Produced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
THE RELIGION OF GEOLOGY AND ITS CONNECTED SCIENCES.
[Illustration: SECTION OF THE EARTH'S CRUST.]
THE RELIGION OF GEOLOGY AND ITS CONNECTED SCIENCES.
BY EDWARD HITCHCOCK, D. D., LL. D.,
PRESIDENT OF AMHERST COLLEGE, AND PROFESSOR OF NATURAL THEOLOGY
AND GEOLOGY.
"Science has a foundation, and so has religion; let them unite
their foundations, and the basis will be broader, and they will
be two compartments of one great fabric reared to the glory of
God. Let the one be the outer and the other the inner court. In
the one, let all look, and admire, and adore; and in the other,
let those who have faith kneel, and pray, and praise. Let the
one be the sanctuary where human learning may present its richest
incense as an offering to God; and the other the holiest of all,
separated from it by a veil now rent in twain, and in which, on a
blood sprinkled mercy seat, we pour out the love of a reconciled
heart, and hear the oracles of the living God."--_M'Cosh._
EIGHTH THOUSAND.
BOSTON:
PHILLIPS, SAMPSON, AND COMPANY.
1854.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1851, by
PHILLIPS, SAMPSON, & CO.,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.
STEREOTYPED AT THE BOSTON STEREOTYPE FOUNDRY.
TO MY BELOVED WIFE.
Both gratitude and affection prompt me to dedicate these lectures to you.
To your kindness and self-denying labors I have been mainly indebted for
the ability and leisure to give any successful attention to scientific
pursuits. Early should I have sunk under the pressure of feeble health,
nervous despondency, poverty, and blighted hopes, had not your sympathies
and cheering counsels sustained me. And during the last thirty years of
professional labors, how little could I have done in the cause of science,
had you not, in a great measure, relieved me of the cares of a numerous
family! Furthermore, while I have described scientific facts with the pen
only, how much more vividly have they been portrayed by your pencil! And
it is peculiarly appropriate that your name should be associated with mine
in any literary effort where the theme is geology; since your artistic
skill has done more than my voice to render that science attractive to the
young men whom I have instructed. I love especially to connect your name
with an effort to defend and illustrate that religion which I am sure is
dearer to you than every thing else. I know that you would forbid this
public allusion to your labors and sacrifices, did I not send it forth to
the world before it meets your eye. But I am unwilling to lose this
opportunity of bearing a testimony which both justice and affection urge
me to give. In a world where much is said of female deception and
inconstancy, I desire to testify that one man at least has placed implicit
confidence in woman, and has not been disappointed. Through many checkered
scenes have we passed together, both on the land and the sea, at home and
in foreign countries; and now the voyage of life is almost ended. The ties
of earthly affection, which have so long united us in uninterrupted
harmony and happiness, will soon be sundered. But there are ties which
death cannot break; and we indulge the hope that by them we shall be
linked together and to the throne of God through eternal ages.
In life and in death I abide
Your affectionate husband,
EDWARD HITCHCOCK.
PREFACE.
Most of the following lectures were written as much as eight or ten years
ago, though additions and alterations have been made, from time to time,
to adapt them to the progress of science. They were undertaken at the
suggestion of my friend, Rev. Henry Neill, then of Hatfield, now of Lenox.
I had no definite intention as to the use to be made of the lectures; but
having for many years turned my attention to the bearings of science, and
especially of geology, upon religion, I felt a desire to put upon paper
the final results of my examinations. I threw them into the lecture form,
that I might, if best, deliver them to the geological classes which I
should instruct in the college with which I am connected. This I have done
for many years, and also have used them in various places before lyceums.
They are at length published, from a conviction that something of the
kind, from some quarter, is needed. Many of the thoughts, indeed, which,
at the time they were put upon paper, were original, have since been
brought out by other writers. Yet enough of this description probably
remain to expose me to severe criticism. I beg the intelligent Christian,
however, before he condemns my views, to settle it in his mind what he can
substitute for them that will be more honorable to religion. It is much
easier to find fault with a mode of defending the truth than to invent a
better method. We may not be pleased with certain views in vindication of
religion, and yet the alternative of rejecting them may be so much worse
as to lead us at least to be silent. Would that Christian critics had
always kept this fact in mind when writing upon the views of geologists!
They would find often that they are straining at a gnat and must swallow a
camel.
If my views are erroneous, as exhibited in these lectures, I cannot plead
that they have been hastily adopted. Most of them, indeed, have been the
subjects of thought occasionally for thirty years. I hope, however, that
all my suggestions will not be thought of equal importance in my own
estimation; since some of them are merely hypothetical hints thrown out
for the consideration of abler minds.
This work does not exhibit quite so much of logical exactness as I could
wish. But my leading object has been fully carried out, viz., to exhibit
all the religious bearings of geology. Several of the lectures, however,
have been written as if independent of all the rest; and, therefore, the
reader will find some leading thoughts repeated, but always in different
connections.
After acknowledging that more than a quarter of a century has elapsed
since this subject first engaged my attention, it may be useless for me to
ask any indulgence from criticism. But really, I feel less prepared to
write upon it than I did during the first five years in which I studied
it. I have learnt that it is a most difficult subject. It requires, in
order to master it, an acquaintance with three distinct branches of
knowledge, not apt to go together. First, an acquaintance with geology in
all its details, and with the general principles of zoology, botany, and
comparative anatomy; secondly, a knowledge of sacred hermeneutics, or the
principles of interpreting the Scriptures; thirdly, a clear conception of
the principles of natural and revealed religion.
As examples of efforts made by men who were deficient in a knowledge of
some of these branches, I am compelled to quote a large proportion of the
works which, within the last thirty or forty years, have been written on
the religion of geology; especially on its connection with revealed
religion. I am happy to except such writers as Dr. J. Pye Smith, Dr.
Chalmers, Dr. Harris, Dr. Buckland, Professor Sedgwick, Professor Whewell,
Dr. King, Dr. Anderson, and Hugh Miller; for they, to a greater or less
extent, acquainted themselves with all the subjects named above, before
they undertook to write. But a still larger number of authors, although
men of talents, and familiar, it may be, with the Bible and theology, had
no accurate knowledge of geology. The results have been, first, that, by
resorting to denunciation and charges of infidelity, to answer arguments
from geology which they did not understand, they have excited unreasonable
prejudices and alarm among common Christians respecting that science and
its cultivators; secondly, they have awakened disgust, and even contempt,
among scientific men, especially those of sceptical tendencies, who have
inferred that a cause which resorts to such defences must be very weak.
They have felt very much as a good Greek scholar would, who should read a
severe critique upon the style of Isocrates, or Demosthenes, and, before
he had finished the review, should discover internal evidence that the
writer had never learnt the Greek alphabet.
On the other hand, prejudices and disgust equally strong have been
produced in the mind of many a man well versed in theology and biblical
exegesis by some productions of scientific men upon the religious bearings
of geology, because they advanced principles which the merest tyro in
divinity would know to be false and fatal to religion, and which they
advocated only because they had never studied the Bible or theology.
And here I would remark that it does not follow, because a man is eminent
in geology, that his opinion is of any value upon the religion of geology.
For the two subjects are quite distinct, and a man may be a Coryphaeus in
the principles of geology, who is an ignoramus in its religious
applications. Indeed, many of the ablest writers upon geology take the
ground that its religious bearings do not belong to the science.
These statements, instead of pleading my apology for the following work,
may only show my temerity and vanity. Nevertheless, they afford me an
opportunity of calling the attention of the religious public to the great
inadequacy of the means now possessed of acquiring a knowledge of the
different branches of natural science. I refer especially to comparative
anatomy, zoology, botany, and geology, in our literary and theological
seminaries. The latter, so far as I know, do not pretend to give any
instruction in these branches. And in our colleges that instruction is
confined almost entirely to a few brief courses of lectures; often so few
that the students scarcely find out how ignorant they are of the subjects;
and hence those who are expecting to enter the sacred ministry vainly
imagine that, at almost any period of their future course, they can, in a
few weeks, become sufficiently acquainted with physical science to meet
and refute the sceptic. In all our seminaries, however, abundant provision
is made, as it ought to be, for the study of intellectual philosophy and
biblical interpretation.
So well satisfied are two of the most enlightened and efficient Christian
denominations in Great Britain--the Congregationalists and the Scottish
Free Church--of the need of more extensive acquaintance with the natural
sciences in ministers of the gospel, that they have attached a
professorship of natural history to their theological seminaries. That in
the New College in Edinburgh is filled by the venerable Dr. Fleming; that
in the New College in London by Dr. Lankester. From a syllabus of Dr.
Fleming's course of lectures, which he put into my hands last summer, I
perceive that it differs little from the instruction in natural science in
the colleges of our country. This being the case, it strikes me that this
is not exactly the professorship that is needed in the theological
seminaries of our country. But they do need, it seems to me,
professorships of natural theology, to be filled by men who are
practically familiar with the natural sciences. If any such chairs exist
in these seminaries, I do not know it. They are amply provided with
instruction in the metaphysics of theology, hermeneutics, and
ecclesiastical history; and I should be sorry to see these departments
less amply provided for. But here is the wide field of natural theology,
large enough for several professorships, which finds no place, save a nook
in the chair of dogmatics. This might have answered well enough when the
battle-field with scepticism lay in the region of metaphysics, or history,
or biblical interpretation. But the enemy have, within a few years past,
intrenched themselves within the dominions of natural science; and there,
for a long time to come, must be the tug of the war. And since they have
substituted skeletons, and trees, and stones, as weapons, in the place of
abstractions, so must Christians do, if they would not be defeated. Let me
refer to a few examples to show how inadequately furnished the minister
must be for such a contest, who has used only the means of instruction
provided in our existing seminaries, literary and theological.
Take the leading points discussed in the following lectures. How can a man
who has heard only a brief and hurried course of thirty lectures on
chemistry, twenty on anatomy and physiology, fifteen upon zoology, ten
upon botany, ten upon mineralogy, and twenty upon geology, at the college,
with no additional instruction at the theological seminary,--how can he
judge correctly of points and reasoning difficult to be mastered by adepts
in these sciences? How certain to be worsted in an argument with an
accomplished naturalist who is a sceptic!
Suppose the sceptic takes the ground advocated by Oken and the author of
the "Vestiges." Let the clergyman, whom I have supposed, read the works of
Miller and Sedgwick in reply to the development hypothesis, and see
whether he can even understand their arguments without a more careful
study of the sciences on which they rest.
A subject of no small importance in its religious bearings has recently
excited a good deal of sharp discussion in this country. I refer to the
questions of the specific unity and unity of origin of the human race. To
a person who has never studied the subject, it seems a matter easy to
settle; yet, in fact, it demands extensive research even to understand.
And we have seen one of the most accomplished zoologists and anatomists of
the present age take ground on these points in opposition to the almost
universal opinion. The result has been that not a few talented replies to
his arguments have appeared, mostly, I believe, from ministers. I have not
seen them all. But in respect to those which I have read it has seemed to
me, without having the least sympathy with the views of Professor Agassiz,
that the authors have not the most remote conception of the principal
arguments on which he relies, derived from zoology and comparative
anatomy; nor do I believe that they can understand and appreciate them
until they have studied those sciences.[1]
Although I fear that theologians are not aware of the fact, yet probably
the doctrines of materialism are more widely embraced at this day than
almost any other religious error. But in which of our schools, save the
medical, is there any instruction given in physiology and zoology, that
will prepare a man to make the least headway against such delusions? The
arguments by which materialism is defended are among the most subtle in
the whole range of theology and natural science; and without a knowledge
of the latter they can neither be appreciated nor refuted. The mere
metaphysical abstractions by which they are usually met excite only the
contempt of the acute physiologist who is a materialist.
I might refer, in this connection, to the whole subject of pantheism, in
its chameleon forms. The rhapsodies of spiritual pantheism must, indeed,
be met by metaphysics equally transcendental. But, after all, it is from
biology that the pantheist derives his choicest weapons. He appeals, also,
to astronomy, zoology, and geology; nor is it the superficial naturalist
that can show how hollow is the foundation on which he rests.
These are only a few examples of the points of physical science on which
scepticism at this moment has batteries erected with which to assail
spiritual religion. Will the minister but slightly familiar with the
ground chosen by the enemy be able not only to silence his guns, but, as
every able defender of the truth ought to do, to turn them against its
foes? Surely it needs a professor of natural theology in our theological
seminaries, (and if such chairs existed in our colleges they would be
serviceable,) to teach those who expect to be officers in the sacramental
host how to carry on the holy war. I do not see how much more time can be
given to the natural sciences in our colleges than is usually done,
without encroaching upon other indispensable branches. If, therefore,
provision be not made for studying the religious bearings of these
sciences in our theological seminaries, our youthful evangelists must go
forth to their work without the ability to vindicate the cause of religion
against the assaults of the sceptical naturalist. Would not, then, those
wealthy and benevolent individuals be great public benefactors, who should
endow professorships of natural religion in our schools of the prophets?
But I must not pursue this subject farther. I commit my work to the public
with no raised expectations of its welcome reception. I have a high
opinion of the enlightened candor of, the educated classes of our country,
especially those in the ministry. Yet I know that many prejudices exist
against science in its connections with religion. And, therefore, my only
hope of any measure of success in this effort rests upon the divine
blessing. But if the work be not pleasing to Infinite Wisdom and
Benevolence, why should I desire for it an ephemeral success among men?
AMHERST COLLEGE, May 1, 1851.
EXPLANATION OF THE FRONTISPIECE.
This section of the earth's crust is intended to bring under the eye the
leading features of geology.
1. _The relative Position of the Stratified and the Unstratified Rocks._
The unstratified rocks, viz., granite, sienite, porphyry, trap, and lava,
are represented as lying beneath the stratified class, for the most part,
yet piercing through them in the centre of the section, and by several
dikes or veins, through which masses have been protruded to the surface.
The unstratified class are all colored red, to indicate their igneous
origin. Granite seems to have been first melted and protruded, and it
continued to be pushed upward till the close of the secondary period of
the stratified rocks, as is shown by the vein of granite on the section.
Sienite and porphyry seem to have been next thrust up, from below the
granite; next, the varieties of trap were protruded from beneath the
porphyry; and last, the lava, which still continues to be poured out upon
the surface from beneath all the rest.
2. _The Stratified Rocks._
The stratified rocks represented on both flanks of the granite peak in the
section, appear to have been deposited from water, and subsequently more
or less lifted up, fractured, and bent. An attempt is made, on the right
hand side of the section, to exhibit the foldings and inclination of the
strata. The lowest are bent the most, and their dip is the greatest; and,
as a general fact, there is a gradual approach to horizontality as we rise
on the scale.
3. _The right hand side of the Section._
The strata on the right hand are divided into five classes: first and
lowest, the _crystalline_, or _primary_, destitute of organic remains, and
probably metamorphosed from a sedimentary to a crystalline state, by the
action of subjacent heat. 2. The _palaeozoic class_, or those containing
the earliest types of animals and plants, and of vast thickness, mostly
deposited in the ocean. 3. _The secondary class_, reaching from the top of
the lower new red or Permian system, to the top of the chalk. 4. _The
tertiary strata_, partially consolidated, and differing entirely from the
rocks below by their organic contents. 5. _Alluvium_, or strata now in a
course of deposition. This classification is sometimes convenient, and
frequently used by geologists.
4. _The left hand Side._
On the left hand side of the section the strata are so divided as to
correspond to the six great groups of animals and plants that have
appeared on the globe. The names attached to the groups are derived from
[Greek: zoos] (_vivus_, living,) with the Greek numerals prefixed. The
lowest group, being destitute of organic remains, is called _azoic_, (from
[Greek: a] privitive and [Greek: zoos],) that is, wanting in the traces of
life; and corresponds to the crystalline group on the other side of the
section, embracing gneiss, mica slate, limestone, and clay slate, of
unknown thickness. The _protozoic group_ corresponds to the palaeozoic of
the right hand side, and embraces lower and upper Silurian, Devonian, or
old red sandstone, the carboniferous group, and the Permian, or lower new
red; the whole in Great Britain not less than thirty-three thousand feet
thick. The _deutozoic group_ consists only of the triassic, or upper new
red sandstone, and is only nine hundred feet thick, but marks a distinct
period of life. The _tritozoic_ embraces the lias and oolite, with the
Wealden, and is three thousand six hundred feet thick. The _tetrazoic_
consists of the chalk and green sand, one thousand five hundred feet
thick. The _pentezoic_ embraces the tertiary strata of the thickness of
two thousand feet. The _hectozoic_ is confined to the modern deposits,
only a few hundred feet thick, but entombing all the existing species of
animals.
5. _Characteristic Organic Remains._
Had space permitted, I should have put upon the section a reference to the
most characteristic and peculiar mineral, animal, or plant, in the
different groups. Thus the azoic group is _crystalliferous_, or
crystal-bearing. The lower or Silurian part of the protozoic group is
_brachiopodiferous_, _trilobiferous_, _polypiferous_, and
_cephalopodiferous_; that is, abounding in brachiopod and cephalopod
shells; in polypifers, or corals; and in trilobites, a family of
crustaceans. The middle part, or the Devonian, is _thaumichthiferous_, or
containing remarkable fish. The upper part, or the coal measures, is
_carboniferous_; that is, abounding in coal. _The deutozoic group_ is
_ichniferous_, or track-bearing, from the multitude of its fossil
footmarks. The _tritozoic group_ is _reptiliferous_, or reptile-bearing,
from the extraordinary lizards which abound in it. The _tetrazoic_ is
_foraminiferous_, from the abundance of coral animalcula, called
foraminifera, or polythalmia, which it contains. The _pentezoic_ is
_mammaliferous_, because it contains the remains of mammalia, or
quadrupeds. The _hectozoic_ is _homoniferous_, or man-bearing, because it
embraces human remains.
There is no one place on earth where all the facts exhibited on this
section are presented before us together. Yet all the facts occur
somewhere, and this section merely brings them into systematic
arrangement.
CONTENTS.
Page
LECTURE I.
REVELATION ILLUSTRATED BY SCIENCE, 1
LECTURE II.
THE EPOCH OF THE EARTH'S CREATION UNREVEALED, 33
LECTURE III.
DEATH A UNIVERSAL LAW OF ORGANIC BEINGS ON THIS GLOBE
FROM THE BEGINNING, 71
LECTURE IV.
THE NOACHIAN DELUGE COMPARED WITH THE GEOLOGICAL DELUGES, 112
LECTURE V.
THE WORLD'S SUPPOSED ETERNITY, 146
LECTURE VI.
GEOLOGICAL PROOFS OF THE DIVINE BENEVOLENCE, 179
LECTURE VII.
DIVINE BENEVOLENCE AS EXHIBITED IN A FALLEN WORLD, 219
LECTURE VIII.
UNITY OF THE DIVINE PLAN AND OPERATION IN ALL AGES OF THE
WORLD'S HISTORY, 252
LECTURE IX.
THE HYPOTHESIS OF CREATION BY LAW, 285
LECTURE X.
SPECIAL AND MIRACULOUS PROVIDENCE, 327
LECTURE XI.
THE FUTURE CONDITION AND DESTINY OF THE EARTH, 370
LECTURE XII.
THE TELEGRAPHIC SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE, 409
LECTURE XIII.
THE VAST PLANS OF JEHOVAH, 445
LECTURE XIV.
SCIENTIFIC TRUTH, RIGHTLY APPLIED, IS RELIGIOUS TRUTH, 476
THE RELIGION OF GEOLOGY.
LECTURE I.
REVELATION ILLUSTRATED BY SCIENCE.
The leading object, which I propose in the course of lectures which I now
commence, is to develop the relations between geology and religion. This
cannot be done fully and fairly, however, without exhibiting also many of
the religious bearings of several other sciences. I shall, therefore, feel
justified in drawing illustrations and arguments from any department of
human knowledge which may afford them. I place geology first and most
conspicuous on the list, because I know of no other branch of physical
science so prolific in its religious applications.
In treating of this subject, I shall first exhibit the relations between
science and revealed religion, and afterwards between science and natural
religion; though in a few cases these two great branches cannot be kept
entirely distinct.
Geology is usually regarded as having only an unfavorable bearing upon
revealed religion; and writers are generally satisfied if they can
reconcile apparent discrepancies. But I regard this as an unfair
representation; for if geology, or any other science, proves to us that
we have not fairly understood the meaning of any passage of Scripture, it
merely illustrates, but does not oppose, revelation.
A fundamental principle of Protestant Christianity is, that the Scriptures
of the Old and New Testaments are the only infallible standard of
religious truth; and I desire to hold up this principle prominently at the
outset, as one to which I cordially subscribe. The mass of evidence in
favor of the divine inspiration of the Bible is too great to be set aside
by any thing short of scientific demonstration. Were the Scriptures to
teach that the whole is not equal to its parts, the mind could not,
indeed, believe it. But if it taught a truth which was only contrary to
the probable deductions of science, science, I say, must yield to
Scripture; for it would be more reasonable to doubt the probabilities of a
single science, than the various and most satisfactory evidence on which
revelation rests. I do not believe that even the probabilities of any
science are in collision with Scripture. But the supposition is made to
show how strong are my convictions of the evidence and paramount authority
of the Bible.
But does it follow, from these positions, that science can throw no light
upon the truths of Scripture? By no means; and it will be my leading
object, in this lecture, to show how this may be done by science in
general, and by geology in particular.
In discussing this subject, we ought to bear in mind the object of
science, and the object of revelation. And by the term science I refer
mainly to physical science. Its grand aim is, by an induction from facts,
to discover the laws by which the material universe is governed. Those
laws do, indeed, lead the mind almost necessarily to their divine Author.
But this is rather the incidental than the direct result of scientific
investigations, and belongs rather to natural theology than to natural
science.
On the other hand, the exclusive object of revelation is of a moral
character. It is a development of the divine character and the divine
government; especially that part of it which discloses a plan for the
reconciliation of a lost and wicked world to the favor of God by the death
of his Son. Every other subject mentioned in Scripture is incidental, and
would not have been noticed had it not some connection with the plan of
salvation. The creation of the world and the Noachian deluge, for
instance, are intimately related to the divine character and government,
and therefore they are described; and the same is true of the various
phenomena of nature which are touched upon in the Bible.
If these positions be correct, it follows, that as we ought not to expect
to find the doctrines of religion in treatises on science, so it is
unreasonable to look for the principles of philosophy in the Bible. Nay,
we ought not to expect to find the terms used by the Sacred writers
employed in their strict scientific sense, but in their popular
acceptation. Indeed, as the Scriptures were generally addressed to men in
the earliest and most simple states of society, with very limited views of
the extent of creation, we ought to suppose that, in all cases where no
new fact is revealed, the language was adapted to the narrow ideas which
then prevailed. When, for instance, the sacred writers speak of the rising
and setting of the sun, we cannot suppose they used language with
astronomical correctness, but only according to appearances. Hence we
ought not to be very confident, that when they employ the term _earth_,
they meant that spherical, vast globe which astronomy proves the earth to
be, but rather that part of it which was inhabited, which was all the idea
that entered into the mind of a Jew. God might, indeed, have revealed new
scientific as well as religious truth. But there is no evidence that in
this way he has anticipated a single modern discovery. This would have
been turning aside from the much more important object he had in view,
viz., to teach the world religious truth. Such being the case, the
language employed to describe natural phenomena must have been adapted to
the state of knowledge among the people to whom the Scriptures were
addressed.
Another inference from these premises is, that there may be an apparent
contradiction between the statements of science and revelation. Revelation
may describe phenomena according to apparent truth, as when it speaks of
the rising and setting of the sun, and the immobility of the earth; but
science describes the same according to the actual truth, as when it gives
a real motion to the earth, and only an apparent motion to the heavens.
Had the language of revelation been scientifically accurate, it would have
defeated the object for which the Scriptures were given; for it must have
anticipated scientific discovery, and therefore have been unintelligible
to those ignorant of such discoveries. Or if these had been explained by
inspiration, the Bible would have become a text-book in natural science,
rather than a guide to eternal life.
The final conclusion from these principles is, that since science and
revelation treat of the same subjects only incidentally, we ought only to
expect that the facts of science, rightly understood, should not
contradict the statements of revelation, correctly interpreted. Apparent
discrepancies there may be; and it would not be strange, if for a time
they should seem to be real; either because science has not fully and
accurately disclosed the facts, or the Bible is not correctly
interpreted; but if both records are from God, there can be no real
contradiction between them. But, on the other hand, we have no reason to
expect any remarkable coincidences, because the general subject and object
of the two records are so unlike. Should such coincidences occur, however,
they will render it less probable that any apparent disagreement is real.
If the positions taken in these preliminary remarks be correct, it will
follow, that in judging of the agreement or disagreement between
revelation and science, it is important, in the first place, that we
rightly understand the Bible; and, in the second place, that we carefully
ascertain what are the settled and demonstrated principles of science. An
examination of these points will constitute the remainder of this lecture.
The meaning of the Scriptures is to be determined in the same way as the
meaning of any other book written in similar circumstances. Its
inspiration puts no bar in the way of the most rigid application of the
rules of criticism, nor renders it unnecessary to seek for light in
whatever quarter it can be obtained. The rules of grammatical and
rhetorical construction, the study of contemporary writers, a knowledge of
the history, customs, opinions, and prejudices of the times, and other
circumstances that need not be mentioned, become important means of
attaining the true _usus loquendi_, or principle of interpretation. But I
pass by all these on the present occasion, because no one doubts their
importance in rightly understanding the Bible. I maintain that scientific
discoveries furnish us with another means of its correct interpretation,
where it describes natural phenomena. And in this position we shall not
probably find an entire unanimity of opinion. Let us, therefore, proceed
to examine its truth.
It will not be denied that modern science has corrected the opinions of
men in regard to very many natural phenomena. The same term that conveyed
one idea to an ancient reader, or hearer, of the Bible, often conveys an
opposite meaning to a modern ear. And yet that term may be very proper to
use in modern times, if understood to express only apparent, and not real
truth. The Jew understood it to mean the latter; and it would seem as if
we might employ modern scientific discovery to enable us to decide in
which sense the Bible did use the term. For if we admit the Jew to have
been correct in his interpretation, then we bring revelation into direct
collision with the demonstrations of physics.
But facts are vastly more satisfactory in deciding this question than
reasoning, and I shall now proceed to adduce some examples in which modern
scientific discovery has thrown light upon the meaning of the Bible.
For one or two examples I appeal to chemistry. In the book of Proverbs,
(chap. 25, v. 20,) we find it said, that _as vinegar upon nitre, so is he
that singeth songs to a heavy heart_. We should expect from this statement
that when we put vinegar upon what we call nitre, it would produce some
commotion analogous to the excitement of song-singing. But we should try
the experiment in vain; for no effect whatever would be produced. Again,
it is said by the prophet Jeremiah, (chap. 2, v. 22,) _Though thou wash
thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked
before me, saith the Lord._ Here, too, we should expect that the use of
the nitre would increase the purifying power of the soap; but the
experiment would prove rather the reverse. The chemist, however, informs
us that there is a substance, viz., the _carbonate of soda_, which, if
substituted for the nitre, would effervesce with vinegar, and aid the
purifying power of soap, and thus strikingly illustrate the thought both
of Solomon and Jeremiah. And on recurring to the original, we find that
[Hebrew] (nether, _nitrum_, _natrum_) does not necessarily mean the salt
which we call nitre, but rather a fossil alkali, the _natron_ of the
ancients, and the carbonate of soda of the moderns.
It is probably the prevailing opinion among intelligent Christians at this
time, and has been the opinion of many commentators, that when Peter
describes the future destruction of the world, he means that its solid
substance, and indeed that of the whole material universe, will be utterly
consumed or annihilated by fire. This opinion rests upon the common belief
that such is the effect of combustion. But chemistry informs us, that no
case of combustion, how fiercely soever the fire may rage, annihilates the
least particle of matter; and that fire only changes the form of
substances. Nay, there is no reason whatever to suppose that one particle
of matter has been annihilated since the world began. The chemist moreover
asserts that all the solid parts of the globe have already undergone
combustion, and that although heat may melt them, it cannot burn them. Nor
is there any thing upon or within the earth capable of combustion, but
vegetables, and animals, and a few gases. Has Peter, then, made a mistake
because he did not understand modern chemistry? We have only to examine
his language carefully, as it seems to me, in order to be satisfied that
he means only, that whatsoever upon, or within, the earth, is combustible,
will be burned up at the final conflagration; and that the whole globe,
the _elements_, _will melt with fervent heat_. He nowhere asserts, or
implies, that one particle of matter will be annihilated by that
catastrophe. Thus science, instead of proving his statements to be
erroneous, only enables us more correctly to understand them.
Scarcely any truth seems more clearly taught in the Bible than the future
resurrection of the body. Yet this doctrine has always been met by a most
formidable objection. It is said that the body laid in the grave is ere
long decomposed into its elements, which are scattered over the face of
the earth, and enter into new combinations, even forming a part of other
human bodies. Hence not even Omnipotence can raise from the grave the
identical body laid there, because the particles may enter successively
into a multitude of other human bodies. I am not aware that any successful
reply has ever been given to this objection, until chemistry and natural
history taught us the true nature of bodily identity; and until recently
the objector has felt sure that he had triumphed. But these sciences teach
us that the identity of the body consists, not in a sameness of particles,
but in the same kinds of elementary matter, combined in the same
proportion, and having the same form and structure. Hence it is not
necessary that the resurrection body should contain a single particle of
the matter laid in the grave, in order to be the same body; which it will
be if it consist of the same kinds of matter combined in the same
proportions, and has the same form and structure. For the particles of our
bodies are often totally changed during our lives; yet no one imagines
that the old man has not the same body as in infancy.[2] What but the
principles of science could have thus vindicated a precious doctrine of
revelation?
In the description which Paul gives of the spiritual body, a
naturalist,--and I fancy no one but a naturalist,--will discover its
specific identity. By this I mean that it will possess peculiarities that
distinguish it from every thing else, but which are so closely related to
the characteristics of the natural body in this world, from which it was
derived, that one acquainted with the latter would recognize the former.
Hence the Christian's friends in another world may be recognized by him
from their external characters, just as we identify the plants and animals
of spring with those that seemed to perish in the preceding autumn. There
is neither time nor room for the proof of this exegesis, which is founded
chiefly upon the principles of natural history; but for their elucidation,
I must refer to another place.[3]
I take my next example from meteorology. It was the opinion of the
ancients that the earth, at a certain height, was surrounded by a
transparent hollow sphere of solid matter, which they called the
firmament. When rain descended, they supposed it was through windows, or
holes, made in this crystalline curtain suspended in mid heaven. To these
notions the language of the Bible is frequently conformed. In the account
of the creation, in Genesis, we have a description of the formation of
this firmament, and how it divided the waters below it, viz., the ocean,
lakes, and rivers, from the waters above it, viz., the clouds. Again, in
the account of the deluge, the windows of heaven are said to have been
opened. But it is hardly necessary to say, that meteorology has shown
that no such solid firmament exists over our heads; that, in fact, nothing
but one homogeneous, transparent atmosphere encloses the earth, in which
the clouds float at different altitudes at different times. Are we, then,
to suppose that the sacred writers meant to teach as certain truth, the
fiction of a solid firmament; or that on this subject they conformed their
language to the prevailing belief, because it was not their object to
teach philosophy, meaning neither to assert nor to deny the existence of a
solid firmament, but using language that was optically, although not
physically, correct, and which, therefore, conformed to the general
belief? It is doubtful whether any thing but scientific discovery could
enable us to decide this question. But since it is certain that the solid
firmament does not exist, we must admit that the Bible did not intend to
teach its existence, or allow it to teach a falsehood; and since we know
that it does often speak, in natural things, according to apparent, and
not real truth, it is most reasonable to give such a construction to its
language in the present instance.
But the most decisive example I have to give on this subject is derived
from astronomy. Until the time of Copernicus, no opinion respecting
natural phenomena was thought more firmly established, than that the earth
is fixed immovably in the centre of the universe, and that the heavenly
bodies move diurnally around it. To sustain this view, the most decided
language of Scripture could be quoted. God is there said to have
_established the foundations of the earth, so that they could not be
removed forever_; and the sacred writers expressly declare that the sun
and other heavenly bodies _arise and set_, and nowhere allude to any
proper motion in the earth. And those statements corresponded exactly to
the testimony of the senses. Men felt the earth to be immovably firm
under their feet, and when they looked up, they saw the heavenly bodies
in motion. What bold impiety, therefore, did it seem, even to men of
liberal and enlightened minds, for any one to rise up and assert that all
this testimony of the Bible and of the senses was to be set aside! It is
easy to conceive with what strong jealousy the friends of the Bible would
look upon the new science which was thus arraying itself in bold defiance
of inspiration, and how its votaries would be branded as infidels in
disguise. We need not resort to Catholic intolerance to explain how it
was, that the new doctrine of the earth's motion should be denounced as
the most fatal heresy, as alike contrary to Scripture and sound
philosophy, and that even the venerable Galileo should be forced to recant
it upon his knees. What though the astronomer stood ready with his
diagrams and formulas to demonstrate the motion of the earth; who would
calmly and impartially examine the claims of a scientific discovery,
which, by its very announcement, threw discredit upon the Bible and the
senses, and contradicted the unanimous opinion of the wise and good,--of
all mankind, indeed,--through all past centuries? Rather would the
distinguished theologians of the day set their ingenuity at work to frame
an argument in opposition to the dangerous neology, that should fall upon
it like an avalanche, and grind it to powder. And to show you how firm and
irresistible such an argument would seem, we need no longer tax the
imagination; for Francis Turretin, a distinguished Protestant professor of
theology, whose writings have even to the present day sustained no mean
reputation, has left us an argument on the subject, compacted and arranged
according to the nicest rules of logic, and which he supposed would stand
unrefuted as long as the authority of the Bible should be regarded among
men. He propounds the inquiry, "Do the sun and moon move in the heavens
and revolve around the earth, while the earth remains at rest?" This he
affirms, "in opposition to certain philosophers," and sustains his
position by the following arguments: "First. The sun is said [in
Scripture] to move in the heavens, and to rise and set. (Ps. 19, v. 5.)
The sun is _as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a
strong man to run a race_. (Ps. 104, v. 19.) _The sun knoweth his going
down._ (Eccles. 1, v. 5.) _The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down._
Secondly. The sun, by a miracle, stood still in the time of Joshua.
(Joshua, ch. 10, v. 12, 13, 14,) and by a miracle it went back in the time
of Hezekiah. (Isa. ch. 38, v. 8.) Thirdly. The earth is said to be _fixed
immovably_. (Ps. 93, v. 1.) _The world also is established, that it cannot
be moved._ (Ps. 104, v. 5.) _Who laid the foundations of the earth, that
it should not be removed forever._ (Ps. 119, v. 90, 91.) _Thou hast
established the earth, and it abideth. They continue this day according to
thine ordinances._ Fourthly. Neither could birds, which often fly off
through an hour's circuit, be able to return to their nests; for in the
mean time the earth would move four hundred and fifty of our miles.
Fifthly. Whatever flies or is suspended in the air ought [by this theory]
to move from west to east; but this is proved not to be true from birds,
arrows shot forth, atoms made manifest in the sun, and down floating in
the atmosphere."
If it be replied to this reasoning that the Scripture, in natural things,
speaks according to the common opinion, Turretin answers, "First, that the
spirit of God best understands natural things; secondly, that, in giving
instruction in religion, he meant these things should be used, not abused;
thirdly, that he is not the author of any error; fourthly, neither is he
to be corrected on this pretence by our blind reason."
If it be replied that birds, the air, and all things are moved with the
earth, he answers, "First, that this is a mere fiction, since air is a
fluid body; and secondly, if so, by what force would birds be able to go
from east to west."--_Compendium Theologicae Didactico-Elencticae_,
(Amsterdam, 1695.)
In the present state of knowledge we may smile at some of these arguments;
but to men who had been taught to believe, as in a self-evident principle,
that the earth was immovable and the heavenly bodies in motion, the most
of them must have been entirely satisfactory; and especially must the
Scriptures have seemed in _point blank_ opposition to the astronomical
heresy. What, then, has so completely annihilated this argument, that now
the merest schoolboy would be ashamed to advocate it? The clear
demonstrations of science have done it. Not only has the motion of the
earth been established, but it has been made equally obvious that this
truth is in entire harmony with the language of Scripture; so that neither
the infidel nor the Christian ever suspect, on this ground, any collision
between the two records. So soon as the philologist perceived that there
was no escape from the astronomical demonstration, he was led to reexamine
his interpretation of Scripture, and found that the whole difficulty lay
in his assuming that the sacred writers intended to teach scientific
instead of popular truth. Only admitting that they spoke of astronomical
phenomena, according to appearances and in conformity to common opinion,
and their language became perfectly proper. It conveyed no error, and is
in fact as well adapted now as ever to the common intercourse of life.
Yet, in consequence of the scientific discovery, that language conveys
quite a different meaning to our minds from what it did to those who
supposed it to teach a scientific truth. Hence it strikingly illustrates
the value of scientific discovery in enabling us rightly to understand the
Bible.
Is it necessary to quote any more examples to establish the principle that
scientific discovery is one of the means which the philologist should
employ in the interpretation of Scripture? And if the principle has been
found of service in chemistry, meteorology, and astronomy, why should it
be neglected in the case of geology? Why should not this science also,
which has probably more important religious bearings than any other, be
appealed to in illustration of the meaning of Scripture, when phenomena
are described of which geology takes cognizance? I know that some will
reply, that the principles of geology are yet too unsettled to be allowed
to modify the interpretation of the Bible. This brings me to the second
part of my subject, in which I am to inquire whether the principles of
physical science, and of geology in particular, are so far settled that we
can feel ourselves upon firm ground as we compare them with the principles
of revelation.