In other words his position was not over-favourable to freedom of thought; while he had no personal advantages to countervail the drawbacks of position. : The avowal in question was doubtless occasioned by the then recent disclosures of geological investigation. The science of geology was at that time but in its infancy in fact, it can hardly be said to have passed out of the infant state even yet; though its growth during the last fifty years has indeed been prodigious, and it has come to be at least one of the grandest babies that the Genius of Science ever suckled. The earlier results of geologic research were regarded as highly ominous or highly auspicious, according as they were viewed by men of different prepossessions. Infidels rashly seized upon them as stubborn arguments against Christianity; Christians as rashly made them the ground of an assault upon science: those went to arguing from geology against Revelation; these, from Revelation against geology. Both parties have been thoroughly stultified by the later findings of the science. We are speaking far within the truth when we say, that geology neither promises anything to infidelity, nor threatens anything to Christianity. And if, on the one hand, infidels, having called geology into court as their witness, can with ill grace refuse or ignore its testimony, on the other hand, Christians may well be ashamed to urge the testimony of a witness which themselves were so forward to impeach. It is to be hoped. that both sides have learned by this time, that "haste makes waste, and waste makes want." Some years after the forecited avowal, Dr. Chalmers put forth an elaborate scheme or theory by way of harmonizing the conclusions of geology with the Mosaic account of the Creation. The attempt was either wrong in its method, or else premature in time; perhaps both. It turned mainly upon the idea, that the earth, after passing through various indefinite periods or cycles of organic production, reverted to a chaotic or semi-chaotic state, and so became the theatre of a new creation which occupied six days of twenty-four hours each. Thus he still clung to what is called the literal interpretation of the record, and sought to escape its consequences in a way more ingenious than wise. The scheme, however it might seem to answer for the time, could not permanently serve: indeed it was quite too much of the nature of a shift; it evidently took its starting point from geology, which was then by no means in a state of fixedness: and in the rapid growth of geologic investigation it was soon completely nonsuited. Other schemes of reconciliation followed from time to time, to be in turn exploded by the still onward march of the science. These schemes were impotent and ill-judged, inasmuch as they had in view to save the received interpretation of Scripture amid the varying exigencies of geologic research; whereas they should have gone back of that interpretation, and crossquestioned and reconsidered it on sound philological and exegetical principles. Such an attempt to make Scripture tally with the rocks, while the rocks were every year telling a different tale, could hardly come to good. A series of after-thought expedients, gotten up to meet the shiftings of occasion, was the natural result. Even the authority of Scripture has in a measure been compromised by this temporizing policy. It has gone far to accredit the notion that the Bible, instead of hav ing a solid mind of its own, so that we are to learn what it does say, is but a sort of inarticulate voice that readily shapes itself to whatsoever meanings the shifting currents of human thought may from time to time seem to require, so that we have but to exercise our wits in trying what it may be made to say. The Scriptures can far better stand the utmost rigours and severities of the scientific method, than the tendernesses of such a pliant and versatile patronage. The condescensions of kindness and courtesy are not what they ask at our hands: if we believe them to be indeed the word of God, the modest respects of austere justice are our most fitting acknowledg ment of their sacredness. Thus much by way of suggesting the probable views and motives which led to the writing of the book now under consideration. It was certainly high time that a different mode of proceedure should be taken in the question; and we may well marvel that a studious effort was not sooner made, to rectify, from the general style and usage of Scripture itself, what was found to be an untenable interpretation of a particular part of Scripture. The task has at length fallen into good. hands. Professor Lewis is widely and honourably distinguished as a scholar. Locally he is, we believe, a Presbyterian of the Old School; and he is not a man to be anything by halves a thorough-going earnestness and integrity of mind pervades whatsoever he thinks or does. But his thoughts are not circumscribed by any denominational lines. From sectarian narrowness he is eminently free: nothing less than the broad and ample fields of catholic doctrine will satisfy either his judgment or his taste. Though built high and solid in various learnings, he every where discovers the brave and simple faith of a child his piety is deep, unaffected, and cast in a mould of unfaltering manliness: to a keen and piercing intellect, a sense of beauty that never slumbers, and an intense, yet subdued enthusiasm of poetry, he unites a downright honesty and rectitude of purpose that knows no fear: what he believes, he believes with all his might, and his declaration of it is never "mingled with respects that stand aloof from the entire point:" as his mind dwells in the sober and legitimate confidence of reason, he of course owns no fellowship with the common arts of popularity; but uses all diligence to see things as they are, and to show exactly what he sees. In the clear perceptions and fearless utterances of such a man, all can find food and refreshment, who deserve to find them: it is not easy to carry any distrust into his presence: if at any time he strains a point. in behalf of some foregone conclusion, still there is an air of frankness about it, that holds our confidence even though our judgment remain unconvinced: we see that, however he may himself overvalue his thought, he does not wish to have it pass with us for any more than it is worth; so that we can always learn from him, whether we agree with him or not. In short, Professor Lewis belongs emphatically to us all, or, if he do not, the fault is on our side, not his: whatever name he may go by, in spirit and substance he is with us; though we have no thought of claiming him in such a sense but that others have just as good a right to him, and just as large a share in him, as we have. So that we hope our brethren will be as ready to trust him and learn from him, as if the Church had exclusive possession of him. They may rest assured, indeed, that some of our most important affairs are better understood and appreciated by him than by very many of ourselves. Our author is probably best known as an accomplished Grecian. He has been seen treading the heights of the Greek language and literature in the angelic companionship of Plato. But his studies have by no means been confined to the classic languages. He seems to be equally, or almost equally, at home in the various fields of ancient learning: whatever treasures of the mind have come down to us from that "dark backward and abysm of time" where the old civilization had its birth and nurture, have been explored by him: indeed, nothing that would throw any light on the primitive modes of thought and usages of speech, seems to have escaped the harvest of his searching and studious eye. Scholarship, however, in the common use of that term, is perhaps the least of his merits. He is as far as possible from being a mere grammarian or gerundist. His mind is of a highly philosophical cast, as indeed it must have been, else his feet would never have lingered in the Academy. He therefore deals with language as a philosopher, and not merely as a linguist in fact, the philosophic energy and insight are sometimes almost too conspicuous in his philological reasonings. Such a mind cannot rest with a bare knowledge of things in their outward mechanical pressure, but must still endeavour, as from the workings of instinct, to bore into their principles, that so it may feed upon the living laws and operative ideas, or "spermatic words," which build up and underlie the visible forms and movements of the world. Accordingly, Professor Lewis is nowise content with the mastery of words or even languages in detail but penetrates to their rudiments and originals he has, in a remarkable degrec, ascended to the springs and sources not merely of certain languages, but of Language itself, and studied it in its genesis and growth; analyzing it into its simplest elements, and reproducing in himself those primitive states of mind and forms of thought from which it took its origin and texture and shape. This is specially apparent in his dealing with the Hebrew Scriptures, where he constantly impresses us as having gone to the very root of the matter. Language has come down to us, encased, for the most part, in a thick, tough wrappage of artificial associations; we take up words as they have become devitalized by the abstracting intellect, and are perpetually using them without once dreaming whence they came, or what the contain. Now, the thing is, to work our thoughts clear of these modern entanglements, and transport ourselves back to the ancient mental stand-point, so as to see how and why words came to be used as they were. This is a difficult process; much more so than we can well conceive till we have made a long trial of it. And this is just what our author has done. Thus he has, so to speak, made himself a Hebrew of the Hebrews; studying their language in its elements and first principles, till he has grown to understand it as they should be supposed to have understood it. Professor Lewis is therefore in a peculiar manner qualified to interpret the Mosaic record, not from any recent findings of geology, but from the ancient modes of thought, as these are disclosed both in the original language of the old Scriptures and in various neighbouring and contemporary languages. So that, if we will but take a little pains, we can learn from him to attach their meanings to what they say, instead of mistaking, as we are so apt to do, our meanings for theirs. In ordinary hands, such discussions would needs seem dull, except to scholars. But it is not so with the learned Profes His analyses of language are so clean and tight, such is his fund of solid and manly grace, his style is so racy and spirited, such is his vigour and beauty of argument and illustration, that a sense of dullness never steals over us in his company. Dry as is the subject in itself, the common reader's mind is still kept brisk and alert, by the frequent and varied kindlings of poetic life, and the apt though unexpected incomings of philosophic thought. Therewithal, the author's heart and soul were most evidently in his theme. Intense and persevering diligence is inscribed on every page; yet we are made to feel that mental exertion is with him its own reward. With his choice and ample furnishings both of original power and of scholarly acquirement, he has manifestly spared no care nor labour, to make clean work. If, indeed, we were to find any |