than from the christian faith of the geologist. In the latter case a man may be treated with courtesy, his opinions respected, and his mind allowed to be, perhaps, one degree above idiotcy; but if he refuse to bow down to the geological image, the terms "absurd," "monstrous absurdity," "ridiculously unreasonable," &c., are launched at him with no sparing hand, thus proving, at any rate, the correctness of one declaration of Scripture, that "knowledge puffeth up." But on the question as to the wisdom of" flying in the face of the distinguished men who are not to be named, &c.," by an attempt (in a "spirit and manner" accordant with "an amiable disposition and christian character," which is conceded to Dr. Y.) to combat their rash assertions, let me ask, is every believer in revelation called upon to harmonize its discoveries with any theory which the scholar may choose to construct or adopt? Rather does not the onus lie on the theorist to show his alleged facts to be consonant with revelation, without adopting arbitrary explications, "at which competently informed persons must feel pity and contempt," before he demands our assent to his dogmas? Are the statements of the Bible to be altered with the ever-shifting aspects of the superstructure of a theory built on a foundation little better than a quicksand, and which, in all probability, in twenty years will be discarded and laughed at, as the theories relating to it twenty years ago are now? The reviewer asks again, "Is it wise to present to the distinguished men who are not to be named, &c.," "The idea that the holy Scriptures are hopelessly irreconcilable with great classes of facts in natural history?" "Is it not most imprudent and dangerous thus to yield the idea that religion and philosophy are at variance, unless hypotheses be admitted, at which competently informed persons must feel pity and contempt?" Now the whole of this expostulation goes upon the supposition that alleged geological facts rest upon a basis perfectly immovable; are established beyond the possibility of doubt or question; as much so as the facts of natural history themselves. Facts of natural history must every where be admitted, but surely it is competent to any one to demur to the alleged geological facts associated with them? A stratified rock exists; that is a fact of natural history. That it has been produced by the process and required the lapse of time which the theorist assigns to it, may be a geological fact, but till better proof, than has hitherto been produced, can be shown, we may, surely, hesitate to class such assumptions with facts without being guilty of the "dangerous imprudence" of "yielding the idea that religion and philosophy are at variance." The reviewer appears to be particularly solicitous lest the "distinguished men who are not to be named, &c.," should imbibe this idea, and repeatedly asks, "Is it wise, &c.;" to this it may be replied that, if they choose, with all the learning which so "distinguished them, that they are not to be named without a deep feeling of respect and honour," to follow their own theories rather than the Bible, let the risks of their "dangerous" and "imprudent" course be upon themselves. It is a fair ground for entertaining a suspicion N. S. VOL. III. Kk of any theory when it requires a new version of the Scriptures to render it harmonious; but, on the other hand, what are we to think of the wisdom, which, for the sake of a profitless theory, chooses to unsettle the mind of the christian church, and involve its members in no small n.easure of doubt as to the degree of reliance which is to be placed on that word on which their faith hath heretofore firmly rested? On this subject I am not sure that the Conductors of the Congregational Magazine are altogether blameless in admitting into its pages the subject at all, particularly such a paper as the one which has elicited these remarks. However, so far as this Magazine has hitherto contributed to the diffusion of geological knowledge, much harm, certainly, cannot have been done, for it has presented, in the same paper, both the bane and antidote. The reviewer is singularly unfortunate in referring to this Magazine as furnishing any thing in favour of his views, for if it proves any thing, it proves just as much on the one side as the other. I have made two extracts from the volume for 1836, and placed them in juxta-position, that the reviewer may admire the beautiful consistency of a theory, as sketched, doubtless, by some "distinguished professor," "who is not to be named without a deep feeling of respect and honour." PAGE 566. An "While it cannot amount to actual demonstration, the opinion is, in the highest degree, probable, that the strata forming the exterior crust of the globe, have been deposited at different periods and at vast intervals of time. unassignable series of ages might have been necessary for the accomplishment of this process, nor is there the least necessity for confining the operation to any period analogous to our knowledge of the limits of time. From those facts (distribution of fossils,) we are led to believe that the earth underwent many important revolutions before it was fitted up as a residence for man and the inferior creatures who were brought into being at the period of his creation." PAGE 568. "Adhering to the common interpretation that the days of creation were literally twenty-four hours, and that no order of earthly things existed previously to that recorded by the Hebrew language WE MAY FIND A SUFFICIENT SPACE OF TIME FOR ALL THE EXISTING CHANGES IN THE INTER VAL BETWEEN THE CREATION THUS When inconsistencies, like the above, appear in the theory of the same person (and in a paper written in a highly becoming spirit,) we need not wonder that geologists have so ill agreed with one another; and I think it is not very ridiculously unreasonable" to entertain some doubt whether "reasons have now become established sufficient to justify confidence on those principal parts of geological philosophy upon which all the highest authorities in every country are agreed." (?) 66 If we may find a sufficient space of time for all the existing changes in the interval between the creation and the period of the deluge," it demonstrates the "monstrous absurdity" and "ridiculous unreasonableness" of the assertion of Professor Silliman, which the reviewer brings forward, and which is evidently founded on the supposition that the properties and agencies of matter existing and operating now, are precisely the same with those existing and operating in the early ages of the world; a supposition which would be much more valuable could it be demonstrated to be true. Is it to be argued that because certain processes in a given time produce certain results on the external crust of the globe, therefore the substance of such phenomena must have been originated by the same means which are employed to preserve and perpetuate it. When the earth, spontaneously, brought forth food for man and beast in such luxuriance and abundance as perhaps the most highly cultivated garden could not now equal, must there have been no difference in the elements, or secondary causes, producing this, from those in operation now? Such as a difference in the relative properties of the gases composing the atmosphere; a difference in the relative proportions of the elements of water; a difference in the vegetative powers of the soil? And might not these varied agencies, in combination, have produced effects of which we can now form no conception, not only in the production of vegetable and other matter, but also in the decomposition of it? I remember having read, some time ago, an account of the experiments of Mr. Crosse in the formation of crystals, similar to some found in a cave somewhere, I think, in the south-west. Now had the geologist examined the crystals in the cave, and given an opinion, or rather I should say dogma, as to the period required for their formation, he would have determined it according to the operation of (to him) known laws, and very probable, with Professor Silliman, would have said that to have been produced in less time was "physically impossible." Mr. Crosse, however, demonstrated the possibility, by producing similar crystals in a few hours. It will hardly be questioned that the Divine Creator, by the same or other means, could have done the same. It yet remains to be shown that he has not done so, both with regard to crystals and all other formations. This circumstance affords a fair representation of the state of the question between the advocates of geology and their yet sceptical opponents. Till the geologist can demonstrate the "impossibility" of this or that formation having been produced in any other manner, or in a less period than he is pleased to assign (to do which, I maintain, the qualifications I have named, and far more, are necessary,) it would be better to assume a less confident tone, and proceed with more humility in the exploration of the works of Him, "Who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in working," and "whose ways are past finding out." A CONSTANT READER. REMARKS ON FREE SITTINGS IN CHURCHES AND CHAPELS. (To the Editor.) SIR-Can you give me room for a few remarks on the subject of Free-sittings? Dissenters, reproached with not making provision in their chapels for the poor, have of late very extensively adopted free-sittings as a remedy for such imputed neglect, forgetting, I think, that what may be useful in the church (which theoretically provides a free-sitting for every parishioner, on his paying his tythe and rate,) may be improper and inconsistent among dissenters. Free-sittings have worked so badly in the church that the Incorporated Church Building Society is now deliberating on the propriety of altering them into cheap-sittings. The following strike me as objections against free-sittings : 1. I dislike their tendency to check that spirit of independence among the poor which it is so desirable to cherish; by rendering them objects of charity, we in fact pauperize them; this is not the case in the church, as every parishioner who has paid his rates feels that he is theoretically entitled to a free-sitting. 2. Hence they tend to exclude the very persons for whom they have been intended; for the really honest and honourable poor do not like to be stigmatized as objects of charity, and either keep away altogether, or come irregularly. 3. By another class they are unvalued-the general fate of all gratuitous charity-hence has arisen the principle of self-supporting dispensaries, and the present plan of the British and Foreign School Society, which expects all its scholars to pay something. 4. They are inconsistent with the principle of dissent, which is that every man should contribute, according to his ability, to the support of those who are over them in spiritual things. 5. The plan of building the free-sittings in a peculiar manner is very invidious, I would almost say unscriptural and unchristian, and dissenters should be the last to make any difference in God's house between rich and poor. The general result is, that if there is any part of our chapels empty it is the free-sittings, and if filled, it is in general not by the poor, but by strangers who cannot get seats elsewhere. The following plan I would propose as a substitute for free-sittings. 1. The doing away altogether with any difference in the building of seats. 2. The devoting of a large space to cheap-sittings, varying from two shillings to one shilling, or even sixpence per quarter. In justice to the poor, the price should be fixed, and if paid quarterly, will come lighter; it will be of course only a debt of honour; this plan is extensively adopted in Scotland, and with the best results.* * In a pretty little church at Morningside, a suburb of Edinburgh, which was opened last summer by Dr. Chalmers, we observed that the sittings in the galleries were marked at sixpence per quarter, and, if we do not greatly mistake, the back seats at three-pence.-EDITOR. 3. But there should be a power in the deacons or managers, of allotting sittings gratuitously to poor persons promising to attend regularly, and stating that they are too poor to pay. This, it strikes me, would be much better than the free-sitting plan. How very useful it would be to Christian Instruction visitors to be able to promise permanent sittings to the poor. 4. There should still be a few sittings quite free, which, to avoid all allusion to poverty, might be called "strangers' pews." This would do away with much of the dislike to free-sittings. This plan would require large chapels; but I would call attention to the fact, that almost without exception our largest chapels are most flourishing, not only temporally, but spiritually. Let me instance Surrey, Craven, and Wycliffe chapels. I would call the attention of the Chapel Fund Association to this fact, for I think they have made York Road Chapel much too small for the neighbourhood. I hope that they will build their other chapels much larger, and let half of the sittings be devoted to the poor by making the payment very light indeed. A thousand sittings at even sixpence per quarter will produce one hundred pounds per annum, no undesirable increase to a minister's salary; though this I look at as the smallest point in the case. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, C. POETRY. WE cull the following Poems from a pleasing volume entitled "Geraldine, a Sequel to Coleridge's Christobel: with other Poems, by M. F. Tupper, Esq. M. A.," which has been favourably noticed in a recent article in The Eclectic Review. DAYS GONE BY. THOUGH We charge to-day with fleetness, There's a melancholy sweetness In the name of days gone by: Yes, though Time has laid his finger |