans, but their merit in procuring justification: it is not faith that St. James depreciates, but a mere dead and speculative belief of the doctrines of Christianity, including no practical acquiescence in the conditions of the evangelical covenant.

he

Before we finish this article, it may not be amiss to glance at the inconclusiveness of Dr. Daubeny's vindication of Bishop Bull against the charge of Romanizing. To refute this charge, urges that many passages, some of which he adduces, occur in that learned prelate's writings, in which the doctrines of the Vatican are treated with great severity. But surely it is possible for two parties to be much at variance on some points, and yet to coalesce or approach very closely on others. Nor is it inconsistent with our experience of human nature, for the Bishop to have been vehement in denouncing the hypothesis, so offensive to Protestants, of a second justification depending upon good works, in proportion as he was conscious that his own theory bore a family likeness to it. We have seen divinity from the pens of men who are not sparing of invective against Socinianism and Popery, that is nevertheless fitter for Racovia or for Rome than for the metropolis of reformed Christendom, and that might be leavened with advantage from the writings of some pious Cardinals, and even of the Tridentine divines. Be it observed, too, that Archdeacon Browne does not charge the Bishop of St. David's with exhibiting in his writings a tincture of Romanism, simply because the Harmonia Apostolica agrees in some of its positions with the Rhemish Bible; but because it agrees in those articles of doctrine which are the turning points of Popery and Protestantism. It is not because Bishop Bull was a stanch and able defender of the Divinity of Christ, on which fundamental doctrine the Roman Catholics are perfectly sound; it is because he maintained a plan of justification which the first Reformers of Germany and England reckoned among the worst of the Romish errors, that the Archdeacon of Ěly hesitates to class him among the pillars of Protestant orthodoxy.

We have done, for the present, with the great doctrine of Justification, of the preservation of which, pure and uncontaminated, we shall always be in the highest degree jealous. It is the salt of the Protestant Church, and is essential to its incorruptness and vitality. Wherever the figments of Judaizing or Romanizing Christians make their way-wherever justification

is ascribed in the smallest degree to works, legal or evangelical; to external or inherent righteousness of our own, however exact, or however acquired-there the value of Christ's propitiation must be proportionably extenuated, and the standard of holiness will almost inevitably be reduced. How plausibly and acutely soever men of erudition and intellectual dexterity may now reason on the joint efficacy of works and faith in our justification, yet one of the most eminent Roman-Catholic doctors, who was no cold advocate of merit, confesses that it is the safest way to put our trust, wholly and solely, in the righteousness of Christ Propter præsentis vita incertitudinem, tutissimum est in solo Christo recumbere. In this present life, no penitent sinner, no wise man, will dare to plead his own works as giving him any right to remission of sin and eternal life; and, in the last great day of trial, the best of men will urge no other plea than the mercy of God and the merit of Christ Jesus.

Essay on the Theory of the Earth: By_Baron G. Cuvier. With Geological Illustrations: By Professor JAMESON. Fifth Edition. 8vo. pp. 550. Edinburgh. 1827. Reliquia Diluviana; or, Observations on the Organic Remains contained in Caves, Fissures, and Diluvial Gravel, and on other Geological Phenomena attesting the Action of an Universal Deluge. By the Rev. W. BUCKLAND, B.D. F.R.S. F.L.S. &c. Second Edition. 4to. pp. 303. London: Murray. 1824. Scriptural Geology; or Geological Phenomena consistent only with the literal Interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures upon the_Subjects of the Creation and Deluge: in Answer to an Essay on the Theory of the Earth," by M. Cuvier, perpetual Secretary of the French Institute, &c. &c.; and to Professor Buckland's Theory of the Caves, as delineated in his "Reliquia Diluviana," &c. &c. 2 vols. 8vo. London: Hatchard. 1827.

66

THE great object of science is the discovery of truth, under all its several and distinct forms. The investigation of the laws which govern the material universe, and the contemplation of human character in its different modifications and circumstances, are but various branches of that universal science whose great problem is, What is truth? The very state of existence in which we are at present placed, and especially the constitution of our minds, render the pursuit of certain, definite knowledge

one of the most stirring and important employments of our life. In the earliest infancy of society, as in its periods of highest refinement, man's intellect is awake and busy in the pursuit : every object which comes under his notice first rouses his curiosity, and then employs his reason. And as he advances in the pursuit, particular truths become generalized; and a new discovery is no longer like a pebble added to a heap, but like one thrown into a stream, and producing a thousand concentric circles. But, universal as is the pursuit of truth, and pure and simple as it is in its own essence, the manner in which it is sought would almost lead us to imagine that men forget it is something independent and unchangeable; something directly opposed to prejudice, because it is the offspring of reason; and uninfluenced by humour or caprice, because only visible when the mind works freely, and in a right direction. It is very well known how frequently both truth and reason are overcome by the obstacles opposed to them by prejudice or passion; but they sometimes find more dangerous enemies among those who profess to be their most sincere votaries. Men of learning, with different habits of mind, and fitted by their talents for opposite pursuits, too frequently turn their arms against each other, instead of uniting them to subdue that common enemy, Error; or overcome the difficulties which, in their common cause, are the difficulties of both. There is little trouble in discovering the cause of this opposition. Both of them ardent in the pursuit of truth, but pursuing it in detail, they may often arrive, by just reasoning, at the end of their particular inquiries, without being afterwards able to discover the connecting links of their different subjects. The naturalist may have followed and discovered truth in the patient investigation of physical causes; and the moralist or metaphysician may have traced her through the mysteries of mind and spirit; but when they come to compare the results of their several reasonings-when axiom becomes opposed to axiom, and system to system—then, for want of some key to the arcana of nature, which shall at once display the universe both of matter and spirit under some few general laws, each imagines the other to be in error, or to have pursued an inquiry which has ended in some dangerous and inconsistent theory. It is only where the present system of things is understood sufficiently to give us a general knowledge of nature; where we can discern the harmony between one part of the plan and the other, and see how matter and spirit, physical and moral principles, agree; that science has attained one part of her great object, or can ensure agreement among her disciples In many branches of knowledge we have made an approach to this: in

others, the advocates of particular systems have not been sufficiently opposed to each other to make us feel the collision: but in some departments of science it would almost seem, as with some of the Pagan divinities, that there is a twofold truth; one ruling one order of things, and the other another. We would principally attribute this sectarianism in science to the cause already mentioned namely, the want of certain connecting links, which, when different principles are discovered, would enable us to see their consistency and mutual dependence. Abundance of other causes may be found for the same circumstance, in the natural incapacity of the mind to take an extensive view of even one subject at once, in its readiness to yield to preconceived opinions, and in the power which mere external circumstances have in influencing the judgment; but the reason we have first alleged is applicable to every case, and applies as well to the clearest and most unprejudiced inquirer, as to those whose minds are influenced by many other passions as well as the love of truth.

We have been called to make these observations by the nature of the works on our table. Three men of extensive learning and observation-two of them ministers of the same religion, and upholding the truth of the same revelation have sent a theory into the world, which one minister of the Gospel agrees with the philosopher in upholding as the true system of nature, and the other declares to be both dangerous and contrary to revealed truth. As many of our readers may not be acquainted with the principles on which this controversy is founded, and which is daily becoming more and more a subject of fashionable inquiry, we shall endeavour to give them a plain and succinct view of it, as far as regards its connection with religion.

With the curiosity inherent in our minds, it is not surprising that men should have long ago sought to discover more of the history of the world than is contained in any written records. Even those who never doubted the truth of the Scriptures have scarcely ever thought of referring to them for the illustration of phenomena depending on mere natural causes. And whatever

mention there may be in other histories of the changes in the appearance of the earth, the effects have been too partial, or too imperfectly recorded, to establish any system of cosmogony. Among the moderns, the systems of Burnet, Whiston, Woodward, and Buffon have attracted the most attention. Descartes, Leibnitz, Kepler, and almost every other philosopher of note, especially Werner, have also done something towards raising or defending some theory which was to account for the original and present state of the earth. Our readers, however, will be

་

best able to judge of their success by a short account of some of their systems.

Burnet, whose theory was intended to be in perfect unison with the Scriptures, considered the earth before the Deluge to be a fluid mass, whose parts, differing in density, gradually assumed their proper stations according to their respective gravity. The solid earth was beneath the waters; and above the latter element floated the air and all the lighter substances. Between these, however, and the water; there is supposed to have been a sort of oily substance, which, receiving the earthy particles carried up by the air, became at length formed into a crust, which was soon sufficient to support both vegetables and animals. While in this state the earth poured forth her riches spontaneously: there were neither seas nor mountains: and summer without a change ruled over the universal garden. When men's crimes had so far increased as to call down the wrath of God, this crust, which had for some time been cracking under the sun's rays, was entirely broken up; the waters of the Deluge rushed in; and on retiring left the surface of the earth in its present state.

In the theory of Woodward the phenomena of the earth are accounted for by supposing its whole substance to have been dissolved by the Flood, and that the different layers were afterwards disposed according to their specific gravity.

In approaching the theory of Whiston, with which, no doubt, most of our readers are acquainted, we arrive at the true mysticism of geology. To lay the foundation of a philosophical system in the supposition that our globe was in its first state a comet, and that at the Deluge it was drowned by immersion in the tail of another, has too much of extravagance in it to let us attend with any hope of instruction to the profound reasoning established on it.

Instead of supposing the world to have been a comet originally, Buffon thinks it may possibly have been a particle of the sun struck off by the blow of a comet; and which, though, in comparison of the sun, but like a sparkle thrown out from hot iron, might have been sufficiently large to make our earth. The internal parts of this particle, it is supposed, remained the same; but having round it a quantity of vapours, which became by degrees condensed, it at length presented a surface fit for the purposes of life. By supposing, also, that this surface was at first entirely covered by the sea, he easily accounts for the formation of hills and valleys, and for the many fossil remains which are discovered in every part of the continents.

These are some of the theories which amused men of science before geology had begun to be pursued in the regular and sy