been at the same time moving in a north-westerly direction. One or the other must have been moving in a south-easterly direction, since you cannot, by any art, make all three come within a single hemisphere; and they cannot, therefore, on this view, have all been moving to the north-west. In one or other case, then, I do not in the least care which of the three, so far from these astronomical changes involving a change of climate which would account for the geological phenomena, they involve a change quite the other way. The theory does not then, even at its best, account for the facts of the case. Now to apply another and very different test. Hitherto I have been dealing with this subject on purely theoretical grounds; now I want to come to the test of positive historical fact. I propose to test the worth of the theory by what we know of the ancient climate of Palestine, the land of which we have at once the earliest and the most authentic historical account. We know from the Scripture to a certain extent what the climate of Palestine was 3,400 years ago. Now, if Mr. Hopkins's theory is correct, if the land of Palestine has been moving at the regular rate of twenty seconds North Latitude, and fifty seconds West Longitude every year, then it follows that 3,400 years ago Palestine was not where it now is, but where Madras now is ;—that is, in the very heart of the tropics. If you look carefully to the evidence of the Pentateuch, you can prove to a certainty that there has been no alteration in elevation or general geographical situation in Palestine during the last 3,400 years; you can prove that the sea-coast lay in the same place, that the mountains were of the same height, since the views seen from their summits then are the same as those to be seen now; that the whole state of things, in fact, exactly corresponded with what we now see; and we thus are not at liberty to assume any change of this kind to account for variation in climate. I ask, then, does Biblical evidence show us, that in the days of Moses Palestine was in the tropics? Was the climate, then, such as it must have been if Mr. Hopkins's theory is true? Let us look at the subject carefully. In the first place, we notice that the vegetation now observable in Palestine is identical with the vegetation mentioned in the Pentateuch. You have oak, the terebinth, &c., as the characteristic trees then just as now; the palm, mentioned but seldom, and as found only in certain places, as in the Valley of Jordan, just as at present. In the same way, also, with regard to the zoology of Palestine, we know perfectly well-for it is one of the things we advance as proof that the Bible is authentic, that the plants and animals, the zoology and botany of the country at the present day are exactly those which the Bible describes. Is this credible, if a change of climate has taken place during the interval from the tropical climate of Madras? But now, to bring this home to particular instances. It might be said, Ah, but these plants will grow also quite as well in the tropics. This is not the case; some of them will not grow in the tropics; and we have instances of such mentioned by Moses as growing in his days in Palestine. First of all, I will mention the olive. Humboldt says that the olive will not grow in the tropics. I suppose few men have studied more deeply the subject of the distribution of plants than Alexander Von Humboldt; we may

well, therefore, take him as an authority. And he has laid this down, as the result of his researches, that the olive will not grow in the tropics. The land of Palestine and Egypt seems, indeed, to be the extreme southern limit in which the olive will grow. Now there is no doubt that the olive was one of the characteristic productions of Palestine. Moses describes it as " a land of figs, of pomegranates, and of oil-olives." There is thus no doubt that it was a characteristic production of Palestine in his days; yet this it could not have been, if Palestine was situated then where Madras is now. Then I take the case of wheat and barley. In the tropics, wheat and barley cannot be cultivated, because of the intense heat which dries them up before they have time to ripen. Look, for instance, at Johnston's "Physical Atlas," where he describes the different regions in which different cereals are grown, and you will find wheat and barley as the productions of the coast of the Mediterranean, Palestine, Greece, Italy, Spain, and the north of Africa. But the instant you get into the tropics you have not wheat, but rice. Now there is no mention of rice in Palestine, but there is of wheat and barley. Moses says it is " a land of wheat and barley," but of rice he says nothing. Wheat and barley, however, could not have been productions of the land if it experienced the same climate as Madras. Then again, we are told the wheat and barley will especially not flourish in hot climates if the land is flat and near the sea. Now, what were the characteristics of the grain districts of Palestine? Why, flat plains, and especially the flat plains of Philistia. Look at the history of Samson, and you find an allusion to this, where he tied firebrands to the tails of the jackals, and sent them into the standing corn of the Philistines. You see there the character of the place, standing corn growing on the land-land where it would be impossible for it to grow if Palestine had the same climate as Madras. But, further still, those persons who have been to Palestine, and examined most carefully its climate and productions, who are also most deeply conversant with the evidence of the Old Testament, tell us that so far from the evidence pointing to the climate of Palestine at the present day being colder than it was before, it tends the other way, that rather it was colder in the days of David and Moses than at the present time. And why? Why, because you find more mention of snow in the Old Testament than we should expect to have found from the present experience of the inhabitants. For instance, you have such an incident as that recorded in the days of David, where one of his mighty men went and slew a lion on a snowy day. That is the very thing, the snow is referred to as a natural, common occurrence, and so is frequently introduced into the Psalms as an emblem of glory and purity. Now in the present day, snow is extremely scarce in Palestine, and therefore the probability is, that instead of a hotter, it had formerly a colder climate than at present. Let us take another step yet. Upon the ravines of the Lebanon there are plain marks of glaciers having once swept down them, and yet we are told that the climate formerly must have been enormously hotter than it is at the present day. Now when we test in this way, not by theory, but by taking a plain case

of real historical evidence, to show what the climate of a particular land really was three or four thousand years ago, it seems to me impossible to accept Mr. Hopkins's theory as true. I am not denying his facts, that the latitude and longitude, astronomically considered, have altered to the extent he says. I am looking at the matter from a purely practical point of view. Does that alteration of latitude involve a change of climate? and taking account of this instance of Palestine, I am compelled to conclude that it does not; for though the latitude may have altered astronomically, it has not caused a corresponding alteration of climate. What follows then? Granted that the latitude of Greenland, of England, of Australia have varied to the extent that he says they have, and I am quite prepared to admit it, still this does not involve what Mr. Hopkins would have us think it does, the change of climate. The latitude has moved, but the climate we have no ground for thinking has thereby altered in the least. I am afraid I am taking up a great deal of your time (No, no), but I was interested in the matter, and have gone into it somewhat fully. Now just a few remarks on the subject of the time involved in Geological changes generally. What does history show us as to the period which has elapsed without any change in the surface of the globe having taken place? I take again the land of Palestine, or rather one remarkable portion of it, the Dead Sea. We can trace back the history of the Dead Sea to the days of Abraham. In what respect was the condition of the Dead Sea then different from what it is now? There were two differences and two only; First, the sea, we have strong reason to believe, did not extend to the same extent as at present, its southern part being probably dry land, on which stood the cities of Sodom, Gomorrha, &c. Then, second, the land was not then impregnated with salt, but was fruitful, well watered, and exceedingly fertile, like the land of Egypt, which could not be if it was impregnated with salt. Two changes have taken place, then; the water has risen slightly, and it has become salt. Both of these can be accounted for by one geological mutation, viz., the lifting up of the great salt mountain. There is no doubt that the great salt mountain has been lifted up, since you find surrounding it on all sides a deposit of marl, containing also a large quantity of gypsum, from twenty to sixty feet thick, which deposit is found also at the top of the salt mountain. The mountain is from 300 to 400 feet high, and the inference hence is, that its top stood originally at the same level with the surrounding marl, but that the mountain has been pushed up with the deposit on its top. The same thing is stated by Mr. Tristram to be observable in the salt mountains of the Sahara. This elevation of the salt will account for the rise of the water, because when salt is dissolved in water it swells its bulk; and here I do not hesitate to say, that if you could take the salt out of the Dead Sea, you would not only leave the southern lagoon entirely dry, but would also sink the water level of the northern basin several yards deeper. The elevation of the salt mountain is thus quite sufficient to account for all the changes in the Dead Sea district since the days of Abraham. Now what was the state of this ravine before the days of Abraham ? What traces are

there of changes still earlier in date? changes, that is, which occurred more than 4,000 years ago. The next point of evidence is, that the whole ravine to a height of some 300 to 400 feet was filled with fresh water. How is that proved? Because you find remains of ancient beaches traceable the whole way round at uniform levels, varying in height from 30 to 200, 300, or even 400 feet. But how can we tell that the water then was fresh water? Because there are shells found in these beaches, and the shells are invariably fresh-water shells, shells of exactly the same species as are found to this day in the Jordan. I was doubtful on this point when reading Mr. Tristram's book, and being then working at the subject of the Dead Sea, I wrote and asked him if he had found any marine shells in these beaches, and he said in reply that there was not a trace of one, they were all recent fresh-water ones. Our next step back is then to show that the Dead Sea was neither a salt sea, nor a small sea, but an enormous fresh-water lake. The fresh-water lake was gradually dried up, not quickly nor uniformly, for it left marked beaches only at intervals, whereas had it dried up quickly, it would have left débris all over the shore. Allowing, then, time enough for the formation and slow drying up of the fresh-water lake, what comes before that? We have yet to account for the salt. The only way we can imagine such an enormous mass of rock salt to have been formed-the mountain is about eight miles long, half a mile wide, 300 to 400 feet high, and how deep no one knows-the only reasonable way is to suppose that an arm of the sea was shut in here, dried up, and left the salt. Now, when you have accounted for the rock salt, where are you? Still in the post-tertiary period; not a single geological formation proper has been touched. We started, then, in the days of Abraham, nearly 4,000 years ago, with a small, probably brackish sea, before which was a fresh-water lake, before that an arm of the sea, and still nothing but post-tertiary remains. How much time have we to dispose of for these changes? From Abraham to the Deluge is about 360 years. I ask, then, is it credible, when 4,000 years have done next to nothing, we should suppose that the previous 360 did so much? More than this 360 years we cannot allow, if the current view of the Deluge be true, since if the sea swept across this district at the time of the Deluge, all traces of a preceding fresh-water lake must have been destroyed, and we are thus obliged to suppose that the lake, at all events, was formed and dried up within 360 years of the Deluge. But I am not sure even of all that 360 years, for I have started from the point when I know the cities of Sodom, &c., were standing; how long they had been so, I do not know; they may have stood for a considerable part of the 360 years. I say, again, is it credible that such enormous changes should have taken place in so short an interval, when the last 4,000 years have done so little? Beyond the Deluge we have but 1,600 years to the Creation; to which period, therefore, must the whole of the geological formations be referred, if such views as Mr. Hopkins's are to be maintained. I think that is a strong case of what history can tell us as to geological changes, and I cannot but wish simple facts like these were more looked to, before

theories are propounded as to the time probably consumed in such changes taking place.

Rev. WALTER MITCHELL.-It is, perhaps, a pity that some notes for discussion which Mr. Hopkins has sent us were not read previously to Mr. Warington's remarks. I think they contain some facts bearing upon the paper which will meet some of the objections of Mr. Warington. I shall now read them :

"TERRESTRIAL SUPERFICIAL CHANGES.-The late M. Arago, the French astronomer, in a very elaborate paper brought forward innumerable proofs that the northern limits of the growth of the best wine-grapes in France and other places on the Continent were gradually retrograding southward. Many places where, a few centuries ago, grapes of superior quality grew in abundance, are no longer capable of producing ripe grapes."

"Since the discovery of America, and the cultivation of the sugar-cane and tobacco by the Europeans, the northern limits of the growth of these products have very considerably retrograded southward, according to observations made in the United States."

"THE ARCTIC REGION.-Extracts from the Journals of Arctic Explorers.— The Gulf Stream renders the sea between Spitzbergen and Nova Zembla comparatively warm and free from ice. The coasts of Spitzbergen contain large quantities of drift-wood from all climates."

"Bottle-records conveyed by the Gulf Stream to the Arctic Sea have proved that they never return, but are generally thrown on some of the islands or coasts of the Polar Sea."

"SURVEYS OF LANDS, COASTS, &c., &c.— The configuration of coasts is subject to such changes as to necessitate the employment of a staff of naval officers more or less constantly, to ensure the safety of navigation. The coast of Australia is different from what it was in the time of Cook and Flinders. Even our local trigonometrical surveys are not completed before the first maps require some correction and revision."

I may say here, partially in defence of Mr. Hopkins, that whatever we may have to say with regard to the theory he has brought forward, we cannot but thank him for the immense mass of facts he has adduced-facts of the greatest possible importance in coming to any decision upon such an important question. His theory may be faulty in many respects, but as these motions have been observed for so few years comparatively, (that is, the smaller motions, some of the most important,) we do not know whether they do occur at any regular rate or not, and it would require many years probably of careful observation before that rate is fully determined. I should not altogether, perhaps, myself be inclined to agree with Mr. Hopkins in one portion of his theory, namely, the gradual spiral movement of the earth from the South Pole up to the North Pole, and then the dipping down of the earth through the earth's axis. That is the way in which he accounts for his theory, and I think that escaped Mr. Warington

Mr. WARINGTON.-I looked for it, and could not see it.

Rev. W. MITCHELL. He says, "The globe, with all its elements, might have existed from eternity. The ocean and the lands emerging from the Antarctic Pole merge again into the Arctic Pole, and thus circulate from Pole to Pole through the medium of the earth's axis." This he gives as a