The Press. — London, England, 1855-04-14 00:00:00

APRIL 14, 1655. tween the statements in the Bible awl the conclusions of geological science : I have adverted to the question of discrepancies between science and the language of Scripture generally, and hav e referred more especially to that notable instance of it-- the irreconcileable contradiction between the whole view opened to us by geology, and the narrative of the Creation in the Hebrew Scriptures, whether as briefly delivered from Sinai, or as expanded in Genesis. In the minds of all competently-informed persona at the present day, after a long struggle for existence, the literal belief in the Judaical cosmogony, it may now be said, has died a natural death. Yet many are still hauntevl by its phantom, which perpetually disturbs their minds with apprehensions equally groundless on collateral points. In a word, those who accept geological truths at all, and admit the palpable contradiction to the Old Testament, without prejudice to their faith, cannot with consistency make it a ground of objection to any hypothesis of the nature of the changes indicated, that they are contrary to Scripture. They are in nu way more so than all ge o • IVY The three essays contained in the volume are, the Professor rightly states, naturally con nected with each other. The first is on " The Spirit of the Inductive Philosophy," with the conclusion that universal order is the proof of supreme mind ; the second on " The Unity or Plurality of Worlds," arguing that Christianity is essentially spiritual and independent of physical speculations; and the third on " The Philosophy of Creation," directed to show that, from the earliest record of the formation of matter afforded by the earth it3elf, there has been a continuity—we cannot say of creation, but of nature animate and inanimate—that continuity being towards the development of the higher forms of organisation. The whole tone of the Professor is rather speculative than positive, and it is possible that we may occasionally have misappre hended his meaning. But we take it that he inclines to the " nebular theory " as regards the formation of the universe, and that he favours the old doctrine lately revived, and here particularly ascribed to Oken, of all forms of animal life being developed out of "a monad or infusorial point." In many such passages as the following we are indeed led to conclude that life began from some chemical change effected on inorganic matter : From the lowest mechanical or chemical influences on inorganic matter, there is an unbroken series to the first manifestation of organic changes ; and from these again— from the lowest vegetable or zoophyte up to the highest mammalia—there is entirely one continuous progression, its connection from one term to another being carried on through absolutely insensible degrees and shades of diffe• rence.—Euay 1., p. 68. in the next essay, on " The Unity of Worlds," the like train of thought is pursued : Looking at the subject solely as a question of plausible philosophic conjecture, and guided as we should be by the pure light of inductive analogy, all astronomical presump tion, taking the truths of geology into account, seems to be in favour of progressive order advancing from the inor ganic to the organic, and from the insensible up to the intellectual and moral in all parts of the material world alike, though not necessarily in all at the same time or with the same rapidity ; in some worlds one stage being reached, while in others only a comparatively small ad vance may have been made. But ho adds : Admitting the general justice of this view, I . must yet observe that this last idea seems to me to savour of that theory which would associate too closely the intellectual and spiritual nature of man with the physical, on the essential distinction between which I have before enlarged. —Esrey 11., p. 2.34. In the third essay he notices with approval the theory of Owen. that the whole animal skeleton is referable to one simple scheme or archetype resembling the ,Dish form; but Pro fessor Powell would carry, as in the passages above quoted, the theory of development from the monad up to the vertebrated form in its different modifications. What " determining causes" produced different forms of animated life ho does not attempt to define, but he supposes that : Species (within certain limits of deviation) are perma nent during very long periods, but beyond those periods a change, in some sense, occurs ; and this bears some rela tion to changes of external conditions. But under the same change of conditions one species may be highly sus ceptible of, and sensitive to, the influence of that change, while another may be insensible to it. Thus one may remain permanent, while another may undergo change, or even be exterminated. And the only question is as to the sense in which such change of species is to be understood; whether individuals, naturally produced from parents, were modified by successive variations of parts, in any stage of early growth or rudimental development., until, in one or more generations, the whole species became in fact THE PRESS. a different one ; or whether we are to believe that the whole race perished without reproducing itself, while, inde pendent of it, another new race, or other new individuals (by whatever means), csme into existence, of a nature closely allied to the last, and differingoften by the slightest shades, yet unconnected with them by descent; whether there was a continuation and propagation of the same principle of vitality (in whatever germ it may be imagined to have been conveyed), or whether a new principle or germ originated independently of any preceding, out of its existing inorganic elements. The Professor himself favours the theory of development or continuity; and to the objec tion that there has been no change of species within human experience, he replies : Within the limits of the existing period we observe a permanence of species ; just as much as we find evidence of it within like limits in ancient periods of the earth's history; but beyond such limits of time, and the influence of certain conditions accompanying those changes, and differently affecting the several species, we have no such evidence in the one case, and direct apparent evidence to the contrary in the other. We cannot Bay that we hare no experience of a change of species in a due length of time, and under adequate and appropriate changes of external condition. As a mere philosophical conjecture, the idea of trans mutation of species under adequate changes of condition, and in incalculably long periods of time, seems supported b) fair analogy and probability. In a passage we cannot at the moment find, the Professor, if we rightly understood him, supposes it to be not unlikely that a ruder form of man may yet be discovered by geolo gical research. He thinks it as probable that men should—of course in incalculable periods of time, and under favorable external condi tions—grow out of fishes, as that coal should be formed from beds of vegetable matter. There are expressions in these essays which, allowing all latitude to scientific speculation, seem scarcely decent as proceeding from a person of Professor Powell's station. Thus, he says that the " prevalent theology is too " deeply immersed in an indiscriminate and " unthinking bibliolatry." Such expressions cannot, we imagine, he allowed to pass with out serious notice. Many of the ideas he puts forth, if not new in themselves, are certainly new as proceeding from a Christian writer, and likely to be productive of much mischief. Whether it be possible so to separate the body of man from his moral or spiritual nature, as to hold that the former has been evolved in the course of countless ages by the orderly procession of physical laws, without any direct and immediate act of creative power, while the latter is subject to Divine influences, and made the special care of Deity, may reasonably be doubted. To our view the whole tenor of this volume tends to weaken or dispel that confidence in the near ness of God, in His fatherly care and autho rity, and in His actual superintending Pro idence, which is the foundation of all religious feeling. It is significant of the wildness of Professor Powell's views on many subjects, that ho sup ports what he calls the " theory of conjecture." The existence of man upon earth must be, to adopt a favorite expression of the Professor, an evidence to "all sane reasoners " that a physical miracle, or act of sovereign creative power, was at some time exercised to call him into being, and this view is supported by those facts of geology which show that his existence must date from a comparatively recent period in the changes which the earth has undergone. To suppose that man may have existed in a ruder form than he at present possesses, that physical conditions of which we have no knowledge may have effected changes in species of which we have no experience, is to overlook established facts in favour of vague conjecture. The volume will certainly excite great attention, for though the general views are as old as practical in fidelity, they derive new importance from being sanctioned by so ingenious a theorist and dexterous logician as the Rev. Baden Powell. Lives of Philosophers of the Tune of George 111. The Works of Henry Lord Brougham. Vol. I. London: Griffin and Co. THE graceful and dignified allusion recently made by Lord Brougham to his advancing years, little as his clear and active faculties seem to have required it, excited in the 357 country a feeling in which mere party opinion has no share. Lord Brougham is, without doubt, not merely one of the most remarkable men of the present age, but, to use his own words of Hume and Smith, he "has had no parallel, scarcely a forerunner." In politics all men know that no rule of excellence can be laid down, and with his lordship's career in the storms of the last forty years a notice of his published works has no concern ; but to have achieved the reputation of a sound savant —even of a discoverer in science—of a successful lawyer, of a great orator, of a supreme judge not one of whose decisions has ever been reversed, of a legislator bold and in many cases successful, an accomplished critic and a pleasant biographer, surely con stitutes a claim to rank amongst the chief notabilities of a generation. Lord Brougham's published works alone compose a remarkable collection of varied research and speculation in a large range of subject of mental and moral inquiry. The volume before us is the first of a uniform series of his lordship's publications, including the lives of men of letters of the reign of George 111., the sketches of statesmen of the same period, the dissertations, ad dresses, and speeches, and, for the first time, the critical and historical essays contri buted to the Edinburgh Review. In the last we anticipate matter of considerable interest when we remember that his lordship's contri butions to the Blue and Yellow were in its dashing days, when even by the rule of their motto from Publius Syrus, taken, as Sidney Smith has told us, ignotum pro magnifica, there was no danger whatever that the Edinburgh judges of literature should be condemned. To this new edition of hie " Lives of Philosophers of the Time of George III." the author has contributed a preface written in the present year, giving eloquently his reasons for adopting the subjects he had chosen, and assigning, we think, not an exaggerated place to the period over which the long reign of George 111. extended. Of that period Lord Brougham says : The reign of George 111. may in some important re spects be justly regarded as the Augustan age of modern history. The greatest statesmen, the most consummate captains, the most finished orators, the first historians, all flourished during this period. For excellence in these de partments it was unsurpassed in former times, nor had it even any rivals, if we except the warriors of Louis XlV.'s day, one or two statesmen, and Bolingbroke and Massillon as orators. But its glories were not confined to those great departments of human genius. Though it could show no poet like Dante, Milton, Talmo, or Dryden ; no dramatist like Shakspeare or Corneille; no philosopher to equal Bacon, Newton, or Locke,—it nevertheless in some branches, and these not the least important of natural science, very far surpassed the achievements of former days, while of political science, the most important of all, it firstlaid the foundations, and then reared the superstruc ture. The science of chemistry almost entirely, of pull. tical economy entirely, were the growth of this remarkable era; while even in the pure mathematics • progress was made which nearly changed its aspect since the days of Leibnitz and Newton. The names of Black, Watt, Cavendish, Priestley, Lavoisier, Davy, may justly be placed far above the Boyles, the Stahl., the Hales, the Hookea of former times ; while Euler, Clairant, D'Alembert, Lagrange, La Place, must be ranked as analysts next after Newtou himself, and above Descartes, Leibnitz, or the Bernoulli. ; and in economical science, Hume, Smith, and Quesnai really bad no parallel, hardly any forerunner. It would also be vain to deny great poetical and dramatic genius to Goldsmith, Voltaire, Alfieri, Monti, and the German school, how inferior soever to the older masters of song. In his " Lives of Men of Letters " Lord Brougham had to deal with the difficult sub jects of Voltaire and Rousseau. His treatment of' these subjects raised some controversy when the work originally appeared, and to that in the conclusion of this preface he takes occasion thus to allude : But although I had no political animosities to encoun ter, I feared my historical statements and my commentaries on some lives, as those of Voltaire, Rousseau, and Hume, might find enemies among the two great parties whose principles came in question. The Freethinkers might object to the blame which I ventured to pronounce upon their favourite authors ; the friends of the Church might take exception to the praises occasionally bestowed. It may, however, be expected from the justice of both these conflicting bodies, that they will read with attention and with calmness before they condemn. From the former class I could expect no favour beyond what every one has a right to claim from avowed adversaries; a fair hearing was all I desired. To the latter a few words might be addressed in the spirit of respectful kindness, as to those with whom I generally agree. Whoever feels disposed to treat a■ impious any writer that has the misfortune not to be among the great body of believers, like the celebrated men above named, should