duration; and consequently, that a few more existing species might have survived the ravages which proved fatal to almost all the forms of other times. Besides, it seems to be the opinion of the most eminent conchologists that D'Orbigny has rather overstated the facts of the case, by assigning too many species as peculiar, or, in other words, that a greater number of species passed up; and according to this hypothesis, the past and the present would more nearly approximate. But D'Orbigny does not admit them to be identical, but simply analogous. Many species have been pronounced, on inadequate grounds, to be identical, but when critically examined, they have been found, in not a few instances, generically different. When we consider the state of decay and deformation in which shells are often found, and the minute distinctions of specific forms, we need not wonder at the very many mistakes into which even those well versed in the general branches of the geological science, have fallen in their attempts at identification. They should only serve to render us extremely cautious in resting great argumentative stress on the doctrine of fossil species. Taking D'Orbigny's as the highest and most recent authority in Paleontology, we find there is vastly less necessity for giving up the literal and commonly received interpretation of the Mosaic record, than some who are fond of novelty, and but superficially acquainted with science, would have us believe. But Sir Charles Lyell comes, or rather is dragged, to the rescue. We really believe he has been the not very guilty occasion of a great deal of the incredulity abroad in this country, on the subject of the Creation. Let us then examine him coram. First, it will be proper to hear his own statement, after a lapse of twenty-two years. He says

"When engaged in 1828, in preparing my work on the Principles of Geology, I conceived the idea of classing the whole series of tertiary strata in four groups, and endeavouring to find characters for each, expressive of their different degrees of affinity to the living fauna. With this view, I obtained information respecting the specific identity of many tertiary and recent shells from Italian naturalists. Having, in 1829, become acquainted with M. Deshayes of Paris, already well known by his conchological works, I learned from him that he had arrived, by independent researches, and by the study of a large collection of fossil and recent shells, at very similar views respecting the arrangement of tertiary formations. At my request, he drew up in a tabular form lists of all the shells known to him to occur both in some tertiary formations and in a living state, for the express purpose of ascertaining the proportional number of fossil species identical with the recent which characterised successive groups; and this table, planned by us in common, was published by me in 1833. The number of tertiary fossil shells examined by M.Deshayes was about 3000,and the recent species with which they had been compared about 5000. The result then arrived at was, that in the lower tertiary strata, or those of London and Paris, there were about three and a half per cent. of species identical with recent, in the middle tertiary of the Loire and Gironde, about seventeen per cent.; and in the upper tertiary of sub-Appenine beds, from thirty-five to fifty per cent. In formations still more modern, some of which I had particularly studied in Sicily, where they attain a vast thickness and elevation above the sea, the number of species identical with those now living was believed to be from ninety to ninety-five

per cent. Since the year 1830, the number of new living species obtained from different parts of the globe has been exceedingly great, supplying fresh data for comparison, and enabling the paleontologist to correct many errone, ous identifications of fossil and recent forms. New species also have been collect ed in abundance from tertiary formations of every age, while new discovered groups of strata have filled up gaps in the previously known series. Hence modifications and reforms have been called for in the classification first proposed."

Sir Charles first gave his theory to the world in 1833. D'Orbigny published in 1852, and the passage just quoted appeared in 1855. Does it not amount, in the opinion of the candid reader, to a retractation, in the gross, of all that might be considered to militate against the matured conclusions of the French conchologist? But let us examine his statement in detail. First, it appears that his theory of classification was got up in accommodation to a pre-conceived notion, and, no doubt, under the circumstances, it was made, at least in doubtful cases, to fit in. Then the limited number of shells renders any hypothesis founded on so circumscribed a scrutiny utterly obsolete. The fossil shells of the Tertiaries have been multiplied since 1833, and recent species, instead of 5000, now amount to about 20,000. Well, then, may Sir Charles speak of "erroneous identifications," and "modifications and reforms in the classifications." In a word, the data of Sir Charles is completely antiquated, and admitted by himself, as well as others, to be so. His beds in Sicily, with 95 per cent. of recent shells, are set down by D'Orbigny and later palæontologists, as belonging to the actual period. So far as molluscous history goes, there is nothing advanced by any man of scientific reputation to counterbalance or materially invalidate the facts of D'Or bigny. The following passage, which we prefer to give in the author's own words, deserves to be held as perfectly conclusive in regard to the identification of species.

"On a, outre mesure, augmenté le nombre des espèces identiques sur des determinations faites à la légère. On a trouvé par exemple un grand nombre d'espéces identiques entre les coquilles du calcaire grossier du bassin de Paris et la faune des mers actuelles, tandis que, jusqu'à prèsent tous les preténdus identiques que nous avons pu etudier different spécifiquement de la manière la plus frappante, lorsqu'on veut les comparer avec une critique sévére. Le nombre des espéces identiques entre les espéces vivantes et les espéces fossiles est bien plus restreint qu'on ne l'avait pensé."

The views published by the late lamented Hugh Miller in his "Testimony of the Rocks," opens up a wider sphere of investigation. He more than insinuates that the badger, the fox, the wild cat, and the red-deer, still living amid our hills and brakes, are specifically identical with the fossils of an earlier epoch. His manner of introducing this link in his logical series, looks, in a professedly scientific work, rather like a slumping of the argument. Why not give such accredited details of the facts as might on a dubious point satisfy the reader; or at least cite scientific authority? The facts are neither so patent or so generally admitted as to preclude the necessity of reference. Again, the allegation contains in itself inherent grounds of

dubiety. The species of the feline genus are so numerous that the difficulty of distinguishing the one from the other in the case of decayed and fragmentary fossils must be very great; besides, if we mistake not, the wild cat is reckoned only a mere variety of the felis catus, and not a distinct species. At all events, the difference between the domestic cat and the wild one lies so much more in the organic than in the anatomical structure, that we would require even greater sagacity than Owen's to discriminate. The late Professor Fleming himself, an eminent zoologist, and unquestionably, at least, read up to the limits of discovery in his favourite study, obviously, in the following passage taken from his review of Sir Charles Lyell's Tertiaries, assumes it as an indisputable fact, that there is no well authenticated instance of vertebræ identification. "But the identification of these species of the daun has not been established, nay, by competent observers, is doubted and denied. When a very broad generalisation rests not on those objects which are distinct and recognisable, as the remains of vertebrated animals, but on macerated shells, and perhaps rubbed, and thus of doubtful character, and about the identification of which grave doubts prevail, we feel ourselves justified in avoiding a nomenclature and arrangement resting on such slender pretensions." With this coincides the testimony of Agassiz, the highest authority in fossil icthyology. He says, with respect to the fishes of the tertiary epoch, "they are so nearly related to existing forms, that it is often difficult, considering the enormous number (above 8000) of living species, and the imperfect state of preservation of the fossils, to determine exactly their specific relations. In general, I may say that I have not yet found a single species which was perfectly identical with any marine existing fish, except the little species which is found in nodules of clay, of unknown geological age, in Greenland." This united testimony throws a reflex light on the investigations of D'Orbigny, and tends strongly to confirm the general conclusion, that though a few analogues, and even species of existing fauna may be found in the extinct races, there is very slender foundation indeed for asserting an extensive identity. We can only allude to the doctrine of elevated beds and raised beaches. A high authority declares that "the modern deposits are often isolated, and frequently no assistance can be derived from superposition, or even from identity of species." As a specimen of the hasty manner in which these cases of pretended identity have been gone about, and the geological history of recent deposits greatly antedated, we submit the following extract from Professor Fleming on raised beaches:

"The late Mr Hugh Miller, a keen advocate of the upheaval notion, fancied at the mouth of the Foulburn, on the beach east from Seafield, he had found stones in the same position as they occupied when the oyster, limpets, and serpula, which he found attached to them, had lived. This supposed fresh proof he communicated to a meeting of the Royal Physical Society, Dec. 27, 1854, On a raised sea-bottom, near Fillyside Bank, between Leith and Portobello.' On examining the spot, however, it was no difficult matter to perceive that his affection for a favourite vision had led him to be contented with looking at those stones which countenanced his views, and to

overlook others of a decidedly contrary character, such as limpets adhering to the under sides of stones, imbedded in clay, when they never either lived or moved. After the locality was fairly examined, we heard no more of the matter."

According to what we have advanced, there exists no incongruity between the discoveries in nature and the disclosures of Revelation. Moses, entering on the subject of creation, for a moral, and not a scientific purpose, introduces his theme by the sublime announcement, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Thus he set for ever at rest the quibbles, conjectures, and discussions of prying and puzzling philosophers. Having done so, he hastens to the main point, and at once enters on the re-organisation of the theatre of humanity,—detailing the successive steps, simply that he might found on them, in the aggregate, the reason for an important positive institution. The atmosphere was reclaimed from a temporary darkness—a re-distribution was made of land and water-appropriate organised beings were, as in similar circumstances, created to replace those which, in almost every individual, as well as specific instance, had perished; and last of all, man with heaven-erect countenance, and the noble faculties of reason and conscience, fitting him for sympathy and fellowship with the divine nature, was ushered into this re-constructed abode, as the lord of its creation, the interpreter of its laws, and the devout worshipper of Him by whose omnipotent fiat the universe was spoken into existence.

OUR PORTRAIT GALLERY.

No. II. THE REV. DR GUTHRIE.

Ir would seem to have been a grave cause which more than fifteen years since led so many of the ministers of the Established Church to abandon their connection with the State. It is, however, one of the peculiarities of the Scottish mind that this class of questions has led to many of the most remarkable movements recorded in the history of our country; nor does any picture or allusion go more home to the heart, not merely of our peasantry, but of the middle and lower classes of the population in our towns, than the reference to a nation rising up against an attack made, if not upon her faith, at least upon her form of Church government and worship. Picture to a Scottish assemblage the gray moor, the swelling hills, the watcher's form, and the darkening sky; describe to them the flock met in the solitary place to worship God according to conscience, the psalm rising in the valley, the offered prayer, the preacher's venerable form,-the onslaught of the persecutor, and the horrors that were enacted in many a home; and the eye still glistens, and the deep silence shows that a chord has been struck which acts with power. The spirit of the covenant seems to revive; and proverbially cold as are our coun

trymen in some things, yet in reference to this matter, apathy is exchanged for earnestness, and seeming quiescence for the attitude of stern resolve.

remarked as

The "Perfervidum ingenium Scotorum," was long ago a characteristic. If ill to rouse, our people are difficult to restrain; and no exception to this rule is the clergyman who now figures in our Portrait Gallery. Staunch and determined defenders of the Church of Scotland,-yet bent not less on her maintenance than upon her reform, we can appreciate merit in other communions when that merit admits of being dissociated from bigotry and prejudice. We honour the conscientious scruples of those who left the Church of Scotland in 1843, though we think that many of the acts of the party were imprudent and indefensible; but we rejoice that the Secession contributed to an infusion of new blood into the Church, and that she now stands as high as ever in the affection of the great bulk of the people of Scotland. Still, we believe that the subject of this sketch was right in leaving her. A man of unquestioned genius-of excitable temperament, and of ardent and vehement desires-boasting of an ancestor who suffered martyrdom at the Grassmarket for some crotchet of spiritual independence-eminently qualified to be a "burning and a shining light" in a communion of seceders, we are sure that the Free Church would have lost much, and that the Church of Scotland would have gained little, had Mr Thomas Guthrie remained within her communion. He has pled earnestly and effectively the manse cause of the Free Church. His tall, gaunt figure, his telling eloquence, his broad jokes, have brought many a subscription to her treasury; but within the National Church he would have felt as though bound in fetters; nor would so fiery a spirit have been easily reconciled to her defined mode of operations and constant recurrence of pastoral duties.

We can spare Dr Guthrie to the restless and irritable communion which he has joined, so many of whom (good, simple men!) never intended to secede. He is one of the few men of eminence left in the communion. "Star after star" has departed. Chalmers, Welsh, Gordon, have gone, without leaving equals behind them. Sir David Brewster is approaching senility. Candlish and Cunningham alone remain. Gray of Perth is unheard of; and we suspect that our former friends have comparatively few influential or talented men among their rising hopes. The "glory has departed," and the Free Kirk is sinking to a level with other sects.

Dr Guthrie is a native of Brechin, in which town his father carried on the occupations of merchant and banker. No record of his early years has reached us, though we can quite easily conceive that the youth gave few signs of the future eminence of the man. He got on, however, moving from the "alphabet class" to the higher ones of a provincial school; we doubt not very knowing at the various games played upon the green, and giving tokens of a "pawkiness" of which our far-north countrymen are generally possessed. His theological studies were carried on at Edinburgh; and after going through