on account of the general decrease of the earth's temperature. At any rate, the fact mentioned by Moses is so nearly related to that which geology discloses in relation to tropical organic remains in cold latitudes, as to furnish ground for a presumption in favor of the fidelity of the historian, rather than against him.

We have already shown in what manner the repeated deluges that have happened on our globe, may be explained by the theory of Scrope and Cordier. That explanation applies to the deluge of Noah, as well as to those that preceded it. And although the discoveries of modern geologists render it probable that our present continents remain essentially as they were before the deluge, yet perhaps some portions of these continents, or some of the larger islands, might then have first emerged from the ocean, while others gunk. Or suppose, in consequence of internal heat, a large quantity of gas and vapor had gradually accumulated beneath the crust of the globe, in that part which constitutes the bed of the Atlantic or Pacific. The consequence would be a gradual tumefaction of that bed, and a consequent deluge of the land,-until at length a passage should be made for the escape of the gas and vapor, when the tumefaction, together with the waters, would subside to their original situation. Even at present, we sometimes see mountains rise, in this manner, from the bottom of the ocean, and, after a short interval, sink back into the abyss. In this manner we can account for the comparative tranquillity that seems to have attended the Noachian deluge, although to explain the rain of forty days, we must resort to some other agency.

The next point on which we wish to make a few remarks, in connection with this igneous theory, is the future conflagration of the globe. And we shall do it in the language of a note appended to the translation of Cordier's Essay.

The christian scriptures announce the future destruction of this earth by fire. But this has been thought by some,-even by some commentators on the bible, (Improved Version N. T. p. 554,) to be absurd; because most of the substances constituting the crust of the globe are already oxydated But have not the scriptural representations of this subject been misunderstood? Peter describes this event as follows. The heavens (atmosphere, Macknight,) shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also, and the works that are therein (thereon, Macknight,) shall be burnt up. Now suppose the internal state of the earth to be such as Professor Cordier assumes, and that either from the natural operation of the central heat, or from the special interposition of the Almighty, the present crust of the globe should be entirely broken up by the bursting forth of these subterranean fires, the consequence surely must be to burn up all upon the earth not yet oxydated, and to melt all its solid parts, so that a globe of liquid fire would alone remain. This would

perfectly correspond with the scriptural representation. And still farther; this molten mass would begin again to cool by radiation, as at the begin ning; and a new crust forin over it. In other words, a new heavens (atmosphere,) and a new earth would be the result; literally, not figuratively, a new heavens and a new earth; agreeable to the opinions of many distinguished men. (See Dr. Chalmers' Discourse on the new heavens and the new earth.) p. 93.

Before we close, we are disposed to say a few words concerning Professor Silliman's Outline of his Geological Lectures, from which we have made repeated extracts. He has given it to the world in connection with a new edition of Bakewell's geology; for whose republication he will receive the thanks of geologists. His own Outline contains the philosophy of geology: for the facts his readers can consult Bakewell. But we wish to say a word concerning the moral and religious bearing of this Outline, rather than to speak of its geological character; though, in this point of view, we can recommend it as a judicious, condensed, and interesting exhibition of the subject. We can speak in still higher terms of the work on account of the deference to moral and revealed truth, which we discover in it. And we do this with the greater pleasure, because in works of this kind, we so seldom have an opportunity of doing it. The works of Scrope and Cordier, for instance, may, in this respect, be contrasted with that of Professor Silliman. We have, indeed, little evidence that these authors are hostile to religion, or intended to give their works such an atheistical aspect, as they exhibit. But we do not see how a man can write a book, taken up in detailing the most stupendous operations of the Deity, and yet make no allusion to his existence and agency. Cordier's plan, indeed, did not lead him so naturally to make any moral or religious allusions. But in the work of Mr. Scrope we think we see something more exceptionable than mere omission. The following, if we understand it, is opposed to the idea of miracles as impossible.

Hence too the term supernatural, applied to the imaginary causes of any extraordinary event. As if any thing could occur, that was not caus ed by some law of nature; or as if we have any right to suppose, that these can suffer interruption from any ulterior cause.

p. 243.

It is a sufficient answer to such reasoning to ask, what is a law of nature?

While Mr. Silliman avoids the Hutchinsonian doctrine, that the bible is the place where we are to look for the principles of natural philosopy, he does not therefore rush into the other extreme, and write as if the geologist were to pay no attention

to the facts which it reveals, concerning the very truths he is examining. If they are revealed by God, surely they cannot contradict any thing in the natural world; and the geologist has no right to form any hypotheses that will oppose such facts correctly interpreted. This we perceive to be the feeling that runs through Mr. Silliman's book. And we perceive too, that he is sensible that the noblest object, to which the investigations of science can be applied, is to illustrate and enforce moral and religious truth; and that the philosopher is inexcusable and incurs a tremendous weight of guilt, who does not make such an application of science. "Why should science," he asks, "why should science refuse to lend its aid to moral truth!" Oh that we had power to make this inquiry ring in the ears of every scientific devotee; for it will ring in every such man's ears sooner or later. When disease and death shall have trampled the pride of the philosopher in the dust, he will then see that every acquisition and power of his, that was not consecrated to the glory of God in the moral welfare of men, has planted a thorn in his dying pillow. The day too will come, and we hail the increasing tokens of its approach, when every labor of science shall be an oblation upon the altar of religion.

ART. VI.-ON THE MEANS OF REGENERATION.

In our last number, we entered upon the argument to show, that those acts which are dictated by the desire of happiness, and which, in the order of nature, are prior to that act of the will or heart, called regeneration in the restricted sense of the term, constitute using the means of regeneration by the sinner. In support of this position, we offered two arguments; one derived from those principles which control the use and interpretation of language on subjects of this nature; the other from the tendency of the acts specified, to produce regeneration. In further proof of our position, we now remark,

3. That the mental process which we have described, has a real and necessary connection with regeneration. By this we mean, that regeneration often takes place in connection with this process, and never takes place without it. This we shall attempt to prove as a matter of fact, from legitimate testimony, from the nature of voluntary action generally, and from the nature of regeneration itself.

First, from legitimate testimony. It has been extensively maintained, that regeneration often takes place in a manner,

which wholly precludes the preliminary mental process for which we contend; that it sometimes occurs in earliest infancy, or even in the profoundest sleep; and that the transition from enmity to love, without one intervening thought of God, is no unusual event. But how is it possible for us to know that such assertions are true? Who has looked into the heart of another and seen the emotion of love arising there, while yet there was absolutely no thought, no image, no contemplation of the Being who was the object of that love? Can the existence of such a state of mind be inferred from the suddenness of the change, as it is sometimes presented to our view? But who can trace, in all cases, the rapid glances of thought even in his own mind; much more, who can trace them in the mind of another? The whole mental process of united thought and feeling, for which we contend, need not occupy any measurable duration. Along with the perception of the object, the emotion may instantaneously rise into the

liveliest exercise.

their

Shall we rely then on the testimony of those who state the fact in question, as one established by their own consciousness; who tell us that the love of God first stole upon hearts, they know not how; at a moment when the very thought of His being and perfections had passed away from the mind? But the whole history of the human intellect shows, how liable we are to be deceived by the rapidity of our mental operations. How often, especially in cases of high mental excitement, do thoughts and feelings come over the mind without leaving the slightest trace on the memory, of the process by which they were awakened! Christians tell us, indeed, of delightful manifestations and discoveries of God, which involve the liveliest exercises of love and joy;-that these manifestations were made when the thoughts were far remote from God;-that the transition in their feelings was like the flowing in of light, where all was previous darkness. But who, in such a case, would expect an accurate analysis of thought and emotion? To continue the allusion, who would expect the progress of the light, or the motions of the eye to be carefully noticed, along with the sudden and enrapturing vision of a reconciled God? Besides, the statement itself concedes the very point at issue; for what is a manifestation or discovery in which nothing is perceived or thought of? Where can the man be found whose intelliand habits of mental analysis entitle him to confidence, who has testified, or who will testify to the fact of his loving God without thinking of God? Cases may occur, indeed, in which many thoughts and feelings, from the rapidity of the

gence

process, be unnoticed by the mind; for the high excitement of such a state almost absolutely forbids an accurate analysis of our mental operations. But this failure to observe the phenomena, can weigh nothing against the universal experience of mankind, that every exercise of the affections or act of the will, must have an object toward which it is directed.

If it be said that the change does not consist in any mental exercise or act, but respects some constitutional property of the mind, which precedes all mental exercises or acts; then we reply, that the reality of the change cannot be known by consciousness, since we can be conscious only of mental acts or exercises. But to infer the reality of such a change on the philosophical principle, that the exercise of right affection necessarily implies it, is to substitute a philosophical inference for a matter of fact; and this, in a case in which the question is not what can be proved by philosophical deduction, but what is known as a matter of consciousness. We say then, that the testimony under examination destroys itself, and this in two respects. The one is, that it is testimony to a fact which is a known impossibility in the nature of things, viz. that of loving an object without thinking of it; the other, that if this were possible in the nature of things, the witness could never know it to be a fact.

What then is the general testimony of the children of God on this subject? How uniformly do they tell us, that prior to their change of character, their thoughts were turned in sober contemplation to the truths which respect their eternal wellbeing; that the transition from sin to holiness involved new and peculiar views of God, of the Redeemer, of the divine law and government, and of the plan of salvation; that the things of divine revelation assumed the aspect of reality, and that the things of earth and time dwindled into insignificance; and that it was in connection with such contemplations and comparative estimates of the glory of God, the excellence of the Savior, and the bliss of heaven, that the heart awoke to the holy affections of love, gratitude, and joy. Whatever, therefore, may be the piety, the sincerity, and the honesty of him who testifies that he loved God, while God was unseen by the eye of solemn contemplation, we may be sure that his testimony results from some mistake in the analysis of the mental phenomena. Such a mistake may be easily traced to causes, whose influence is quite consistent with the piety of the witness. Without therefore impeaching his integrity, we reject his testimony, and maintain that the only testimony of uninspired men on the point before us, which is admissible,