rect opposition. We shall now see how Dr. Bretschneider proceeds in detail, and how sprightlily he is followed by the writer in the "Evangelical Church Journal."

First, Geology and the Bible. "Geology," according to Dr. Bretschneider, "can no longer succeed in reconciling the Mosaic account of the Creation, with the revolutions which our globe has experienced. It teaches, without inquiring how the theologian can extricate himself in this matter, that the earth has passed through many great epochs of formation, of indefinite but long duration, and that the first creations upon it afterwards perished." If the Bible speak of a flood, which was universal, and covered all the mountains of the earth, "this is now known to be mathematically impossible, since we have become acquainted with the entire globe, and understand the laws by which the swelling of the sea is governed."

To begin with the last point, we wish to know who has shown, or is able to show, this mathematical impossibility? A late distinguished geologist says, "We have attempted to penetrate as far as possible beneath the surface into the interior of the earth. But if we compare the depth to which we have actually penetrated with the real diameter of the earth, it will be seen that we have scarcely broken the surface, and that a scratch of a needle on the varnish of one of our common terrestrial globes is proportionally much deeper than the deepest perforations with which we have ever penetrated into the interior of the earth." If, now, at the time of the flood, there was not only a rain of forty days upon the earth, but all the "fountains of the great deep were broken up," is it a mathematical impossibility that a gush of water from the interior of this monstrous ball should cover the mountains, which, in comparison with the diameter of the earth, are exceedingly diminutive? The production of water in the dropsy and other diseases would seem to be far more mathematically impossible; and yet the fact is plain. Equally certain must the fact of a former flood, overflowing the mountains, appear to the naturalist (even independently of the Bible, and of the traditions of many ancient nations agreeing with it) when he finds millions of sea-shells upon the highest mountaintops-when he knows that the avalanches in the Himalaya mountains of Central Asia have brought down skeletons of horses from an elevation of 16,000 feet, from summits which no man, not to say beast, is now able to reach. And how many facts are there of a similar nature to these!

In many cases it would be better if men would not put on so much the appearance of knowing to a very hair what is possible and what is impossible in the universe. Some forty years ago, when a learned man read in Livy that it had rained stones, or heard that in the church at Ensisheim a stone was shown, which, judging

from its inscription, had fallen from heaven; he would shrug his shoulders at the honest credulity of our worthy ancestors in believing something mathematically impossible. But after it had repeatedly rained stones in our day, the Academicians were obliged to allow that what they had so long regarded as mathematically impossible, had actually taken place, and the raining of stones was then put down as a fact in natural history. Many of them now assume the air of understanding the process of the thing from the very bottom, and shrug their shoulders at the honest peasant who cannot understand the thing as they do, and who expresses modest doubts at their explanations. Thus it goes in the world.

Geology now, according to Bretschneider, can no longer assent to the Mosaic account of the creation, and professes this, unconcerned how theologians may proceed in the matter. The theologian, too, might take his stand upon the book of Genesis, unconcerned how the geologist could reconcile himself with this. Such, however, is not the opinion of Dr. Bretschneider. He says that "the theologian can refute the sciences, which depend on experience, and are independent of theological principles, appears of itself to be impossible, and the attempt, should it be actually made, must be wholly fruitless." Should there be a collision, therefore, between the Bible and--mark well-not Nature, but natural philosophers, Dr. Bretschneider would not hesitate a moment to declare himself against the Bible, and in favour of the infallible philosophers,proving himself decidedly unbelieving as to the Bible, and superstitiously confident in natural philosophy as if it had never erred. But how often has philosophy erred, and how often does it still err every day!!

The Reviewer then proceeds to consider more particularly the alleged collision between Genesis and geology. But as our pages have often, and even only a few months ago, been laid open to the arguments which have by several of our countrymen been expended on this subject, we shall pass on to another of the Rationalists' grounds of doubt, merely observing that while many of the clear results of geology are corroborative of, or perfectly consistent with, the Word of God, no geological facts can be pointed out which, in themselves, contradict the exact ascertained meaning of any passage in that sacred record.

Astronomy and the Bible are the antagonists that are next named. Bretschneider says, "It was this exalted science (astronomy) which first made a fatal assault upon the notions of antiquity respecting heaven, earth, hell, resurrection, judgment, and the end of the world, which still remained unaltered at the time of the Reformation." He then puts down Melancthon as a man very limited in his astronomical views, because he called the Copernican doctrine of the motion of the earth round the sun foolish and vision

ary, "being led to this probably," as Bretschneider goes on to say, "by recollecting the words of Joshua, Stand still, O sun, upon Gideon."

One remark here. Every schoolmaster now teaches by hearsay, that the earth moves round the sun, without once thinking of giving himself or his scholars the trouble of comprehending the planetary motions. But Tycho Brahe, Riccioli, Bacon, and other great spirits, did not allow themselves to dispose of this subject so easily. Bretschneider seems to suppose that Melancthon could have been led to his decision only by a blind adherence to the Bible. But if a man of as much genius as Melancthon possessed, gave himself to the diligent study of the heavenly bodies, it is not to be wondered at if, in his best endeavours to understand the Copernican system, many things in it should have seemed to him, if not against reason, yet above it.

Suppose that on the 21st of June he had beheld from his window in Wittenberg the polar star, exactly over the point of a neighbouring spire; and that on his seeing again, on the night of the 21st of December, the same star, from the same window, and exactly over the same spire, his Copernican colleague Rhaticus had told him, that he was now more than forty millions of miles distant from the place in which he was on the 21st of June, viz., that since that time the earth had moved on so far ;-it may be put to Dr. Bretschneider's conscience, what would the rationalist theologians have decided respecting this fact of the Copernican astronomy, if it had been mentioned, not in an astronomical book, but in the Bible? Would they not have declared it mathematically impossible? But truly these theologians believe science in everything upon its mere word; while in nothing do they repose trust in their rightful Lord and Master! Thus they show how much readier they are to receive the Copernican system of faith than to understand it thoroughly enough not to be perplexed by facts regarding it, which yet must be held to be truly miraculous.

It is a remark of Pascal, that "we must doubt in the right place, be decided in the right place, and submit ourselves in the right place. One who does not do this, understands not in what the strength of reason consists." But these theologians doubt just in the wrong place, are decided in the wrong place, and in the wrong place submit their reason; and therefore know but little of the strength of reason, and so can be called Rationalists, only by the same privative etymology by which lucus is derived à non lucendo.

Let us now come to those scriptural doctrines which are said to be endangered by the Copernican astronomy. How the passage in Joshua, which has already been cited, might, on a superficial view, appear to be irreconcilable with the hypothesis of Copernicus, is very obvious: but how many of the things mentioned by

Bretschneider are so it is impossible to understand. To cite only a single example: "Whereas," he says, "the ancients felt the necessity of having an under world for the souls of the deceased, because they could neither leave them upon the surface of the earth, nor transport them to heaven: this necessity ceased now to be felt any longer. Indeed the whole notion of an under world and a hell, was destroyed by astronomy and geology, and with it all the traditionary notions about the punishments of the damned. With the loss of the old belief about heaven and hell, the devil also, with the evil spirits, lost his place as a fallen angel banished from heaven. The idea, too, of Christ's descent to hell, became very troublesome to theologians, after the under world had been taken from them." "It now became a question with our theologians, where the soul of Christ was while his body lay in the grave." This seems then to imply the thought, that Christ was only apparently dead.

The reader will perceive that Bretschneider understands the art of drawing consequences. Were the premises only true, the conclusion would certainly be so. The premises are, that the notion of an under world is destroyed by astronomy and geology. But what does the professor of either the one science or the other know of the interior of the earth? Let our readers recur to what has already been said on this point; and let him also inquire if the texts, Eph. iv. 9, and 1 Pet. iii. 20, can be easily set aside?

But how comes it to pass, every intelligent person will be prepared to ask, that these inconsistencies between the Copernican system and the Bible, if they really exist, have been unobserved during nearly three centuries? The three great heroes of astronomy, Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, were certainly Christian believers, and anything but indifferent to such considerations. Newton's firm and pious adherence to the Bible is too well known to make it necessary for any one to dwell upon it. His work on Chronology is, in fact, based upon the Bible. This man, whom his age admired as its greatest genius, wrote a commentary on the prophet Daniel and the Apocalypse. Hence we may infer (à majori ad minus) what was the degree of his orthodoxy.

What Kepler thought of the apparent contradictions between the Bible and the system of Copernicus, appears from the following passage. "Astronomy," he says, "unfolds the causes of natural things: it professedly investigates optical illusions. The Bible, which teaches higher things, makes use of the common modes of speech in order to be the more easily understood, speaks only in passing of natural things, according to their appearance, since it is upon their appearance that human language is built. And the Bible would speak in the same way even if all men had insight into these optical illusions. For even we astronomers do not pursue this science with the design of altering common language; but we

wish to open the gates of truth without at all affecting the vulgar modes of speech. We say, with the common people, the planets stand still, or go down; the sun rises and sets; it comes forth from one end of heaven, like a bridegroom from his chamber, and hides itself at the other end; it mounts into the midst of the heavens; these forms of speech we use with the common people; meaning only that so the thing appears to us, although it is not truly so, as all astronomers are agreed. How much less should we require that the Scriptures of divine inspiration, setting aside the common modes of speech, should shape their words according to the model of the natural sciences, and by employing a dark and inappropriate phraseology about things which surpass the comprehension of those whom it designs to instruct, perplex the simple people of God, and thus obstruct its own way towards the attainment of the far more exalted end at which it aims!"

Thus plainly and excellently does this great astronomer answer the objections which were made at his time, from the apparent inconsistencies between the Copernican system and the Bible. Still more readily does Copernicus himself dispose of those who attempted to prove such inconsistencies. He had so good a theological conscience in the construction of his system, that he dedicated his celebrated work, De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium, to Pope Paul III. In this dedication, he says, "Should there, perchance, be any foolish praters, who, while they know nothing of mathematical matters, yet assume to pronounce judgment concerning them, and on account of some texts of Scripture which they wickedly pervert to their own purposes, venture to blame and to denounce my work;-for such persons I concern myself not at all, and despise their opinion, as stupidly impudent."

Copernicus, like Kepler, and afterwards Newton, were therefore firmly persuaded, that the new system of the world was not opposed to the Bible. But the monks who condemned Galileo thought differently, and agreed with Dr. Bretschneider. He and the monks place the matter in this position: either the doctrines of the Bible, or the doctrines of Copernicus, are true, one or the other must give way. The monks, and with them the Pope, decided for the Bible; Bretschneider for Copernicus, and against the Bible; "since it is obvious," he says, "that the sciences, which rest upon experience, cannot be refuted." "And even the Pope," he again observes, saw himself compelled, after a number of years, to allow the condemned Copernican system in Rome." Does Bretschneider then really think, that in allowing the Copernican system, the Pope at the same time pronounced as carelessly as he himself does, many of the doctrines of the Bible erroneous, and that he assailed the Book of Joshua? On the contrary, science rather appeals de papa male informata ad papam melius informandum-from the Pope ill