In the article in the Quarterly already cited will be found further evidence to this effect and in support of Mr. Scrope's views.

But, to resume. Notwithstanding the long-standing difference of opinion between Dr. Daubeny and Mr. Scrope as regards the antiquity of these extinct volcanic cones, and notwithstanding Sir Charles Lyell's former caution as exhibited in the above citations, he now takes for granted their great age, disregards altogether the historic evidence of their recent eruption, and merely argues from the quasi facts against the universality of the Deluge. In his Antiquity of Man (p. 192) he says:

"We behold in many a valley of Auvergne within fifty feet of the present channel, a volcanic cone of loose ashes, with a crater at its summit, from which powerful currents of basaltic lava have poured, usurping the ancient bed of the torrent. By the action of the stream, in the course of ages, vast masses of the hard columnar basalt have been removed, pillar after pillar, and much vesicular lava, as is the case, for example, of the Puy Rouge, near Chalucet, and of the Puy de Tartaret, near Neckers. Had there been

a single flood fifty or sixty feet in height, since the last eruption occurred, a great part of these volcanoes must inevitably have been swept away.” In his Principles of Geology, also, chap. 45, he says:

"We may be enabled to infer, from the integrity of such conical hills of incoherent materials, that no flood can have passed over the countries where they are situated since their formation."

*

Now, this is very valuable testimony by Sir Charles Lyell (supposing his conclusion to be sound), that no flood of water can possibly have covered these volcanic cones since they were originally erupted. His reasoning upon this point, however, has been controverted; for instance by the Rev. James Brodie, in his Remarks on the Antiquity and Nature of Man, in Reply to Sir Charles Lyell; for he thinks these mountain cones of Auvergne might "have been sunk once and again beneath the deep without a single cinder having been moved." (p. 42.) Sir Charles's and Dr. Daubeny's conclusions as to the great antiquity of the fossil remains there discovered have also been questioned by other geologists, on independent grounds. For instance, Mr. J. R. Pattison, F.G.S., in his Examination of Sir Charles Lyell's Antiquity of Man,† thus writes:

"The testimony of the fossil man of St. Denise (if credit can be given to it, which, from personal inspection, I think is the case) proves merely an antiquity equal to that of the cave-remains. The specimen is embedded in a breccia which resulted, as M. Aymard concludes (Congrès Scientifique de France, 22me Session) from a volcanic eruption of water amidst scoriæ at the very close of the volcanic period in Velay, after the surface had attained nearly its present contour, and whilst extinct and subsisting species of mammals inhabited Auvergne."

I think I need make no further citations to establish the fact that there is no unison or agreement among geologists, and never has been, as regards

*Lond., Hamilton, Adams, & Co., 1864.

† Lond., Lovell Reeve & Co., 1863. (2nd ed., p. 15.)

these various controverted points. And yet let us see how Dr. Colenso has satisfied himself, and endeavours to satisfy others, upon a question that, even having regard to geological evidence alone, is full of doubt and difficulty. He says:

"My own knowledge of some branches of science-of geology in particular -had been much increased since I left England; and as I now know for certain, on geological grounds, a fact of which I had only misgivings before, viz., that a universal deluge, such as the Bible manifestly speaks of, could not possibly have taken place in the way described in the Book of Genesis. I refer especially to the circumstance, well known to all geologists (see Lyell's 'Elementary Geology,' pp. 197, 198), that volcanic hills exist of immense extent in Auvergne and Languedoc, which must have been formed ages before the Noachian deluge, and which are covered with light and loose substances, pumice-stone, &c., that must have been swept away by a flood, but do not exhibit the slightest sign of having ever been so disturbed. Of course (he adds), I am well aware that some have attempted to show that Noah's deluge was only a partial one; but such attempts have ever seemed to me to be made in the very teeth of the Scripture statements, which are as plain and explicit as words can possibly be."

I have drawn attention to the extremely positive character of Dr. Colenso's opinions and assertions, as regards his assumed knowledge of geological "facts," by putting some of his sentences in italics. He appears totally unaware of the historic evidence bearing upon the whole question; and, as he throws over the Pentateuch, he probably shares with Sir Charles Lyell the opinion that "true history and chronology are the creation, as it were, of yesterday. Thus the first Olympiad is generally regarded as the earliest date on which we can rely, in the past annals of mankind,—only 772 years before the Christian era." (Antiq. of Man, p. 380.)

Those who read this note may feel inclined to doubt whether "true history" can be confidently reckoned upon even to-day! It is not, every one must be convinced, always very well treated even when within our reach. I hesitate to express in my own words all I feel as regards what is either the ignorance or obliviousness that has been exhibited with reference to the historic evidences of the date of the volcanic eruptions in Auvergne. The state of the case is put briefly thus in Archdeacon Pratt's Scripture and Science not at Variance.*

"Some years ago, a geological lecturer of no ordinary note [Dr. Daubeny] asserted that the volcanoes of Auvergne, in Central France, have not been in activity for many ages-certainly not since the days of Julius Cæsar, who pitched his camp there in perfect safety; and he took the intervening period of nearly 2000 years as the first step for measuring the antiquity of the deposits in those parts. Whereas, ten or twelve years subsequently [i. e. subsequent to the Lecturer's assertion] an old Gaulish history was re-edited, from which it appears that during three years, long after Julius Cæsar, viz. in A.D. 458-460, the district was convulsed with violent and continued eruptions, and streams of lava carried destruction before them. (Quar. Rev., Oct. 1844.)"

* Lond., Hatchard & Co., 5th ed., 1864. (p. 160.)

It is to be observed that the so-called "geological grounds" upon which the notion of the antiquity of these mountain cones was based, were not geological at all. It was based upon ignorance, mistaken for knowledge, and miscalled "negative evidence" from history. Julius Cæsar did not notice that the mountains were in a state of eruption; therefore they were not then, nor afterwards, in an active state! And of course some may say, if history was entirely silent on the subject, it was not unnatural to conclude that the eruptions must have taken place a very long time ago. In reply to this I would observe that people might very easily guess something of the sort. But it is worse than ridiculous to call such guessing science, and to talk of such opinions being founded upon "geological grounds."

But then comes the confounding fact, that history has been far from silent on the subject. Not only so; but I am now about to show that the historic proof of the volcanic eruptions in Auvergne has by no means depended upon the re-editing of Sidonius or Avitus in our own day, but has been kept up on the face of history, sufficiently, at least, to have prevented any moderately well-read English theologian from following the geologists blindly in their erroneous path. The origin of our Rogation Days" has been shown by the able writer in the Quarterly Review to be traceable to the violent eruptions of the volcanoes of Auvergne in the fifth century. But Dr. Colenso might have easily found that out long before 1844. He will find the fact sufficiently referred to in Nelson's Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of the Church of England (in loco), where Le Comte's French Ecclesiastical Annals are cited in confirmation of the text, and will probably narrate what were the precise "calamities" merely so referred to in Nelson. A still more definite reference to these calamities is to be found in Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity (Book V. ch. xli. §§ 1-4). Cartwright, whom he is answering, had objected to the prayers in our Litany against "dangers which are nothing near us,"-lightning, storm and tempest, &c., and refers thus to the origin of what he calls "this abuse" in the Church :

"There was one Mamercus, Bishop of Vienna [Vienne], which in the time of great earthquakes which were in France, instituted certain supplications, which the Grecians (and we of them) call the Litany," &c.

Hooker, in reply, after noticing that what the Greek Church termed Litanies were called Rogations of the Latins, then goes on to say :

"To the people of Vienna (Mamercus being their bishop, about 450 years after Christ) there befell many things, the suddenness and strangeness whereof so amazed the hearts of all men, that the city they began to forsake as a place which heaven did threaten with imminent ruin. It beseemed not the person of so grave a prelate to be either utterly without counsel, as the rest were, or in a common perplexity to show himself alone secure. Wherefore, as many as remained he earnestly exhorteth to prevent portended calamities, using those virtuous and holy means wherewith others in like case have prevailed with God. To which purpose he perfecteth the Rogations or Litanies before in use, and addeth unto them that which the present necessity required. Their good success moved Sidonius, Bishop of Averna, to use the same so

corrected Rogations (Sidon., lib. vii. Epist. i.—ad Mamercum), at such time as he and his people were after afflicted with famine, and besieged with potent adversaries."

I need not, however, make further citations from Hooker, who explains the connection between these "Rogations" and the Rogation Days established by the Council of Aurelia, A.D. 506, and also with the petitions in the Litany of the Church of England against sudden calamities, to which Cartwright had objected. The Oxford edition of Hooker's works (1845), from which I quote, refers also to Palmer's Origines Liturgicæ, i. 267-272, where, also, these "dreadful calamities" are referred to, thus affording a sufficient key to this neglected passage of "true history "--well-nigh forgotten, though twelve centuries later than the First Olympiad !

And what is the brief sum of the whole matter as regards the extinct volcanoes of Auvergne? Supposing Sir Charles Lyell to be right in his conviction that these mountain cones have never been covered with water since they were last erupted, then that certainly would prove that they were not erupted prior to the general deluge. But, instead of that conclusion supporting Dr. Colenso's illogical scepticism, that therefore the deluge was not universal, as the Bible "manifestly" teaches, it merely confirms the modern historical evidence that the eruptions took place not only long after Noah's flood, but even long after Julius Caesar invaded Gaul,-namely, in the fifth century of our era. Thus the sacred history of the universal deluge is not affected by what we know for certain" respecting Auvergne ; and one of the most positive geological conclusions of Sir Charles Lyell, that these mountain cones were never under water, is confirmatory of the historic evidence, which every time we hear the Litany in church, and as often as the Rogation Days before Ascension-tide come round-as often, even, as we see the boys of a parish "beating the bounds," that old custom being in fact a relic of the Auvergne processional Rogations,-must now be brought to our remembrance, to remind us of this extraordinary specimen of "the Logic of Scepticism" with which Dr. Colenso has "especially " identified himself. One thing is completely settled besides, by the whole evidence now before us,-namely this, the very modern character of those mountain cones, the fancied great antiquity of which was first guessed at, and then put forward as established upon "geological grounds," and lastly relied on as one of the grand proofs of the antiquity of man in connection with his probable ape origin!-Verily, "pulchræ illæ meditationes et speculationes humanæ et causationes res malasana sint, nisi quod non adsit qui advertat!" (Nov. Org., Aph. X.) I may add, that the age of the deposits in the valley of the Somme is also affected by this disproof of the antiquity of the Auvergne mountain cones; inasmuch as the "flint implements" there found were embedded with paleontological remains, similar to those discovered along with the "fossil man of St. Denise."

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, MONDAY, MAY 27, 1867.

THE REV. WALTER MITCHELL, VICE-PRESIDENT, IN THE CHAIR.

The CHAIRMAN.-Our proceedings at the First General Meeting of the Institute, held on the 24th May last year, being printed in our Journal of Transactions, the first business I have to bring before this meeting is, to submit for approval the First Annual Report of the Council, which I now request the honorary secretary to read to you.

Mr. REDDIE then read the Council's report, as follows :

FIRST ANNUAL REPORT of the Council of the VICTORIA INSTITUTE, OR PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Progress of the Society.

1. The COUNCIL have much satisfaction in laying before the Members and Associates of the VICTORIA INSTITUTE their First Annual Report of the progress and operations of the Society during the first year of its existence. At the first General Meeting of the Institute, held on 24th May, 1866, to inaugurate its proceedings, the Provisional Committee reported that 192 Members and Associates had joined. Since then, 99 Members and Associates have been added, up to the 1st of this month, according to the printed lists now before the meeting, consisting of the following various classes, viz. :—