any inferences as to the time occupied in their causation." We hardly know how to treat this modern Novum Organon with gravity. The old one did indeed abjure the attempt to manufacture facts by à priori reasoning and metaphysical speculation, but it did not discard the study of the causes of the facts which have been ascertained by observation. And it did well in not discarding it, if we may judge either from the nature of the human mind or the results of the system. The impulse to trace effects to causes is one of the very strongest in the nature of man. True, the curiosity to observe is also very strong, particularly in childhood, and there are some full-grown minds that take pleasure in collecting stores of mere facts; but we have supposed that the habit of connecting facts in the relation of cause and effect was the characteristic of the philosophical and well-trained mind. The progress of science, too, which has been made not less by the investigation of causes than the observation of facts, would seem to show that cause and effect should not be separated in science. But we apprehend this new system of Mr. Lord's, which authorizes the student to record the impression made on his senses, but not the irresistible convictions of his understanding as to the cause of that which makes the impression, will reach much farther than the author intended. A child puts his hand in the fire and is burnt. Is it unscientific for him not to put his hand in the fire again, because, if he does, it will burn him? Newton saw an apple fall to the ground;-was it unscientific in him to infer a universal cause acting through and in the universal law of gravitation? The universe is an effect; may we not infer an intelligent and almighty cause? Now, in geology the existence of causes forces itself upon the mind just as much as in these cases, and if the human mind could be compelled to disregard and disown causes there, it would disregard and disown them everywhere. But we fear our readers will accuse us of misrepresentation, unless we give the words of the author. The quotation will be long, but then it is a curious one.

66

Suppose now the geologist to go forth to examine the structure and materials of the globe. He observes two classes of rocks, stratified and unstratified. They are clearly distinguishable. One has a crystallized form and texture, the other such a form and texture as would result from the deposit of mud, sand, and gravel in water. These he calls sedimentary. He finds of these, a regular succession of beds or layers, which in the aggregate are some eight or ten miles in thickness. These layers differ from each other in thickness and in their mineral composition; that is, in the kind of earthy materials which they were composed of. He finds them generally tilted up from the horizontal position in which they were deposited, to a greater or less degree of inclination, and sometimes to a vertical position, so as greatly to facilitate his examination of them. He gives distinctive names to these successive layers, indicative of their mineral

characters, as gneiss, lime-stone, red sandstone, slate, coal, clay, &c. &c. He observes that the lowest of these sedimentary formations everywhere rests on crystalline rock or granite. Again he observes that a large portion of these sedimentary rocks, to the depth of six or seven miles, contains the skeletons and relics of various plants and animals, terrestrial and marine.

"Now these and the like undisputed and unquestionable facts constitute what he calls, or ought to call, geology. The observation, study, and knowledge of them constitute the science of geology.

"But the geologists, one and all, have occupied themselves mainly in attempting to account for the facts disclosed by their researches upon some theory of the mode in which they were caused, the physical agencies by which they were effected, the time occupied, &c. &c.; and they most unscientifically and unwarrantably denominate the facts, and their theories and inferences conjointly, the science of Geology."—pp. 146-148.

Suppose now the geologists had done just what Mr. Lord wishes-what difference would it have made? There is not a reader of ordinary intelligence that would not have accounted for the facts for himself. It is impossible, under such circumstances, to crush by authority the natural and necessary convictions of the understanding. Can any human being see the pebbles of the drift and not believe they were rounded by the action of water? Yes, there is one man, Mr. Lord. We had forgotten at the moment that this is one of the points he makes against the geologists. The pebbles, he thinks, are so hard, "no conceivable amount of rolling and friction against each other, without an extreme vertical pressure, and a motive power far exceeding that of current water, would ever wear off their angles and give them their rounded form." How does the reader suppose they were rounded? By miracle, of course. But to return from this digression, can any man-except Mr. Lord-see the tracks in the sandstone of Connecticut river and not believe they were made by birds stepping upon the materials of the stone when in a soft state? Not all the authority in the world can present such inferences being drawn. If science were to discard them, the common mind would take them up.

Mr. Lord's second and grand position is, that the facts ob served by the geologist might have been produced by supernat ural causes. This is the sheet-anchor of his cause. It is in fact his sole reliance. Almost every page of the volume bears witness to what he thinks of it. But who ever denied the possibility of such an agency? Surely no geologist who is a believer in revelation would deny that all he has observed might not have been wrought by miracles. Anything which does not involve an impossibility may be done by almighty power. The difficulty with Mr. Lord's position is, that it is worth little, after he has established it. We will, however, examine it, and will first

look at the peculiar phraseology which he adopts. He says the theory of the antiquity of the earth is "merely an inference, a supposition, a conjecture." But if the changes in the structure of the earth were produced by natural causes, it is absolutely certain-whether you call it inference or supposition or conjecture that the earth must have a greater antiquity than the race of men. This cannot be his meaning, though it is the apparent and most natural interpretation of the words. The doctrine of. the geologists that the facts which they observe have been produced by natural causes, is the inference, supposition, conjecture, of which he speaks. He calls it in another place "the assumption" of natural causes. The case, briefly and simply stated, is this. The geologist finds results, effects-facts-in the process of production on the surface of the earth by natural causes which are the same in kind as he finds within the crust of the earth. In searching the causes of these latter effects or facts, he necessarily accounts for them by causes which he sees now at work producing the same results. But not only is there this positive demand for a natural explanation of the facts, there is nothing in the facts which excites the suspicion of any other causes, or gives reason to suppose any other ever existed. It is extremely difficult to express by language the full impression which the reality makes upon the mind, but if the reader will conceive of a person beholding some plain covered with broken weapons of war and strewed with dead bodies, pierced with bullets or mangled with cannon ball or hacked with swords, and still believing that those appearances were produced not by battle but by supernatural agency, he will have some idea of the state of mind a geologist would be in, who should believe that the appearances which he observes were the products of miraculous power. For, without an exception, all geologists are agreed in this principle, which is indeed the very foundation of the science. Mr. Lord may call this explanation of the facts of geology by natural causes, an inference-supposition-conjecture-assumption, or whatever else he pleases, it is an explanation forced upon the mind by the necessary laws of human belief. Now how much is a bare possibility that Almighty power might have interposed, to weigh against such convictions? Mr. Lord does indeed say that it is impossible for geology to prove or to exhibit any facts or phenomena from which it can be inferred that supernatural interpositions have not taken place"-neither can any one show that the deltas now forming at the outlet of rivers, and the mud and rocks depositing at the bottom of lakes, may not be going on through supernatural agency. It may be possible that rivers flow to the ocean, trees and plants spring up from the

VOL. IX.

34

earth and grow, and all the operations of nature are produced by supernatural intervention; we could not perhaps demonstrate the contrary, certainly we could not, if Mr. Lord's principles are correct. For, it is to be remembered that this is not a case where the fact itself shows it must have been produced by miracle, it is not a case where hypothetically some cause may be supposed, as in the Nebular hypothesis, but it is a case where if there have been any supernatural causes, they have so closely simulated natural causes that the one cannot be discriminated from the other. And it does appear to us that if the human mind gives up its convictions under these circumstances, all the laws of evidence are reversed, and we can have no confidence in any reasoning of this kind. And yet throughout the volume, Mr. Lord has spoken of the inferences and conjectures of the geologists and found fault with them for overlooking the agency of supernatural causes. But, perhaps, Mr. Lord will say he does not rely upon the bare possibility of the intervention of supernatural power, he has given reasons for its exercise. What are they? Certain metaphysical speculations as to the necessary connection of the epoch of the creation of the material universe with the creation of man-but they are worthless in such a case as this: Certain moral ends which the Deity had in view-but they are as readily secured on the one scheme as on the other: And, besides these, we know of none, excepting his interpretation of the first verse of Genesis, and in this interpretation he stands alone, unsupported by the great majority of Christian divines and scholars. But, perhaps, Mr. Lord will further say, he has shown that there is evidence of the intervention of supernatural agency in the facts themselves. He has tried to do so, and his argument about "rounded pebbles" is a specimen of his success in this line. We shall not discuss this part of the subject. The truth is, Mr. Lord is not scientifically acquainted with geology, and his observations are entitled to very little weight. It would be easy to expose them in a way which we do not wish to do. There are a great many other things in this volume fully as remarkable as any we have taken up. But we pass them by, as we have examined the main principles of the book.

We intended to make some remarks upon the Introduction written by Rev. Richard W. Dickinson, D.D., but on re-reading it we perceive we should be obliged to go over the ground we have already traversed. Besides, the writer exhibits no precise scientific acquaintance with geology, less even than the gentleman whose treatise he indorses and eulogizes; although he turns a very good period, as he descants upon the conflicting theories of the geologists, almost every teacher having a different one-upon

the assumptions of the "demi-savants" of the age! upon their rejection of, and contempt for "all that is miraculous in the works as well as in the Word of the Creator "!-upon their failure to demonstrate "the Epoch of Creation!"-and upon their want of reverence for the teachings of Scripture, by which is meant their lack of faith in the infallibility of his interpretation of the first verse of Genesis, for he seems to be in a happy and complacential state of ignorance as to the views of other divines and scholars.

We have never had so vivid a conception of the trials which beset the early cultivators of science as in reading this volume. We seem to see the weight of overbearing authority and dogmatic intolerance pressing them down with an increased force. We are more ready to wonder that they ever advanced opinions in physics contrary to the received teachings of Scripture than that, startled by their own temerity and awed by the decisions of the church, they should have shrunk back and disavowed their convictions. That time, we are thankful, has passed. The man of science can now pursue his investigations in peace, unharmed by the feeble shouts which are now and then raised against him. The present volume a few years since might have done harm. It is now too late. The most it can accomplish will be to confirm the prejudices of the ignorant, and give a temporary relief to the half-informed.

ART. IV. THE PURITAN ELEMENT IN THE AME RICAN CHARACTER.

The New England Historical and Genealogical Register. Published quarterly, under the direction of the New England Historic-Genealogical Society. Boston: Samuel G. Drake, Publisher, No. 56 Cornhill. New York: C. M. Saxton, 121 Fulton street. 1851.

A History and Genealogy of the Davenport Family, in England and America, from A.D. 1086 to 1850. Compiled and prepared from Ormerod's History of the County of Chester ; collections from the Harleian MSS.; parochial and town records in England and America, etc., etc. By A. BENEDICT DAVENPORT (of the twenty-fourth generation), Corresponding Member of the New England Historic-Genealogical Society. New York: S. W. Benedict, 16 Spruce street. 1851.

THE NEW ENGLAND HISTORICAL AND GENEALOGICAL REGISTER