dency of this new-born democratic power, if not deliberately kept in antagonism with existing institutions, by a refusal of popular concessions, may prove in favour of liberty and peace. The French Revolution may be pointed to as a contrary example; but in France institutions and traditions were swept away by the maintenance of that very antagonism; and though it cannot be pretended that the wrongs now sustained by the Germans, for example, bear any comparison with those which the French peasantry were enduring before the Revolution, that precedent may serve to indicate the critical period which continental statesmen have now to guide. But we may reasonably base this conclusion on the example of States which gained a similar popular development in former periods. We allude to Norway, the Low Countries, and Switzerland; and these countries have been remarkable through successive ages, for their maintenance of peace from without, and liberty from within, whether their constitution were republican or monarchical. The issue of this new rural system, nevertheless, must obviously depend on the idiosyncrasies of each people and state; on the character of the religion; on the mode and extent of education; on the prevalence of bureaucracy; and, more than all, on the proportionate influence of the middle and town classes, and on the policy of the remaining great landowners who form the aristocracy. These circumstances are so various as to promise a great diversity of aspects in the different States of Europe.

It is worth remarking that, of all the continental countries which have attracted attention by their movements during the last quarter of a century, Sardinia is the only one which has brought its aristocracy into harmony, like our own aristocracy, at once with the throne and the people. In German Austria, for instance, we find the great landowners generally allied with the throne against the people; in Hungary and the Two Sicilies, they are as generally allied with the people against the throne; in France they are unequal to the support of either; in Spain they deliberately stand aloof from both. The distinctive success of Sardinia in uniting the monarchy with the Milanese and Florentine nobility, as well as with all classes in her old kingdom, renders her Government hardly less than our own, a model for other countries to imitate; and it refutes all the vaticinations of the opponents of Italian independence, and of the disbelievers in Italian unity. But no other Continental State has made this advance. The Prussian constitution stands next to the Sardinian in importance; but the Prussian constitution is by no means calculated to effect the required conciliation of classes. The Prussian representatives consist of 90 nobles, 80 district coun

VOL. XXXII. NO. LXIV.

2 M

cillors, 70 bureaucrats, 64 judicial magistrates, 140 officers of the army, and 20 religious superintendents. Such a parliament is likely to produce, not free legislation, but administrative conflict, judicial venality, and military insubordination.

The proposed emancipation of the serfs in Russia evinces the desire of the Russian Government to follow in the career of Germany; but this question is still somewhat obscure; and Prince Peter Dolgorouki,' who has done more than any other writer to expound it, has just painted Government and nation in so deplorable a condition of finance, administration, and commerce -and the Sovereign himself, so trammelled by his nobility on one side and his bureaucracy on another-as to offer an indifferent prospect of the attainment of a measure which he also paradoxically describes as calculated to increase the poverty of the serf. His picture of Russia has also a certain bearing on the Eastern intrigues, which public rumour has ascribed to the courts of Paris and St Petersburg, under the euphonism of a civilisation of Turkey; for even the problem of self-civilisation seems insoluble in Russia

In this medley of foreign and domestic danger on the Continent, Great Britain, not only free, through wise legislation, from the disharmony of classes within her own seas, but secure even in the loyalty of her most distant colonies, will be concerned chiefly with the maintenance of a maritime superiority, which is necessary to protect her coast, to secure her commerce, and to maintain her communication with an empire scattered over either hemisphere and through every zone. Nor will she be held unequal to this task, however active be the rivalry of France, by those who remember that, in countries such as Spain and Holland, there no longer remain the elements of those maritime confederacies which, fifty and sixty years ago, she defeated and dissolved. The increasing force of popular interests may yet preserve our peace with France; our irresistible affinity with Germany, as the most powerful of defensive nations, promises us an ally in war; and the Treaty of the 15th of July 1840, negotiated with Russia by Lord Palmerston, and by Lord Clanricarde-and perhaps our greatest diplomatic success since the alliances of 1813 still serves for a monument that Russia, then brought into our alliance against France, stands in no necessary antagonism to our policy. These are the advantages on the development of which our position in Europe depends; and there is reason to hope that that union of firmness and temper, which has uniformly marked the present Administration in the conduct of foreign affairs, may employ them with success, in the forthcoming negotiations, for the maintenance of peace.

1 La Verité sur la Russie. Paris, 1860.

Dr Dawson's Archaia.

ART. X.-RECENT PUBLICATIONS.

545

Archaia; or, Studies of the Cosmogony and Natural History of the Hebrew Scriptures. By J. W. DAWSON, LL.D., F.G.S., Principal of M'Gill's College, Author of "Acadian Geology," etc. Montreal: Dawson and Son. 1860.

WE have read this volume with great pleasure. There are some things in it with which we do not agree; but every page bears testimony to the substantial literary, scientific, and theological attainments of its author. There are no attempts to look asquint at any of the important topics discussed. Candour, good sense, and a fine Christian spirit, happily distinguish Principal Dawson's work from many which, on both sides of the Atlantic, have been written on the same subjects. We were aware of Dr Dawson's accomplishments as a geologist, but we were not prepared to accord to him that varied learning, evidences of which are everywhere apparent in this volume.

Turning to an examination of the cosmological peculiarities of the Bible, he takes for his starting-point the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. He does not examine, in order to find whether or no the references to natural science in them are such as warrant him to accept the Scriptures as inspired; but, confessing his faith in their inspiration, he shows how his inquiries can be best prosecuted from this point of view. An opposite course has led only to error. Writers have set themselves to interrogate them as to one physicotheological question and another, having no faith in the witness. No wonder, then, that the testimony has often seemed absurd or contradictory. But, with a "cross-questioner" like Dr Dawson, the utterances are seen to be not inconsistent with the character of the witness; though we may sometimes have to aver that another construction might be put on them than is done by him. An enumeration of the general contents will indicate the range and importance of the subjects discussed in "Archaia." We have Objects, Character, and Authority of the Hebrew Cosmogony-General Views of Nature contained in the Hebrew Scriptures-The Beginning-The Desolate VoidLight-Days of Creation-The Atmosphere-The Dry Land-The First Vegetation-Luminaries-The Lower Animals-The Higher Animals-Man-The Rest of the Creator-Unity and Antiquity of Man. To these is added an Appendix, chiefly containing quotations from well-known works in science, which bear upon the topics discussed in the body of the work. The views stated in the first chapter as to the harmony between science and religion, and as to the attainments of the writers of Scripture in the knowledge of natural science, have more than once been brought out in this journal. So also has the importance of scientific knowledge to the Christian Church. At one time there was some likelihood that prominence was about to be given to this in Scotland; and, had Dr Fleming been spared a few years longer, he would have compelled even the most ignorant theologians to acknowledge the truth of his views. But it is always difficult to persuade men of the importance of branches of knowledge, with which they are only partially, even not at all acquainted.

We have not space to give that prominence to the volume now

before us which undoubtedly it deserves, and must limit our remarks to one or two points. In referring to the first verses of Genesis, the author dissents, and we think on good grounds, from Dr Pye Smith's local chaos theory. He thinks that what is most generally known as the reconciliation scheme of Chalmers is as little satisfactory. Now, while we should not like to hold that this scheme is unobjectionable, we continue of opinion that it meets many difficulties. Dr Dawson rightly thinks that, à priori, "it is improbable that the first act of creative power should have resulted in the production of a mere chaos;" but no such charge as this can be alleged against a general scene of desolation, before the introduction of a new epoch and the bringing in of species wholly distinct from previously existing ones. We have often wondered at the want of reflection which has characterized many geologists, when dealing with this question. We suppose that few will be found to deny the general submergence of the land of the northern hemisphere before the beginning of the Pleistocene period, during the progress of which the Drift was realized. Nothing more than a general prevalence of such a phenomenon is demanded for the chaos of theologians. Why might not the local pass into the universal? The contemporaneous existence of animals characteristic of both is, however, the stumbling-block here. But if you grant the introduction of new species, you give a place to miracle in the development of the cosmical scheme of life. Now, what greater difficulty is there in believing that old types were planted anew by the hand of the Creator in the midst of those novel forms which were to distinguish the period, than in holding that new species were intruded? There is miracle in either case. Again, looking at the days of creation, we are of opinion that Dr Dawson has not succeeded in shutting up readers to his opinions as the only sound ones, notwithstanding the breadth of view and the great ability which characterize his discussions on this point. He holds what is now generally known as the "Age Theory." But it is due to the author to state that he has arrived at this by a process peculiarly his own. While acknowledging the ability and freely using the arguments of Cuvier, Jameson, Hugh Miller, and others, he is far from relying on these great names. conclusions result from independent and original investigations. Referring to Genesis i. 5,1 Dr Dawson says: "The first important fact that strikes us, is one which has not received the attention it deserves-viz., that the word day is evidently used in two senses in the verse itself. We are told that God called the light, that is, the diurnal continuance of light, day. We are also informed that the evening and the morning were the first day. Day, therefore, in one of these clauses, is the light as separated from the darkness, which we may call the natural day; in the other, it is the whole time occupied in the creation of light, and its separation from darkness, whether that was a civil or astronomical day, of twenty-four hours, or some longer period." After having followed Dr Dawson's reasoning and illustrations with great care, we frankly confess that we have not been led

His

"And God called the light Day; and the darkness he called Night. And the Evening and the Morning were the first day."

Dr Dawson's Archaia.

547

into his views. We would rather hold by the words as an intelligent man would at once accept them, who has no pet theory to plead for, and would urge that the second clause is simply explanatory of the first. We have day and night in the first, and then we are told that day includes the period from dawn to dusk, and night the period from dusk to dawn. It is no doubt possible that the interpretation which Dr Dawson pleads for may be the true one, but another than man must come and tell us so before unbiassed men will accept it. The references to creation in the Scriptures are no more numerous than were needed in order to make the higher revelation intelligible to us. Let geology deal with the records on the rocks as not being mentioned in Genesis-as not even contained under the expression, “in the beginning "—and the Bible will be saved from many foolish interpretations, and critics from much not very pleasant work. But what say you of the six days? Well, we take them as every unbiassed reader has read them from earliest times, and aver that they cover the record of the making of the things therein described. Before the first day, the earth lay ready for the introduction of new forms, as it had done when the Silurian ceased, and the Devonian has to be realized, or as it did when the well-marked Carboniferous was to be ushered in. The alleged astronomical difficulty might be stated in the same way; but we spare our readers.

It appears to us that the difficulties in the way of such an interpretation as Dr Dawson, following Hugh Miller and others, has put upon the seventh day, are even more formidable. If you receive the theory that God's Sabbath began with Adam, and still continues, the inference in sound logic is that every day is alike. And if you answer that God has specially told off six days as for man, then we answer that He has set apart a seventh in the same way for Himself, the weekly Sabbath, at the close of which man may hasten forth to his own work. Like the other view, there is a possibility that Dr Dawson, Hugh Miller, etc., may be right on this point; but, we again repeat, a new revelation will be required before that great multitude, who find in the Bible the words of eternal life, will accept the theory as true. Will Dr Dawson do us the favour to look at Hebrews iv., and say whether his views will harmonise with the views of the Spirit of God given there as to the Sabbath rest, when set alongside of the rest of Canaan, and the rest of the soul in Jesus Christ? In all these not very profitable discussions, this chapter has been habitually kept out of sight.

We might subject all the author's remarks on the days of creation to criticism of this kind; but were we to do so, we should not like to be held as committed on the side of any of those theories, the weak parts of which he points out with much skill and to much profit. As regards the strictures on Professor Hitchcock, at p. 114, it should be borne in mind that the Professor, to whom both pure science and physico-theology is much indebted, wrote the sentences reviewed at a time when comparatively little prominence had been given to those palæontological discoveries which now seem to contradict them.

The chapters which follow that now noticed are devoted to the dis