HUMBOLDT GLACIER, GREENLAND
1. Geology shows us that the existing system of things upon the globe had a beginning.
Proof 1. Existing continents have been
raised from the bottom of the sea, where most of their surface was
formed by depositions. 2. With a few exceptions, the existing races
of animals and plants must have been created since the deposition of
all the rocks except the alluvial, because their remains do not occur
in the older rocks. Hence it appears that not only the present races
of organic beings, but the land which they inhabit, are of
comparatively modern production.
Inf. 1. Hence it is inferred that the
existing races of animals and plants must have resulted from the
creative agency of the Supreme Being; for even if we admit that
existing continents might have been brought into their present state
by natural causes, the creation of an almost entirely new system of
organic beings, could have resulted only from an exertion of an
infinitely wise and powerful Being. Indeed, the bestowment of life
must be regarded as the highest act of omnipotence.
Inf. 2. Hence the doctrine which
maintains that the operations of nature have proceeded eternally as
they now do, and that it is unnecessary to call in the agency of the
Deity to explain natural phenomena, is shown he be erroneous.
Inf. 3. The preceding inferences being
admitted, natural theology need not labor to disprove the eternity of
matter, since its eternal duration might be admitted, without
affecting any important doctrine.
2. In all the renditions of the globe from the earliest times,
and in the structure of all the organic beings that have successively
peopled it, we find the same marks of wise and benevolent adaptation,
as in existing races, and a perfect unity of design extending through
every period of the world's history.
Proof 1. The anatomical structure of
animals and plants was very different at different epochs; but in all
cases the change was fitted to adapt the species more perfectly to
its peculiar condition. 2. To communicate the greatest aggregate
amount of happiness, is a leading object in the arrangements of the
present system of mature; and it is clear from geology, that this was
the leading object in all previous systems. 3. The existence of
carnivorous races among existing tribes of animals tends to increase
the aggregate of enjoyment, first, by the happiness which those races
themselves enjoy; secondly, by the great reduction of the suffering
which disease and gradual decay would produce, were they not
prevented by sudden death; and thirdly, by preventing any of the
races from such an excessive multiplication as would exhaust their
supply of food, and thus produce great suffering. Now, we find that
carnivorous races always existed on the globe, showing a perfect
unity of design in this respect. Thus, when the chambered shells, so
abundant in the secondary rocks, and which were carnivorous, became
extinct at the commencement of the tertiary epoch, numerous univalve
molluscs were created, which were carnivorous; although till that
time these races bad been herbivorous.
Inf. From these statements we infer the
absolute perfection, and especially the immutable wisdom of the
Divine character. A minute examination of the works of creation as
they now exist discloses the infinite perfection of its Author, when
they were brought into existence; and geology proves Him to have been
unchangeably, die same, through the vast periods of past duration,
which that science e shows to have elapsed since the original
formation of the matter of our earth.
3. Geology furnishes many peculiar proofs of the Divine
benevolence, so peculiar that they have sometimes been quoted in
proof of penal inflictions.
Most of these proofs are derived from agencies whose immediate
effects are destructive and desolating. Thus soils, which are little
else than comminuted rocks, can not be prepared and spread over the
valleys without long and powerful erosions by ice and water, storms
and inundations, glaciers and icebergs. But though sometimes
involving men and animals in destruction, yet who will doubt the
benevolence of the operation? So the processes by which the various
ores have been put into the earth's crust, have been accompanied by
violent fracture and dislocation, and a semifusion of most of the
strata. How little like benevolence, also, to have seen the
crust bent, crumpled and fractured, here ridged into mountains, and
there sunk into valleys. Yet without all this man never could
have got access to many of the useful minerals and rocks, water would
have stagnated on the level surface, and the beautiful scenery of the
globe would never have been seen. In the fearful history of
volcanoes and earthquakes, though full of scenes of appalling
suffering, yet who knows how essential they may be to preserve the
balance of nature, and prevent the great furnace of heat within the
earth from rending it to atoms?
If any inquire why God could not have secured the
good without the evil? it it can only be said, this is a fallen
world, where man requires the discipline of evil, and therefore it is
mixed with all sublunary things.
4. Geology furnishes interesting examples of what may be called prospective benevolence.
By this is meant a special benevolent provision
for the happiness of animals, made long before their existence. The
following are examples:
1. The vast amount of coal found in the earth is
the result of long and slow processes in the ages far back towards
the beginning. Vast forests, almost untenanted by animals, and
seemingly of no use then, were buried beneath the soil and waters,
and gradually changed into peat, brown coal, bituminous coal, and
some of it into anthracite. What if this storehouse of fuel had not
been laid up? Human society could not have advanced much beyond
barbarism, nor have multiplied as it has done.
2. Gold seems not to have been introduced into the
rocks till just long enough before man's appearance to allow erosive
agencies to collect it in the low spots, where man could obtain it.
Before man no animal needed it, but how great a blessing to
man! It does seem as if the time and manner of its introduction
into the earth's crust pointed most unmistakably to man as an act of
prospective benevolence.
3. It looks like the same benevolence that
prepared by slow processes a richer soil to greet man than had ever
before existed, and afford him nourishment.
4. So, too, there is reason to suppose that
certain miasms, such as an excess of carbonic acid, were gradually
removed from the atmosphere to adapt it to his health and
happiness.
5. Geology proves repeated special divine interpositions, or
miracles, in nature as well as special providences.
A miracle is an event that can not be explained
by the laws of nature, but takes place in opposition to those laws or
by their agency intensified or diminished.
A special Providence is an event brought about
apparently by second causes, but those causes have been so arranged
or modified by Divine agency out of sight, that some specific object
is accomplished, which would not otherwise
be effected.
Geology abounds with examples of miracles and
special providences as thus defined. We know that the time was when
no animal or plant lived on the globe, because it was a molten world.
What but a miracle could have filled it with inhabitants? We know
that in after ages whole races died out and new ones came in, so that
numerous entire changes of population occurred. A miracle certainly
was essential at each change - to create the new ones, if not to
destroy the old races. Or if we set aside all these cases, we know
that man was introduced among the latest of animals; and if his
creation was not a miracle, no event could be.
So the various circumstances mentioned under the
last head as examples of prospective benevolence, all pointed through
long ages so significantly to man, that true philosophy must regard
them as arranged with special reference to him by the Deity, and are
therefore indicative of special providence.
Thus may we with confidence put down miracles and
special providences as articles in the creed of natural religion,
where they have not till lately been found. They of course take away
all presumption against analogous doctrines in revelation.
6. In spite of these evidences of Divine benevolence, geology
unites with all other sciences, and with, experience, in showing the
world to be in a fallen condition, and that this condition was
foreseen and provided for, long before man's existence, so that he
might find a world well adapted to a state of probation.
Proof 1. It appears that the laws and
operations of nature, have been the same, essentially, as at present
in all ages. 2. That the same systems of sustenance, reproduction,
and death, have always prevailed.
Inf. 1. Hence it must always have been
impossible, in this world, to have avoided severe suffering; e.g.,
pain and death.
Inf. 2. Hence it has never been a such a
world as perfect benevolence would have prepared for perfectly holy
and happy beings; though benevolence has always so decidedly
predominated in it, as to show it to be a world of probation and
mercy, not of retribution.
7. Geology enlarges our conceptions of the
plans of the Deity.
1. The prevailing opinion, until recently, limits
the duration of the globe to man's brief existence, which extends
backward and forward only a few thousand years. But geology teaches
us that this is only one of the units of a long series in its
history. It develops a plan of the Deity respecting its preparation
and use, grand in its outlines, and beautiful in its execution;
reaching far back into past eternity, and looking forward, perhaps
indefinitely, into the future.
2. Each successive change in the condition of the
earth thus far, appears to have been an improved condition; that is,
better adapted for natures more and more perfect and complicated. In
its earliest habitable state, its soil must have been scanty and
sterile and almost destitute of calcareous matter, except ill the
state of silicates, which plants decompose with difficulty. The
surface, also, was but little elevated above the waters; and of
course the atmosphere must have been very damp; though the
temperature was very high. Every subsequent change appears to have
increased the quantity and fertility of the soil, the amount of the
salts of lime and humus, and the dryness of the atmosphere. Should
another change occur, similar to those through which it has already
passed, we might expect the continents to be more fertile, and
capable of supporting a denser population.
3. It appears that one of the grand means by which
the plans of the Deity in respect to the material world are
accomplished, is constant change; partly mechanical, but chiefly
chemical. In every part of our globe, on its surface, in its crust,
and we have reason to suppose, even in its deep interior, these
changes are in constant progress; and were they not, universal
stagnation and death would be the result. We have reason to suspect,
also, that changes analogous to those which the earth has undergone,
or is now undergoing, are taking place in other worlds; in the
comets, the sun, the fixed stars and the planets. In short, geology
has given us a glimpse of a great principle of instability,
by which the stability of the universe is secured; and at
the same time, all these movements and revolutions in the forms of
matter essential to the existence of organic nature, are produced.
Formerly the examples of decay so common everywhere, were regarded as
defects in nature; but they now appear to be an indication of wise
and benevolent design; - a part of the vast plans of the Deity for
securing the stability and happiness of the universe.
Since many truths are common to natural and
revealed religion, it is not easy to draw the line exactly between
the bearings of geology upon these two departments of theology.
There are, too, some erroneous notions widely
prevalent on the subject, which need to be corrected before a person
can look at it in its true light.
One is, that geologists in their writings have
arrayed the facts of their science against revelation. But the fact
is, that the whole range of geological literature scarcely furnishes
an example of this sort from any geologist of distinction. Such
attacks, when made, have come from mere sciolists in the science, or
from men learned in other departments, but no geologists.
Another is, that the bearings of geology upon
religion are those of conflict rather than of illustration and
corroboration. The fact is, that most cases of supposed collision
have turned out already to be mere illustration: just as modern
astronomy has shown us how to understand certain passages of the
Bible relating to the rising of the sun and immobility of the earth,
so has geology cast similar light upon passages relating to the age
of the world and the introduction of evil. And although some few
points may still have an aspect of collision, the reverse is almost
universally true; and we may now say that geology illustrates rather
than opposes revelation.
A third false notion is, that the principles of
geology are unsettled and constantly changing, and that in fact it is
chiefly made up of vague and conflicting hypotheses. That there are
in geology, as in other physical sciences, unsettled points and
doubtful hypotheses, is admitted. But its leading principles are as
well settled nearly as those of chemistry, astronomy, and
physiology. Especially is it true that those principles which
bear upon religion are rarely modified by now discoveries, but rather
established more firmly.
Hence we see how false is the position some
professed friends of religion take, who say that the time has not yet
come to attempt a reconciliation of geology and religion, and
therefore they will believe the latter on the principle of faith,
because the Church does, and wait for further developments. Such a
sort of belief, with philosophic minds, is usually little else but
covert infidelity, and instead of honoring, it dishonors religion, by
admitting that as yet it can not be defended against the attacks of
science.
Hence, too, we see the error of maintaining, as
some do, that geology ought not to be allowed to modify at all our
views of the meaning of Scripture, or any of its truths. For
astronomy, chemistry, and physiology, as well as civil history, have
been allowed to make such modifications; why should a like power be
denied to geology, if its leading principles are settled?
Three classes of men have written concerning
the connection between geology and religion. The first are professed
believers in revelation; but they do not suppose the Mosaic record to
be inspired and infallible as to history or science; and hence they
are not surprised to find discrepancies and absurdities in what they
regard as a myth or fable of the creation got up by Moses to
accomplish some important purpose, but not inspired.
The second class are firm. believers in the Bible,
but not in geology, which they consider so unreliable that it ought
not to be taken into account at all in the interpretation of
Scripture; nay, they consider the science, as well as its teachers as
really hostile to Scripture, and therefore to be met by the most
determined resistance.
The third class believe in the divine inspiration
and authority of every part of the Bible; but they admit also the
great principles of geology, and think the two records not only
reconcilable, but that they cast mutual light upon each other, and
that geology lends important aid to some of the most important truths
of revelation.
With this last class our views coincide entirely,
and we regard it as useless in this work to describe the theories by
which the other classes attempt to sustain their views, since the
authority of the Bible is destroyed by the first, and the settled
principles of science ignored by the second. The third is the
stand-point which we shall occupy in enumerating the most important
illustrations and corroborations derived by revelation from
geology.
We think it is an error committed by some of the
ablest writers on this subject, that they have attempted to draw out
a complete system of reconciliation and illustration between Genesis
and geology. For it is obvious that the Mosaic account is fragment,
or as an able writer has expressed it, it gives us only the
memorabilia of creation, but not a full and detailed
account. Hence if we expect to find in the Scriptures something
corresponding to all the details of geology, and in the same order,
we shall be disappointed; because it was not the object of Moses to
give us a full account of the creation, and in a scientific
dress. Let us now enumerate some of the points in revelation
that derive support or illustration from geology, and also show the
harmony of the two records.
1. The Scriptures and geology agree in not
fixing the time of the creation of the world. The Bible says it
was made "in the beginning," and language is scarcely capable of more
indefiniteness as to time; nor is there any necessary connection
between this general proposition and the facts which follow.
Geology is alike indefinite. We see, indeed, on
its records a great number of distinct facts, but no clue is given as
to their chronology; and in fact no hint as to the first act, the
production of matter.
We might stop here, and with good reason take the
ground, that having proved the preceding proposition, nothing further
is necessary entirely to answer all objections against revelation on
the ground that its chronology does not agree with the records of
geology. No matter how old geology makes the world; it is not older
than the "beginning" of Scripture.
2. They do fix the time when man
appeared. The Bible represents him as the last of the animals
created, and from him a series of chronological dates is carried
forward to the present time. His remains, too, are found only in
alluvium, the most recent of the formations. This is a most
interesting coincidence.
3. They agree in representing creation as the
work of God. This is very marked in the Bible, and geology
presents numerous exigencies in which no law of nature, no
transmuting process will answer, - nothing but the special creating
power of the Deity.
4. They agree in representing
instrumentalities as employed in the work of creation. God
commanded the earth to bring forth grass, and herb yielding seed, on
the third day, and the waters every living thing that moveth, on the
fifth. Divine energy was of course concerned, but these were the
instruments. So from geology we learn that immense periods were
consumed in preparing by natural operations for the introduction of
animals and plants.
5. They both represent creation to be a
progressive work, completed by successive exhibitions of Divine
power, with intervals of repose. How long the intervals were,
according to the scriptures, will depend on the meaning which we
attach to the word day. But if they were only common days, the acts
of creation would still be successive and the work progressive.
Geology, too, teaches us most distinctly that the
various animals and plants were not introduced at once, but at
intervals widely separated. This is an interesting coincidence
between the two records; because we should beforehand presume that
all the races would be introduced by one creative act.
6. They agree in representing the continents
as covered an indefinite period by the ocean, and subsequently
elevated above it. Geology testifies to several vertical
movements of this kind; the scriptures mention but one, which perhaps
was intended to stand as a representative of all.
7. They agree in giving to the earth a very
early revolution on its present axis. The very first day in the
Bible, while yet the ocean covered the continents, is represented as
having its evening and morning, just like all the rest. This was
before the existence of animals and plants. But geology shows that
this evening and morning commenced still earlier, even while yet the
earth was in a molten state; for we find the earth flattened at the
poles exactly so much as it would be by a revolution on its axis in
twenty-four hours. After its consolidation, such a revolution would
not have thus flattened the poles; and while fluid, if it had turned
faster than it now does, the poles would have been more flattened; or
if slower, they would have been less flattened. The proof is
conclusive, therefore, that it revolved as it now does as early as
when it was in a molten state. This fact is fatal to
several fine theories, which have been based on the supposition that
before the fourth day, when the sun and moon was created, the earth's
revolution was much slower than afterward; and, therefore, Moses did
not intend us to understand the days as periods of twenty-four hours.
Science now shows that such has always been their length.
8. The Mosaic account of creation allows us to
suppose an indefinite interval between the beginning and the first
day, which may correspond to the vast periods of geological
history. After the first production of matter, it is said to
have been covered by water and darkness, and to be without form and
void, that is, invisible, or waste, and unfinished. Now how long it
may have remained in such a condition, who can tell? It may have been
long enough to pass through the changes which geology discloses,
except that which prepared the way for the introduction of the
present races. All this may be admitted, whatever views we take of
the nature of the six days.
If all will admit this, as nearly all do, why may
we not rest here, and say that it is unnecessary to go farther in
order to show the harmony between geology and scripture. For here we
have an admitted interval in the Mosaic account, sufficient to
stretch over all the geological periods, and why need we trouble
ourselves to inquire into the nature of the six days, whether they be
natural days or longer periods. We fully vindicate the scriptures
from collision with science, by planting ourselves on this admitted
interval. And this is the second resting-place of this kind which we
have already found. But inquisitive minds are not satisfied without
an attempt to enucleate the meaning of the term day in Genesis, and
therefore we take up that subject.
9. The six days of creation, in the view of
eminent writers, may be used figuratively for indefinite periods.
This opinion found advocates as early as the times of the Christian
fathers, Augustine, Origen, etc., and in more modern times has been
ably defended by Hahn, De Luc, Professors Lee and Wait of England,
and by Professors Silliman and Guyot of this country. They maintain
that the word day is used thus figuratively in all languages that it
is so used in Gen. 2-4; that the seventh day, or God's Sabbath, has
not yet terminated, and, therefore, the previous days may have been
equally long, and that such an interpretation corresponds remarkably
with. the traditions and cosmogonies of many heathen nations. Yet
others object that such a meaning is forced and unnatural in a
passage where everything else seems literal, and that the sacred
writers have shown what meaning they attached to this word in the
fourth commandment, where it is impossible to doubt that the six days
in the first part are literal
days, because they are days of labor; and so must also be the six
days referred to in the latter part, in which the Lord made heaven
and earth.
But though it is difficult to believe that Moses
had any other than natural days in mind, most reflecting persons who
read the whole chapter, will feel that in reality they must be
different, and perhaps they will say, like St. Augustine, "it is very
difficult to conceive, much less to explain, what sort of days those
were." Another view has been proposed which excites unusual interest
at the present time. It is the following:
10. We may understand the days as symbolically
representing indefinite periods. A symbol is the representative
of
something else. The word is taken in all respects in its literal
signification, yet it has a higher meaning. Moses probably
understood, and meant his readers should understand, the days of
creation as literal days; but they actually symbolize higher periods;
just as days, weeks, and times are used in prophecy (which often has
a symbolical form) for years.
The great advantage of this view of the subject
over that which makes the days a figurative representation of long
periods, is, that hereby we can take the scriptural statement in its
plain, literal sense, yet those literal days may be stretched by
symbolization over the widest periods which geology shows to have
separated the Divine creative acts. It is no error, if a man chooses
to understand the six days of creation as literal days; nor any error
for the geologist to make them symbolize vast periods.
11. The biblical account of creation may be
regarded as a succession of pictures with existing nature on the
foreground. Ever since this, the pictorial method, was suggested
by Dr. Knapp, in 1789, it has been a favorite mode of representation
among authors; the most brilliant exhibition of which was by Hugh
Miller. But three errors have generally pervaded these
representations. The first is, that the six pictures in Genesis
embrace every geological logical change the earth has undergone;
secondly, that they are given in true chronological order; and
thirdly, that in the life pictures the plants and animals now found
fossil, not the existing species, occupy the foreground. Inextricable
confusion and discrepancy have resulted from the mixture of such
elements. But only admit that the sacred writer intended to give only
certain prominent scenes in creation (its most important
memorabilia), and not always in true chronological order, and that
existing animals and plants were
the models before, him, the fossil species coming in on the
background only by implication, and all the pictures become luminous,
beautiful, and harmonious.
12. By such a mode of description the sacred
writer was not bound to give, and indeed could not give, always
the
true chronological order of creation. To make this evident we
subjoin in parallel columns the principal events as they are revealed
by the sacred penman and by geology.
The right hand column gives as fair a view as we
can of the order of creation as developed by geology; the names of
the several classes being given when they first appear, and their
greatest development by small capitals. The left hand column gives
the principal results of the six days' work according to Scripture;
and where there seems to be no doubt of parallelism, they are placed
opposite to events in the geological record. An examination of this
table leads to several important conclusions.
1. We learn that some events found in one column
do not occur in the other. The igneous fluidity of the globe is one
of the
best established conclusions of geology; but it is not named in the
Bible. The introduction of numerous groups of animals and plants at
different periods is another settled fact in geology; but the
Scriptures name only one creation of the great classes.
On the other hand, the creation of the atmosphere on the second
day, and of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth, have no
counterpart in the geological record.
2. There are several rather striking coincidences
between the two records as to the order of events and the kinds of
organisms introduced. Both show us, in early times, the continents
beneath the ocean, and subsequently lifted out of it. Birds and sea
animals are introduced on the fifth day, which may reasonably
correspond to oolitic times, when birds and reptiles appeared in
large numbers, if we may depend upon the tracks of the former as
proof. Land reptiles, and mammals, or quadrupeds, come in not till
the sixth day, which may well be regarded as synchronous with the
tertiary formation, when, according to geology, they were first fully
developed. Man, too, on both records is represented as the last
animal created: a coincidence of great interest.
3. There exist also several diversities on the two
records as to the nature and order of events. We do not call them
discrepancies; for they are so different in nature as to be incapable
of being compared. Thus, the creation of the atmosphere is
represented as occupying the whole of the second demiurgic day. But
geology has no record of such an event, and therefore no comparison
can be instituted. The same is true of the creation of the sun and
moon on the fourth day. It does seem remarkable, however, that
these luminaries should be represented as created not until after the
vegetable world on the third day, if the writer had intended to
preserve the true chronological order of events. No impostor would
have been so short-sighted as to commit such a blunder; hence there
must be some other reason for such an arrangement . Alike strange is
it to find the creation of the atmosphere placed so much before that
of the heavenly bodies, when these, as things now are, seem
indispensable to atmospheric phenomena.
4. The most important conclusion drawn from this
table is, that the sacred writer did not and could not give
the true chronological order of events. The different classes of
animals and plants, according to the geological record, appeared at
different periods; the same class often several times repeated, and
with different degrees of development. Thus, plants began with the
lowest class, the Algae, and not numerous, in the Cambrian slates,
the oldest of fossiliferous rocks. In the Devonian a few acrogens and
coniferous plants appeared. In the Carboniferous there was an immense
development of acrogens or flowerless trees, and some dicotyledons.
The latter, however, the most perfect of plants, were not fully
developed till the tertiary, and still more fully in alluvium. Yet
plants are all represented as created on the third day. How was it
possible, then, to give the chronological date or order of their
creation unless the sacred writer had gone into the scientific
details above hinted at? The same is true of the groups of animals,
which in the Bible are more comprehensive and indefinite than those
of science, because they are such as are in popular use. By the plan
of the inspired writer, the time and order of their appearance could
not be given, and, therefore, the discovery of any diversity in this
respect between revelation and science is no objection to the former,
because it is not responsible for the time and order of events, but
only, for their truth. And if this is so in regard to the organic
world, why may it not be so in regard to the other events described?
Moses wished to give a pictorial representation of some of the
principal events in the work of creation, and, therefore, he
conformed to a chronological order only so far as his leading object
required. It would be natural for him to begin his pictures with the
world in a chaotic state, buried by darkness and water, with the
light just breaking in. According to ancient ideas there was an ocean
above as well as below, and this might have suggested the formation
of the firmament on the second picture. It was natural next to bring
up the submerged land and adorn it with vegetation. This might awaken
the thought of introducing the heavenly bodies. And now it might
occur that everything was ready for the introduction of animals into
the atmosphere and the waters; and last of all to let the most
perfect of animals come in with man.
These may not, and probably were not the reasons
why, as we suppose, Moses departed from a chronological arrangement
of his six pictures; but they show that there might be reasons for
doing this. It has been and still is almost universally assumed, that
Moses gives a connected and, chronological history of creation; and
then ingenuity has been taxed to the utmost to accommodate the facts
to such a supposition. But if we may reasonably suppose that he meant
only to give certain leading and selected facts, conformed to a
chronological order only so far as suited his purpose, just as
one might select certain facts from the early history, of the
country, and show them by pictures arranged so as to produce the best
effect, without reference to dates, it relieves the sacred writer
from all responsibility as to chronological order and scientific
arrangement, and really does more to bring out the beauty of. the
Mosaic history of creation, and to bring it into harmony with
science, than almost all other principles.
13. Geology and the Bible agree in
representing physical evil as in the world before man. Geology
shows that the same mixed for system of suffering and enjoyment, of
liability to painful accident and inevitable death, has always
prevailed as they now do. The Bible, too, intimates that death and
other evils preceded man. Of what use was the threatening of death if
no example of it existed among animals? Again, plants were created
with seeds in them, and animals made male and female for the
production of a succession of races, and such a system implies a
correspondent system of death. The human family might have been
specially preserved by the fruit of the tree of life, perhaps, from
the common lot, till they had sinned, when they too must die. Again,
the selection and fitting up of a spot eastward as the Garden of
Eden, as a place for man while holy, and his expulsion from it after
he had sinned, implies that the world generally was, as now, a world
of evil and suffering. It was made so from the beginning, because it
would ultimately become a world of sin, and sin and death are
inseparable. If animal existence is, on the whole, a blessing in such
a world as the present, or if animals may live hereafter, and receive
some compensation for their sufferings here, the time when they
suffer, be it before or after man's apostasy, makes no
difference.
14. Zoology and geology throw doubt over the
literal universality of the deluge of Noah. The many vertical
movements of continents taught by geology afford a presumption in
favor of the Noahian deluge. But the science also shows the absurdity
of a wide-spread opinion, that the numerous marine shells and plants
found fossil in the rocks were deposited by the deluge. For they
extend through more than ten miles in thickness of rocks, and are
arranged in systematic order, and most of them are changed into stone
by a slow process; and to impute all this to a transient deluge of
less than a year, is to impute effects to a totally inadequate
cause.
The doubts about the flood's universality result,
first from the difficulty of covering the whole earth for so long a
time with water; secondly, to find a place in an ark 450 feet long,
75 feet broad, and 45 feet high, for 1,658 species of quadrupeds,
6,000 species of birds, 642 species of reptiles and tortoises, and
120,000 species of insects - all of which have been shown by
naturalists to exist. But the grand difficulty is to collect them all
in one spot, and then to disperse them again, without a special
miracle; and if a miracle be introduced, all reasoning is nonsense.
Moreover, if the regions inhabited by man, then probably quite
limited, were covered, what was the use of drowning the rest of the
world? The language of Scripture, though at first view seeming
strongly to teach a literal universality, is in many other cases
quite as strong, although we know that it does not imply
universality; but is an example where universal terms are employed to
designate only a great many. See Genesis xli. 57, Exodus ix. 25 and
x. 15, Acts ii. 5, Colossians i. 23, etc.
15. The Bible teaches that the earth will be,
and geology that it may be, destroyed by fire and its surface
renovated. The Bible declares that the earth will be burnt up and
its elements melted, which would reduce it to a molten globe. Geology
shows that the globe contains all the elements necessary to bring
about such a result. At the rate the internal heat increases, melted
matter would be reached in less than 100 miles. How vast the amount
of melted matter below, on that supposition, Fig. 125 will show. It
is clear that if from any cause, natural or supernatural, such a
crust in one part should be broken through and sink into the molten
ocean below, all the rest might founder and disappear, and a melted
globe alone remain. Then would begin anew the formation of another
crust, on which another economy of life might be established, and
this might be the new heaven and new earth described in the
Scriptures as the future residence of man glorified.
First, in order to show that there is no
discrepancy between revelation and geology, we can take any one of
three positions, each of which is sufficient. We may show that Moses
does not fix the time of the material creation; or, secondly, that
his account admits an indefinite period between the beginning and the
first day; or, thirdly, that the days stand symbolically for long
periods and that on the plan of description adopted by the sacred
writer be could not give, in all cases, the chronological order of
creation. Either of these positions, in the view of any unprejudiced
mind, completely vindicates the Mosaic account from any collision
with geology.
Secondly, geology furnishes very important
illustrations of the Mosaic account, and corroborates several truths
of revelation.
Thirdly, still more remarkably does geology
illustrate the principles of natural religion, and add to its creed
several doctrines generally regarded as exclusively revealed.
Hence it is high time for believers in revelation
to cease fearing injury to its claims or doctrines from geology, and
to be thankful to Providence for providing in this science so
powerful an auxiliary of religion, both natural and revealed.