death before Adam's transgression. The geologists challenged them to prove this from Scripture, maintaining, in the words of FIDES, that "death was penal to man, who was created for immortality; and animals partake of the evils arising from man's fallen condition; but an animalcule might have lived and died after the enjoyment of its little span of life, on the very day that Adam was created, without its death being penal;" and that "there is nothing in Scripture to disprove this;" the notion being merely a floating idea, not grounded on any warranty of holy writ. In reply to this, such passages are quoted as 1 Cor. xv. 21, "Since by man came death, by man came also the ressurrection of the dead;" whereupon FIDES argued, that if in this death is included the death of the brute creation, their resurrection must be included in the next verse, which says, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Our correspondents replies, that are being masculine, could not include brutes; but FIDES might rejoin, that it was not the geologists, but their opponents, who said brutes were included in the former verse; for all that the geologists said was, that if you include thein in the one, you must also in the other The geologists maintained, that such passages speak only of mankind; though the gender of the word Птs would not of itself be decisive; for notwithstanding in English "the brute creation" is neuter, there are corresponding words in Greek and Latin which are masculine or feminine; and where men and women are included, a general masculine word is used; and might possibly still be used where there was no express intention of excluding what in English could not be comprehended under a masculine term. But the grammatical point is of no consequence; for Пoris says, very justly, that the death and resurrection spoken of in 1 Cor. xv. relates only to the human race; and the geologists had said precisely the same; only when verse 21 was quoted against them, FIDES urged in reply verse 22, as an argumentum ad hominem.

We have no wish to interfere in the controversy; but as Romans viii. 18—23. has been quoted, to prove that there could be no death of animals before the fall of man, it would have been open to FIDES to take the same argument respecting that passage, that he did respecting 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22; namely, that if the death of animals is there included, their "redemption" also is included. We say this, not as arguing the question, but only as shewing that those who do argue it, should, in quoting texts, consider whether the context will uphold their interpretation. Dr. Doddridge, who had no geological hypothesis to serve, says that to make the stress of this passage rest upon "the brutal or inanimate creation is insufferable; since the day of the redemption of our bodies will be attended with the conflagration which [instead of ushering in their redemption,] will put an end to them." So again, when part of Rom. vi. 23, was quoted, "The wages of sin is death," to shew that there could have been no death of animals before Adam's transgression, the geologist might have replied, that the statement can be only commensurate with the other part of the verse, "But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." It seemed to us that this was what FIDES meant-though as we do not know who he was, we speak conjecturally. The geologists had asked for texts to prove that every animalcule that inhabits air, earth, or water, was created for immortality, and could not perish till Adam fell; and when texts were alleged, they replied, that if these texts were applicable to the case, (which they denied,) they proved more than their opponents would admit. It seems however to us, if we may interpose a word, that the whole argument is irrelevant on both sides; for the life and death which the geological professors at our Universities, and geologists in general, say they find such irresistible proofs of in the extinct genera and species of fossile remains, they maintain, must have been very, very, long anterior to the six days' work

recorded in the first chapter of Genesis; so that the alleged pre-Adamite world, and the world when prepared for the abode of man, were separated from each other by a chasm; and hence it would not be correct to apply to the one what relates solely to the other. The geologist might say to his opponent, " You allege that the Bible speaks only of the six days' work, and of subsequent events; that no text bears upon any anterior state of things, for that there was no such state. You are therefore not entitled to apply what is said of the consequences of man's transgression to a pre-Adamite world. You must shew that there was no such world; for if there was, then by your own concession the death pronounced upon man, even if it were proved to have included brutes, had nothing to do with a previous order of things. It might be that animals were, for wise and merciful reasons, originally intended to live and die; and were not created for immortality, even though death, which was penal to man, was connected also with penal circumstances to the inferior animals after his transgression."

There is also another point upon which, to save a rejoinder, we may add a passing word. Our correspondent Ts had asked "If death can fairly be supposed to have had any place in an unfallen world?" In reply, Fides said, that if by "fairly" was meant reasonably; he thought that it was as reasonable (and he believed it also to be consistent with Scripture) that animals should die for infinitely wise reasons connected with the Divine purposes in the creation, as that they died because the human race had sinned; but that if the word “fairly” implied that any Christian geologist could wish to deal unfairly with the question, he could not conceive of such a thing; for why should he desire to cheat himself or others about a matter of physical science, any more than about a matter of mathematical demonstration? Now noris, in his present letter, considers Fides as drawing a parallel between geology, which is full of difficulty, and a "theorem in mathematics." But he evidently did not draw it as to the matter of certainty, put as to impartiality of inquiry. He said that some religious opposers of the doctrines of modern geology do not address themselves to the subject with a perfectly unbiassed mind, as they would to a mathematical demonstration; whereas he thought they ought to do so;-that it was not a question of fairness but of fact; that no religious geologist could wish to contravene Scripture; but that his opponents might wish to contravene the plain inferences of geology, before they had "fairly" weighed the arguments in favour of them, because they were of opinion that they contradict the sacred narrative; which their upholders deny. The present letter of Пors proves that he at least is willing both to weigh, and, where he thinks "fairness" demands, to concede.

We have offered these remarks, not as umpires, but to spare further controversy. It is somewhat curious, however, to observe how extremes meet. To avoid the force of the argument put by Mr. Melvill and others, respecting ravenous beasts and animalcules, it has been hastily said, "How do we know that animalcules, or even ravenous beasts, existed before the fall of man; might they not have been created afterwards?" This is a random plunge into a slough in the hope of jumping over an obstacle. Even if the hypothesis were allowed, it would not obviate any one of the difficulties which are alleged against geological inferences. The geologist argues from the state of the earth's strata and organic remains, that there were races of animated beings upon our globe long before the era of the creation of mankind. His opponent says this could not be, for there could be no death before the fall of Adam. The geologist asks in reply how the ground could be trodden, or air breathed, or water drunk, or grass or herbs or fruit eaten, without destroying insect or animalcule life; or how pre datory animals, from the minutest microscopic speck to the lion or the shark

could live without the food for which alone they are adapted. To get rid of the difficulty, the hasty replicant says, How do we know that animalcules existed then, or any predatory animal? But if not, there must have been a creation after the fall; a most gratuitous hypothesis, for which there is not a shadow of foundation in Scripture; and the geologist may justly argue that if a single animalcule was made after the Fall, Scripture saying nothing of it, there might equally have been animals before the six days' work, though neither is that mentioned in Scripture. But enough of a random suggestion intended to get rid of the difficulty of animalcules and carnivorous animals; but which, if admitted, would not solve the other difficulties which are alleged against the hypothesis that all things endued with the breath of life were originally adapted for eternal duration and multiplication, but ceased to be eternal, by the Divine decree, in consequence of human transgression.

There is another consideration connected with the geological question, which we do not recollect that any of our correspondents have touched upon; and which, though still without making ourselves parties in the discussion, we will advert to. The doctrine taught by the geological professors at both our universities, and generally adopted by geologists, is, not merely that animal life existed for a very lengthened period before the creation of mankind, but that it was bestowed by the Almighty in successive stages of development or organization, up to the period when the scriptural six-days' work commences. In opposing therefore the geological doctrine of remote animal existence, we must prepare to answer also the argument of succession; for if we were to admit succession, and yet disallow protracted pre-Adamite existence, we should bring out the conclusion that the present races of animated being are not all as old as Adam, but have been gradually created from time to time during six thousand years; a notion both unscriptural, and opposed to the most decisive languages of facts. For observe the extent of the question. It is not whether some races of beings are even now successively added by the Almighty to former acts of creation, as some (but we think not warrantably) maintain; but whether all the extinct genera and species of animated beings are of Adamite and post-Adamite chronology. We will copy from a recent number of the Quarterly Review (June, page 111) a passage which shews the confidence with which the most eminent geologists speak of the successions of creation in extinct genera and species. Now if this alleged succession be supposed to intervene between the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis and the six days' work, no additional difficulty is made by the idea of successional acts; for if the mention of a pre-Adamite animal creation was omitted in the sacred oracles, as not being of any religious concern to mankind, of course nothing could be revealed as to whether it was single or successional; but if the inspired text does not allow the parenthesis between the first and succeeding verses of Genesis i. of a now extinct animal world, then we have to reply not only to the argument of time but also of succession. The facts, for instance, adduced by the Quarterly Reviewer to prove succession, must either be shewn to be compatible with the doctrine of a single act of creative power; or if succession is admitted, it is driven to the six-days of creation and the short period which has subsequently elapsed. We merely suggest the facts for the consideration of our readers; and the reason we have said so much upon the subject is, that we have thought some of our correspondents have been rash in taking up this or that hypothesis or interpretation to get rid of an objection, without sufficiently examining whether their arguments might not cut both ways. The following is the passage from the Quarterly Reviewer:

"Mr. Murchison's work contains a description and catalogue of the organic CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 24. 4 Z

remains by which he has succeeded more especially in identifying and distinguishing his Silurian system' from other earlier formations. Elaborate engravings are given of about three hundred and fifty species, three-fourths of which are new to the scientific world. And it is upon this that the chief merit of our author's labours is based, since he demonstrates that, independently of all local or mineral distinctions, these Silurian rocks contain vast quantities of organic remains-a fauna of their own-totally distinct, except in a very few individual instances, from the fossils of the overlying systems. It is by the establishment of this fact that he is authorised to claim for his system the remarkable individuality and extension of character which justifies its separation from all the earlier deposits, and has enabled other geologists already to identify it in other parts of the earth's surface, of which it constitutes, according to recent information, a not inconsiderable portion.

"The evidence thus brought forward affords an additional proof of the important truth which, as we said above, geology had already established; that each great period of change, during which the surface of our planet was essentially modified, was also marked by the successive production and obliteration of certain races of animated beings."

"Not that every ancient formation was tenanted by creatures absolutely peculiar to it; the large natural groups of strata only, or, so to speak, systems, can be thus distinguished; but every great movement of newly-deposited matterevery considerable change in the character of the deposits, was accompanied by the appearances of new races of animals, and the destruction, and total vanishing from the face of the earth, of the great mass of those species which previously lived, and moved, and had their being there, but whose construction or habits were probably unfitted for the new state of things which the progress of great physical revolutions had brought about. And the evidence of this fact is not confined to one locality, but is general to the whole surface of the globe, which has been as yet investigated by geologists. We do not mean that these changes were every where synchronous: no doubt, while one district was undergoing rapid mutations, both of its mineral structure and organised existences, others were, for the time, stationary and quiescent, as is notoriously the case at present. But, sooner or later, changes of similar character invaded these quarters also; and there is every reason to believe that, within periods of considerable extent, every part of the earth's surface was, in turn, subjected to analogous variations of its physical condition, giving rise to analogous changes in its organic life.

"That the entire series of these changes, from first to last, were progressive, not cyclical, as some geologists are inclined to contend, that the dynamical agencies affecting the earth's surface have diminished in energy, as the organic creation has become more complicated, multiform, and perfect, is a part of our geological creed which we are glad to find Mr. Murchison supporting by his authority and additional evidence. It is true that the Metamorphic theory of the origin of the crystalline rocks, so ably brought forward by Mr. Lyell, in his recent elementary work, if admitted, as we believe it must be to a considerable extent at least, introduces much confusion into the hitherto received chronology of formations→ (indeed the frontispiece alone of Mr. Lyell's book is enough to throw a Wernerian into fits) yet we cannot see how the evidence afforded by the unquestioned progressive development of organised existence-crowned as it has been by the recent creation of the earth's greatest wonder, Man-can be set aside, or its seemingly necessary result withheld for a moment."

THE REV. F. GOODE ON HIS MISSIONARY SERMON:-WITH REMARKS ON HIS LETTER.

DEAR SIR,

To the Editor of the Christian Oberver.

As you have not only published the letter of your correspondent, “A warm Friend to Missions, &c.," on the subject of my Church Missionary Sermon, but have left him far behind in his censures upon it, by your own remarks, and have even gone so far as to charge me (under cover of general advice) with "the sin of rending asunder a Scriptural institution," I am compelled to address a few words to you

in the way of defence. So far as attention is likely to be drawn to the point at issue, viz., the legitimate expectations of the Church from Missionary effort, I cannot regret the call that is thus made upon me. Indeed, I had no other object, when I penned the few paragraphs of my Sermon which had reference to the subject. I was quite aware that I should incur the displeasure of those, who, while they are themselves continually referring to unfulfilled prophecy, and confidently apply its glowing promises as belonging to Missionary Societies, deprecate the slightest allusion to it, when a contrary interpretation of them is suggested. My anticipations, in this respect, have been amply realised; and I am quite content to bear the odium which has been cast upon me, if, thereby, I may but provoke examination of a subject which involves in it matter of deepest importance to the churches of Christendom. The real question at issue is, whether the church of the Gentile dispensation is destined of God to reap the harvest of the world to Christ; or whether (like the Jews at the first advent) the professing Christian nations be not ripening (through their growing infidelity and apostacy from the Gospel) for utter rejection, and exterminating judgments, at the second coming in glory of the Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints; when his ancient people shall be restored to the Divine favour, and "the reception of them" shall be "life from the dead" to the nations of the earth.

At present, however, I am not called upon to discuss with you the truth or falsehood of either of these views; but simply to defend myself from the charges levelled against me, for venturing to give expression to my own sentiments on the subject, when appearing as the advocate of the Christian Missionary Society. To begin, then, with your correspondent's letter.

His query, how far the defalcation in the Society's income is due to the injudicious advocacy of myself and others, I may consider as triumphantly disposed of, by your own establishment of the fact, that defalcation in the regular income of the Society there has been none, but rather an increase; the deficiency being solely under the head of benefactions and legacies. But it is to my purpose to remark, how those views of unfulfilled prophecy, which make Missionary Societies the evangelizers of the world, are here assumed by your correspondent to be the main spring of Missionary exertion. Take away these, and the income of the Society is expected to dwindle instantly. He says again :

If so,

"What I feel is, that the majority of almost any assembly, after hearing such remarks, would think, if the world is to be evangelized by a miracle, why spend so much money and time, now, for the purpose?" The question here is, Would they be justified in thinking so? Are the remarks fairly chargeable with this result? So far from it, that your correspondent himself admits, that such reasoning would be justly attributable to the " selfishness of the human heart.' let the selfishness bear the blame; but let not truth be compromised, to counteract it. Let me say, too, that if such statements as your correspondent complains of be injudicious, he has to thank himself, and other like-minded friends of Missions, for them, who, not content with resting the duty of Missionary exertions on the plain command of Christ, to "preach the gospel to every creature," insist upon nothing less than the regeneration of the whole world by their efforts; about which, also, other than selfish men will have their