evidence than the other sciences of the creation of the matter of the
universe out of nothing. But it does furnish us with examples of such
modifications of matter as could be effected only by a Deity. Suppose,
then, we should be obliged to acknowledge to the atheist, that we yield to
him the point of matter's eternal existence, if he pleases, because we can
find nowhere in nature decisive evidence of its creation, and then take
our stand upon the arrangements and metamorphoses of matter. Or, rather,
suppose we say to him, that we shall not contend with him as to the origin
of matter, but challenge him to explain, if he can, without a Deity, its
modifications, as taught by geology. If that science does disclose to us
such changes on the globe as no power and wisdom but those of an infinite
God could produce, then of what consequence is it, so far as religion is
concerned, whether we can, or cannot, demonstrate the first creation of
matter? I can conceive of no religious truth that would be unfavorably
affected, though we should admit that this point cannot be settled. Let
us, then, at least for the sake of argument, admit that it cannot be, and
proceed to inquire whether, aside from this point, geology does not teach
us all that is necessary to establish the most perfect system of Theism. I
shall select four examples from that science, each of which is independent
of the others in its bearing upon the subject, since in this way the
argument will become cumulative; and if some are not satisfied with one
example, the others may produce conviction.
In the first place, geology teaches that the time has been when the earth
existed as a molten mass of matter, and, therefore, all the animals and
plants now existing upon its surface, and all those buried in its rocky
strata, must have had a beginning, or have been created. I should be
sustained by many probabilities, were I to go farther, and maintain that
the time was when the globe existed in a gaseous state--an opinion very
widely adopted by able philosophers of the present day. But as this view
is more hypothetical than my first position, which makes the earth a
liquid mass, and as nothing would be gained to the argument by supposing
it in a gaseous state, I shall not press that point. That it was once in a
state of fusion is probable from the very great heat still remaining in
its interior. But more direct proof of this results from the facts, now
admitted by almost all geologists, that the unstratified rocks have all
been melted, and that the stratified class have all, or nearly all, been
the result of disintegration and abrasion of the unstratified masses. A
striking confirmation of this opinion is the spheroidal figure of the
earth,--a figure precisely such as the globe would have assumed in
consequence of rotation, had it been in a fluid state. In fine, so many
and so decisive are the facts which point to the original igneous fluidity
of the globe, that no competent judge thinks of doubting that all the
matter of which it is composed, certainly its crust, has some time or
other been in that state. It is, however, the opinion of some geologists
of distinction, that the whole of it was not in fusion at the same time,
and that its different portions have passed successively through the
furnace. But this view of the subject scarcely affects my argument, since
at whatever period the fusion of any part took place, the destruction of
organic life, if it existed, must have been the consequence. The essential
thing is, to show that such was once the state of the earth that animals
and plants could not have existed on it. For if such was the case, their
creation must have been a subsequent operation; and if this did not
require an infinite Being to accomplish it, no result in nature would
demand his agency.
To prove the original igneous fluidity of the globe, we might have adopted
another course of argument. All will admit that the present temperature of
the interior of the earth is far more elevated than that of the
surrounding planetary spaces. The inevitable result is, from the known
laws of heat, that its radiation into the celestial spaces is constantly
going on, and consequently the earth's temperature is being constantly
lowered. Who can tell us now when this process of refrigeration commenced?
If no one, then there must have been a time when the heat was great enough
to fuse the whole globe. And the facts already stated confirm such an
inference. For all the efforts hitherto made to show that the earth may be
passing through regions of various temperatures, in its march around the
centre of centres, amount to nothing more than dreamy conjecture.
In order to feel the force of the argument, sustained by so many facts in
geology, just picture to yourselves this vast globe as a mass of liquid
fire. From such a world every thing organic must have been excluded, and
every thing combustible consumed, and only such combinations of matter
have existed as incandescent heat could not decompose. Compare such a
world with that now teeming with life, and beauty, and glory, which we
inhabit; and say, must not the transition to its present condition have
demanded the exercise of infinite power, infinite wisdom, and infinite
benevolence? You can, indeed, conceive how a solid crust might have formed
over the vast fiery ocean, by the simple radiation of heat; and then, too,
by natural laws, might the vapors have been condensed into oceans and
clouds, while volcanic force within might have lifted up our continents
and mountains above the flood. But what a picture of desolation and ruin
would such a world present, while unadorned with vegetation, and with no
voice of life to break the stillness of universal death! Here is, then,
the precise point where we need the interference of a Deity. Admit, if you
please, that atheism, with its eternal matter and the laws of nature at
command, might form a world without inhabitants. Who does not see, that to
bestow organization, and life, and instinct, to say nothing of intellect,
upon brute matter, is the loftiest prerogative of Jehovah? especially to
fill so vast a world as ours with its teeming millions, exhibiting ten
thousand diversities of size, form, and structure.
Let the atheist then exult in the belief of an eternal world. Geology
shows him that it must have been without inhabitants; and that, therefore,
the most wonderful part of the creation still remains to be accounted for;
while physiology teaches that the interference of an infinite Deity can
alone solve the enigma.
My second example from geology to disprove the notion of an eternal series
of animals and plants on the globe, is derived from the history of organic
remains. That history shows us clearly, that the earth, since its
creation, has been the seat of several distinct economies of life, each
occupying long periods, and successively passing away. During each of
these periods, distinct groups of animals and plants have occupied the
earth, the air, and the waters. Each successive group has been entirely
distinct from that which preceded it, though each group was exactly
adapted to the existing state of the climate and the food provided; so
that, had the different groups changed places with one another, they must
have perished, because their constitutions were adapted only to the state
of things during the period in which they actually lived. A distinguished
naturalist has recently declared that "he has discovered, in surveying the
entire series of fossil animal remains, five great groups, so completely
independent that no species whatever is found in more than one of
them."--_Deshayes._
Including the existing races, this would give us six entirely distinct
groups of organic beings that have lived in succession upon this globe
since it became a habitable world. But even if it should be found that a
few species are common to adjoining groups, the great truth would still
remain, that the different groups were too much unlike to be
contemporaries, and that consequently a new creation must have taken place
whenever each new group commenced its course.
It is probable the earth has changed its inhabitants more than the six
times that have been mentioned; some think as many as twelve times. But a
larger number cannot yet be proved so clearly; and could they be, they
would add nothing to this argument; for it rests mainly on the fact that
this change of organic life has even once been complete. We may, however,
very safely assume that the present animals and plants are the sixth group
that have occupied the globe.[12]
These facts being admitted, and who does not see the necessity of divine
interference, whenever one race of animals and plants passed from the
earth in order to repeople it? It is not difficult to conceive how
volcanic fires, or aqueous inundations, may have carried universal
destruction over the globe, and bereft it of inhabitants. But where, save
in the fiat of an infinite Deity, is the power that can make this universe
of death teem again with life and beauty? In the powerful language of Dr.
Chalmers, we may inquire, "Is there aught in the rude and boisterous play
of a great physical catastrophe that can germinate those exquisite
structures, which, during our yet undisturbed economy, have been
transmitted in pacific succession to the present day? What is there in the
rush, and turbulence, and mighty clamor of such great elements, of ocean
heaved from its old resting-place, and lifting its billows above the Alps
and the Andes of a former continent,--what is there in this to charm into
being the embryo of an infant family, wherewith to stock and to repeople a
now desolate world? We see in the sweeping energy and uproar of this
elemental war enough to account for the disappearance of all the old
generations, but nothing that might cradle any new generations into
existence, so as to have effloresced on ocean's deserted bed the life and
loveliness which are now before our eyes. At no juncture, we apprehend, in
the history of the world, is the interposition of the Deity more manifest
than at this; nor can we better account for so goodly a creation emerging
again into new forms of animation and beauty from the wreck of the old
one, than that the spirit of God moved on the face of chaos, and that
nature, turned by the last catastrophe into a wilderness, was again
repeopled at the utterance of his word."
Sir Isaac Newton has said, that "the growth of new systems out of old
ones, without the mediation of a divine power, seems to me apparently
absurd." He seems in this passage to have referred only to the
arrangements of matter, "with respect to size, figure, proportions, and
properties," and not to the principle of life, of instinct, or of
intellect. But when the latter are taken into the account, it must be
superlatively absurd to suppose new systems can grow out of old ones by
merely natural operations. He, indeed, who can bring himself to believe,
with a certain writer, that "the instincts of animals are nothing more
than inert and passive attractions, derived from the power of sensation,
and the instinctive operations of animals nothing more than
crystallizations produced through the agency of that power,"--such a man
could probably easily persuade himself that, by the help of galvanism,
animals and plants might be the result of natural operations. Such
doctrines, however, we shall examine in another lecture.
My third example from geology, showing the non-eternity of the present
condition of the globe, is the fact of the disappearance of several large
species of animals since the commencement of the most recent or alluvial
geological period. Certain large pachydermatous and other animals, such as
the fossil elephant, the mastodon, the megatherium, the mylodon, the
megalonyx, the glyptodon, the fossil horse, ox, deer, &c., also nine or
ten species of huge birds--the dinornis, the palapteryx, aptornis,
notornis, and nestor of New Zealand, the dodo of Mauritius and Bourbon,
and the pezohaps or solitaire of Rodriguez,--have ceased to exist since
the tertiary period; some of them--the birds, for instance--since man's
creation. Now, if any important species of animals from time to time
disappear from any system of organic life, it shows a tendency to ruin in
that system; for such is the intimate dependence of different beings upon
one another, that you cannot blot out one, certainly not a large number,
without disturbing the healthy balance between the whole, and probably
bringing the whole to ultimate ruin. At any rate, if several species die
out by natural processes, no reason can be given why others should not, in
like manner, disappear. And to prove that any organic system shows a
tendency to ruin is to show that it had a beginning.
My third example from geology, demonstrating the special interference of
the Deity in the affairs of this world, is the fact of the comparatively
recent commencement of the human race. That man was among the very last of
the animals created is made certain by the fact that his remains are found
only in the highest part of alluvium. This is rarely more than one hundred
feet in thickness, while the other fossiliferous strata, lying beneath the
alluvium, are six miles thick.
Hence man was not in existence during all the period in which these six
miles of strata were in a course of deposition, and he has existed only
during the comparatively short period in which the one hundred feet of
alluvium have been formed; nay, during only a small part of the alluvial
period. His bones, having the same chemical composition as the bones of
other animals, are no more liable to decay; and, therefore, had he lived
and died in any of the periods preceding the alluvial, his bones must have
been mixed with those of other animals belonging to those periods. But
they are not thus found in a single well-authenticated instance, and,
therefore, his existence has been limited to the alluvial period. Hence he
must have been created and placed upon the globe--such is the testimony of
geology--during the latter part of the alluvial period.
I might include in this example nearly all the other species of existing
animals and plants, since it is only a very few of these that are found
fossil, and such species are limited to the tertiary strata. But since
this might make some confusion in the argument, and since man is
confessedly at the head of the existing creation, I prefer to let his case
stand out alone, and to regard it _instar omnium_.
Here, then, we have a case in which geology can lay her finger upon the
precise epoch, in the revolutions of our globe, in which the most
complicated, perfect, and exalted being that ever dwelt upon its surface
first began to be. It was not the commencement of a mere zoophyte, or
cryptogamean plant, in which we see but little superiority to unorganized
matter, except in their possession of a low degree of vitality. But we
have a being complicated enough to contain a million of parts, endowed
with the two great attributes of life, sensibility and contractility, in
the highest degree, and, above all, possessing intellect and moral powers
far more wonderful than organization and animal life.
As to the period when the creation of such a being, by the most
astonishing of all miracles, took place, I believe there is no diversity
of opinion. At least, all agree that it was very recent; nay, although
geology can rarely give chronological dates, but only a succession of
events, she is able to say, from the monuments she deciphers, that man
cannot have occupied the globe more than six thousand years.
Now, if it was difficult to conceive how successive races of the inferior
animals and plants could have originated in the laws of nature, without
the special interference of the Deity, that difficulty increases in a
rapid ratio as we ascend on the scale of organization and intellect, and
attempt in the same manner to account for the origin of man without the
miraculous agency of Deity. The thorough-going materialist, however, does
not shrink from the effort. "Thought," says Bory de St. Vincent, "being
the necessary result of a certain kind of organization, wherever this
order is established, thought is necessarily derived from it; and it is no
more possible for the molecules of matter, arranged in a certain manner,
not to produce thought, than for brass, when smitten, not to return a
sound, or for creatures formed by this matter, after such and such laws,
not to walk, not to breathe, not to reproduce; in a word, not to exercise
any of the faculties which result from their peculiar mechanism of
organization."--Dict. Clas. _D. Hist. Nat._ art. _Matiere_.
This may seem, upon a superficial view, to be settling this matter at
once. But it merely shifts the difficulty from one part of the subject to
another. Admitting the premises of the materialist to be correct, it does
indeed show us the proximate cause of thought. But the mind immediately
inquires how a certain organization became possessed of such wonderful
power. Is it inherent in matter, or is it a power communicated to
organization by a supreme Being? If the latter, it is just what the
Theist contends for; if the former, then there is just as much necessity
for the original interposition of the Deity, in order to give matter such
an astonishing power, as there is, on the theory of the immaterialist, to
impart a spiritual and immortal principle to matter. The materialist will,
indeed, say that matter has possessed this power from eternity. But this
supposition, evidently absurd, does in fact invest matter with the
attributes of Deity; since those attributes, and those alone, are
sufficient to account for the phenomena. And besides, how is the fact to
be explained that this power was not exerted till six thousand years ago?
But with the exception of the materialist, I am sure that most reasoning
minds will feel as if the creation of the human family was one of the most
stupendous, perhaps the most stupendous, exercise of infinite power and
wisdom which the universe exhibits. If any change whatever demands a Deity
for its accomplishment, it must be this; and, therefore, geology presents,
in the case of man, the most striking example which nature could furnish
of a beginning of organic and intellectual life on the globe. It shows us
that there was a time, and that not remote, when the first link of the
curious chain of the human family, now constantly lengthening by
inflexible laws, was created.
I might now refer to certain recent discoveries in astronomy, which have
the same bearing upon the general argument as the examples that have been
quoted from geology, although less decisive. After the famous
demonstration of the eternity of the universe by La Grange, provided the
present laws of gravity alone control it, we could hardly expect that, so
soon, even astronomy would furnish proof of a disturbing cause, which must
ultimately and inevitably bring ruin among the heavenly bodies, if some
counteracting agency be not exerted. Yet such a source of derangement
exists in the supposed medium extending through all space, which has
already shown its retarding influence upon Enke's, Biela's, and Halley's
comets. And who can say that some of the vast periods which geology
discloses may not have been commensurate with those intervening between
catastrophes among the heavenly bodies as the result of the universal
resisting ether? At present, however, we can say only that we know such
long periods have existed in geology, and probably in astronomy. And their
mere existence is fatal to the idea of the eternity of the world in its
present state.
If, then, geology can clearly demonstrate the present state of the globe
to have had a beginning; if she can show us the period, by fair induction,
when one liquid, fiery ocean enveloped the whole earth; if she can show us
five or six economies of organic life successively flourishing and passing
away; if she can trace man back to his origin at a comparatively recent
date; if, in fact, she can show us that the most important operations on
the globe, and the most complicated and exalted organic races, had a
beginning; and if astronomy affords glimpses of similar changes,--then why
may we not safely leave the subject of the world's eternity an undecided
question, consistently with the most perfect Theism? If we can prove that
the power, the wisdom, and the benevolence of the Deity have again and
again interfered with the regular sequence of nature's operations, and
introduced new conditions and new and more perfect beings, by using the
matter already in existence, what though we cannot, by the light of
science, run back to the first production of matter itself? What though
the atheist should here be allowed to maintain his favorite theory that
matter never had a beginning? What doctrine of natural religion is
thereby unfavorably affected, if we can only show the interposition of the
Deity in all of matter's important modifications? Such an admission would
not prove matter to be eternal, but only that science has not yet placed
within the reach of man the means of proving its non-eternity. And really,
such an admission would be far more favorable to the cause of truth than
to rely, as theologians have done, on metaphysical subtilties to prove
that matter had a beginning. For the sceptical mind will not merely remain
unconvinced by such arguments, but be very apt to draw the sweeping
inference that all the doctrines of natural and revealed religion rest on
similar dreamy abstractions.
But is natural theology in fact destitute of all satisfactory proof that
the matter of the universe had a beginning? Such proof, it seems to me,
she will seek in vain in the wide fields of physical and mathematical
science; and the solution of the question which metaphysics offers, as we
have seen, does not satisfy. But there are sources of evidence on this
point which seem to me of the most satisfactory kind.
In the first place, we may derive from science some presumptive proof of a
commencement of the matter of the universe. The fact that the organic
races on the globe had a beginning affords such proof. For matter could
not have originated itself; nor is there any proof of its eternal
existence; and to assume that it did eternally exist, without proof, is
far more unphilosophical than to admit its origination in the divine will.
For since God has complete control over matter, it is probable that he
created it with such properties as he wished it to possess. And
furthermore, to the power and wisdom that could set in motion the heavenly
bodies, and create and adapt existing organisms out of preexistent matter,
we can assign no limits, and hence conclude them to be infinite.
Therefore they are sufficient to the production of matter, which could not
have demanded more than infinite wisdom and power.
Now, in confirmation of these presumptions, we may appeal to the Bible. It
is true that writers have been accustomed to consider it contrary to sound
logic to draw from revelation any support or illustrations of natural
religion. But why should an historical fact possess less value, if
transmitted to us through the channel of sacred, rather than profane,
writers? Now, it would be regarded as perfectly good reasoning to seize
upon any facts stated by heathen philosophers and historians, illustrative
of natural religion. But the Scriptures carry with them, to say the least,
quite as strong evidence of their authenticity and claims to be credited,
as any ancient uninspired writer. We place them on the same ground as any
other history, and demand for them only that they should be believed so
far as we have testimony to their authenticity. If a man, after careful
examination of their evidences, comes to the conclusion that they are mere
fables, then to him their testimony is of no value to prove or illustrate
any truth of natural religion. But if he is convinced that they are worthy
of credence, then their statements may decide a point about which the
light of nature leaves him in uncertainty. In this way the Bible is used
by the natural theologian, just as he would employ any curious object in
nature--say, the human hand, or the eye. These organs exist, and their
mechanism is to be accounted for either with or without a God. And so the
Bible exists, and its contents are to be accounted for; and if they
clearly evince the agency of a Deity, then we may use them, just as we
would use the eye or the hand, to prove or illustrate important truths in
natural theology.
But the testimony of the Bible, as to the origin of the world, is most
explicit and decided. It declares that _in the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth; and that the worlds were formed by the word of God,
so that the things which are seen were not made of things which do
appear_. The obvious meaning of this latter passage is, that the material
universe was created out of nothing. ([Greek: ta me phainomena].) How much
more satisfactory this simple and consistent statement, than a volume of
abstract argument to prove the non-eternity of the world!