every thing around us, than that of "elementary animal structures, endued with vital properties," produced by we know not what,-governed by we know not what,-and supported we know not how. It has appeared to me surprising, that a philosophic inquirer into the laws and order of nature, should content himself with having recourse to some inextricable dilemma-something dark and unknown; instead of that obvious reference to a supreme intelligence, which in its very principles constitutes the foundation of piety and religion, and has been the resort of true philosophy in all ages. I do not wonder, as he has hinted, that an anatomist should think he sees no traces of a principle distinct from matter in the dissecting-room-in a loathsome body returning to the elements out of which it was formed. Nor ought we to be surprised, that any one, who has spent great part of his life in comparing the structure of one animated being with another, and each with its peculiar faculties, from those of locomotion and nutrition up to perception and thought, should see these things as a mere physiologist, and should take a less comprehensive view of the human mind and its diversified relations than others. For, after all, the mind is the chief subject that concerns a moral and intelligent agent: and the anatomist will never be able to tell us more of its propensities by all his discoveries, than we already know; nor to find out in the brain a single new faculty. We have this knowledge independently of his skill; and he is the last to whom a rational creature should apply for information touching an immaterial and immortal principle. So far as this can be discovered by the knife, or by physiological research, he is the last :-though anatomy, of all pursuits, abounds with lessons of wisdom, from innumerable examples of contrivance, skill, and exquisite workmanship. If, as the author confesses, and every candid mind must allow," the sublime dogmas"-comprehending "the theological doctrine of the soul, and its separate existence"-" could never have been brought to light by the labours of the anatomist and physiologist”❝and rest on a species of proof altogether different;" and that "an immaterial and spiritual being could not have been discovered amid the blood and filth of the dissecting-room :" conversely, it appears to me obvious, that it is highly unreasonable, if not presumptuous, for the anatomist to employ his discoveries, or the geologist his researches, so as to arrange a system of argument to overturn that proof, by invalidating the truth of those sacred records, which form the venerable basis on which alone the "sublime dogmas" in question are built. For, notwithstanding the author seems to draw his proof from what he calls the universal belief of mankind "for ages and ages before the period to which our remotest annals extend," independent, too, of Scripture testimony; yet I cannot perceive any other legitimate source of outward proof for these "great truths" than the sacred writings. The author distinctly asserts, that "the instances of America, New Holland, and some other islands, afford unanswerable arguments against the creation of all animals in one spot." And again, "To the grounds of doubt respecting inspiration, which arise from examination of the various narratives, from knowledge of the original and other oriental languages, and from the irreconcileable opposition between the passions and sentiments ascribed to the Deity by Moses, and that religion of peace and love unfolded by the Evangelists, I have only to add, that the representations of all the animals being brought before Adam in the first instance, and subsequently of their being all collected in the Ark, if we are to understand them as applied to the living inhabitants of the whole world, are zoologically impossible." (Sect. 2. Chap. 1.) It is scarcely necessary to remark, that if these strong assertions could in any degree shake the authenticity of the Hebrew Scriptures, they must immediately tend to destroy that species of proof on which the sublime dogmas alluded to must ultimately rest for their support. The Hebrew Scriptures look forward with clear predictions to the time of the Evangelists and the promulgator of the gospel himself looks back to these sacred records, points out their completion, and sanctions their truth. Hence, : to vindicate the truths of the gospel, and at the same time to question the divine authority of Moses and the Prophets, are incompatible labours. If the writings of the latter be not received as genuine in themselves, I know not where we shall find the proof of those sublime dogmas, which is admitted to exist. Jesus Christ, by fulfilling the laws and ordinances of Moses, confirmed their divine obligations upon all the descendants of Abraham till his time: in short, by fulfilling the law he set his seal to the divine commission of Moses who was its author. And therefore a contrast of the two dispensations, with invidious and disparaging reflexions upon the first, must inevitably weaken the foundations of credibility in the last. In concluding my remarks on the work under review, I am, however, anxious to do the author justice. Although I cannot find the reference to an Almighty Power, in immediate connexion with his reasoning on the movements of animal life; yet I am gratified in being able to produce an incidental allusion to such a Divine principle, in the Second Lecture. He observes, "The ends or final purposes of the Creator will be placed in the strongest light by selecting any animal of marked peculiarity in its economy, and comparing together its structure and mode of life."-I gladly quote also a passage, to be found in one of the Introductory Lectures, published about three years before the principal work made its appearance. It is to the following effect." The |