of the earth, carries Babel and Shinar many hundred miles up the Euphrates from the site of Babylon, and moves Ararat to the south and east, so as to stand at the head of the valley through which the eastern arm of the Euphrates flows. It is surprising that any man should think he is supporting the authority of Scripture, when he thus piles hypothesis upon hypothesis, in violation of the laws of historical criticism.

Dr. Hitchcock has a Lecture on the Future Condition of the Earth, and in the passage in the Second Epistle of Peter, (iii. 10,) in which it is predicted that "the elements shall melt with fervent heat and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up," finds another instance of the conformity of Scripture with geological discovery. Now, before inquiring what the meaning or the weight of this passage is, we have to ascertain whether it really came from the pen of an Apostle. Our author doubtless knows, though he has not informed his readers, that this was one of the books the genuineness of which was disputed in the time of Eusebius, and generally denied in that of Jerome, and that many eminent modern critics have judged it to be spurious. Indeed, the passage in which the writer speaks of the Epistles of Paul as a collective work is of itself sufficient to create the strongest doubts of its genuineness. It is very injudicious therefore to argue from any portion of it as if it were inspired. Yet Dr. Hitchcock finds in this verse a chemistry so perfectly accordant with modern science that he is sure no uninspired writer would have used language so accurate. This coincidence, however, is not obtained without the exercise of some of that exegetical ingenuity on which we have remarked before. First of all "the heavens" are converted into "the atmosphere" by a very unwarranted substitution, seeing these same heavens are described in Scripture as a firmament; and then their passing away with a noise is said to be an effect which the chemist would predict by the union of its oxygen with the hydrogen and other gases liberated by intense heat. Again the writer is supposed to teach that the earth shall not be destroyed by fire but only changed, and we are called upon to admire the accuracy of his philosophy, since fire changes and does not destroy-though he inti

mates no connection whatever in material between the old heavens and earth and the new. The opinion that deluges and conflagrations were to follow one another in the history of the world, so far from being peculiar to revelation, was one of the most common in the mythology and philosophy of ancient nations. It is safe to offer predictions respecting the future destinies of the globe; those whose science is the most profound would be the most reluctant to utter them. Though we may have abundant evidence of the existence of a central fire, and lamentable proofs of its destructive power when it finds a vent, there is nothing in its actual operations, or even its more energetic action in past ages, from which a universal conflagration of the earth and heavens would be anticipated by any sound philosophy. Rather do appearances point to a gradual decline of this internal heat, and a termination of the present system of life by the progress of refrigeration.

Besides the geological part of his Lectures, Dr., Hitchcock treats of several questions bearing on theologysuch as creation by law, the nebular hypothesis-permanence of species. On all of them he writes, like a man who has kept pace with the progress of science; and had he confined himself to natural theology and retrenched from his book, when he gave it to the press, the diffuseness of the Lecture Hall, it would have been a good compendium, and useful supplement to Paley. The proofs of wise design and provident benevolence are seen to multiply as we follow the footsteps of the Creator through the countless ages which geology has added to the history of the world. But he has unfortunately identified Religion with the cosmogonic and historical opinions of the Jewish people in the remote age in which the book of Genesis was compiled or written, and taken upon himself the impracticable task of reconciling them with modern science. The advocates of Religion need much discrimination in selecting their ground. If we would defend Revelation we must abandon the rambling suburbs and ruinous outworks by which it has been surrounded, and concentrate our strength about the citadel.

ART. V. THE HARMONY OF THE INTUITIONAL AND LOGICAL ELEMENTS IN THE ULTIMATE GROUNDS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

1. The Value of the Holy Scriptures, and the right mode of using them. Four Discourses, by John Kenrick, M.A. Whitfield: London, 1851.

2. The Elements of the Gospel Harmony: with a Catena on Inspiration, from the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. By Brooke Foss Westcott, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Macmillan and Co.: Cambridge, 1851.

3. Catholicity Spiritual and Intellectual. An Attempt at Vindicating the Harmony of Faith and Knowledge. A Series of Discourses, by Thomas Wilson, M.A., late Minister of St. Peter's, Mancroft, Norwich. John Chapman: London, 1850.

4. An Introduction to the Religion of Nature. Five Lectures delivered at Finsbury Chapel, South Place, by Henry Ierson, A.M. John Chapman: London, 1850. 5. A Treatise on Divine Union, designed to point out some of the intimate relations between God and Man in the higher forms of Religious Experience. By Thomas C. Upham, D.D., Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy in Bowdoin College, Maine. C. H. Peirce and Co.: Boston (U. S.), 1851.

THESE works exhibit no unfair sample of the present condition of the religious world. They represent the tendencies of the different schools which divide it amongst them: -the orthodox, clinging with hesitation to its ancient forms of belief, and contending in words for a plenary inspiration which it has virtually renounced ;-the ultrarational, which completely effaces the old line of demarcation between natural and revealed religion;—and the moderate, which profiting by the difficulties of both extremes, endeavours to mediate cautiously between the two. In spite however of apparent divergency, they point very

clearly to certain psychological phænomena which lie in their common centre, and bear most decisive traces of the intellectual necessities, under the pressure of which they have all grown up into their actual shape and consistency. We do not undertake to give a full account of each of these works, or to pronounce a critical judgment upon them; but we seize the opportunity of a brief notice of their contents, to bring before our readers in one view, the more important points of the question on which they turn, and to attempt the discovery of some deeper principle in which it may possibly find its solution.

Mr. Westcott starts from the assumption, that the plenary inspiration of the Four Gospels is an indispensable condition of their fulfilling the purpose of a Revelation; and throughout his examination of the New Testament and the Anti-Nicene Fathers, his avowed object is to establish that fundamental position. It seems extraordinary, that such an inquiry which takes for granted the chief thing to be proved, should have been proposed for a prize at this time of day; and still more so, that a great and venerable Seat of Learning which ought to encourage the ingenuous love of truth for its own sake, should hold out the bait of Academic distinction to inveigle the minds of youth in the sophistries of special pleading and the advocacy of a foregone conclusion.* Mr. Westcott has kept to his brief, and made the best of his case, and discovers, it must be confessed, considerable learning and ingenuity in conducting it. But his investigation is not, and under the circumstances could not be, a thorough one. It does not go to the bottom of the subject, and evades or leaves unanswered its real difficulties. If the primary assumption be withdrawn, his whole theory falls to the ground. His concessions in fact destroy his premises; for admitting, as he does, the full operation of human individuality in the transmission of divine truth, he comes after all, under the

The terms of the Norrisian Prize offered by the University of Cambridge for 1850, and gained by this Essay of Mr. Westcott, run as follows: "The Plenary Inspiration of the Four Gospels is not invalidated by the alleged discrepancies which are objected against them.”—Suppose the Lucasian Professor were to propose, as the subject of a prize-"The Cartesian theory of vortices is not invalidated by alleged contradictions to existing phænomena, which are objected against it"-how the world would stare! Yet we cannot see any essential distinction between the two cases.

cover of an orthodox phraseology, to a substantial agreement with those who recognise in the whole genesis and development of Christianity, the overruling guidance and combination of Providence, and so reduces the question to little more than a dispute about words (pp. 9 and 10). He ventures, it is true, on other conclusions, which import much more than this. After having stated that the whole of Canonical Scripture is providentially fitted for our instruction—he adds, that "this perfect instructiveness consists in the real existence of a true spiritual meaning beneath its historical, ceremonial and moral details," and lastly, that "the general principles of interpretation are not to be derived by arbitrary criticism, but to be received from the Apostolic tradition committed to the Church" (p. 225). How many fallacies are involved in this last proposition! Observe first the artful word "arbitrary," insinuating the impossibility of any other rational alternative than conformity to Apostolic tradition. As if writings themselves, combined with a knowledge of their origin and the circumstances of their composition, must not, independent of all tradition, suggest a natural, not an arbitrary, rule for their own interpretation. Then again, when it is argued, that the true principles of Scriptural interpretation must be derived from Apostolic tradition committed to the Church-every one will perceive on reflection, that this is a complete instance of reasoning in a circle. The claims of any Church to Apostolic authority rest exclusively on the witness of Scripture. But for Scripture we could not decide whether it had any title to authority at all. Its credentials must stand or fall with the credibility of Scripture. How then can any Society whose sole authority is founded on a book, supply a rule for the interpretation of that book? In other words, how can the derived re-constitute the primary authority? Ecclesiastical tradition may indeed show how Scripture was once understood, and put us on the track of its true interpretation. But what the Church and Scripture are-and what is the authority properly attaching to either-can only be determined by considerations that are external to both-the facts of universal history and the unchanging laws of the human mind. To do Mr. Westcott justice, he seems by no means satisfied with his own conclusions. He declines discussing them,