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

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 have
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 geo•
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