Chapter XIII (1)

SCRIPTURE AND GEOLOGY; OR, APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS RECONCILED.

“By Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in
earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions,
or principalities, or powers; all things were created by Him, and for
Him; and He is before all things, and by Him all things
consist.”—PAUL.

We have in the course of the previous volume alluded to certain discrepancies, supposed to exist between the statements of Scripture, and the teachings of Geology. We have more than once intimated our intention of discussing at some length these questions, that have so long been tabooed by truly religious people, and often needlessly exaggerated by those who have possessed a “microscopic eye,” in the discovery of the weak points of Christian faith or opinion. Dropping the convenient and euphonious form of egotism, which allows sovereigns and authors to adopt the plural, we shall crave to stand before our readers in our personal and singular, rather than in our impersonal and plural, form of speech.

* * * * *

To the reader let me first say, that while I do not wish to appear before him as an advocate, as if I held a brief or had a retaining fee on behalf of Moses, I nevertheless feel rather keenly that the “reverend” put before my name may give something like this aspect to all my remarks. It may be thought, and that honestly enough, that because mine is the clerical profession, I am bound, _per fas aut nefas_, to contend for the authority of Scripture. It may be thought—in fact, it is daily alleged against us—that the particular “stand-point” we occupy is an unfair one, inasmuch as a preacher is bound to “_stick to the Bible_;” and indeed that he always comes to it with certain _à priori_ conclusions, that to a great extent invalidate his reasonings, and destroy the morality of his arguments.

Possibly there may be more truth in this than any of us dream of: _fas est ab hoste doceri_. I therefore make no professions of honesty, and appeal to no one’s feelings; let us go and look at the Bible, and at the earth’s crust, and be guided by our independent researches. Should this happen to be read by any one whose mind is out of joint with Scripture; who no longer reposes with satisfaction on the old book of his childhood and his youth; who has begun to fear,—perhaps to think that it is only a collection of “cunningly devised” fables; and who is on the verge of giving up Christianity and all “that sort of thing;” to such an one I shall speak, supposing him to be as honest in his doubts as I am in my convictions. I cannot deal with man as if he had no right to doubt; I have never yet “pooh-poohed” any one’s unbelief; but I have always striven to regard all doubts expressed in courteous phrase, as the result of investigation, even though it may be partial, as the fruit of study, although it may have been misguided, and as the painful conclusions of a thinking mind, and not cherished for the sake of “having a fling” at moral truth or a righteous life, or at the mothers and sisters whose life “remote from public haunt” has saved them from ever doubting the truth of revelation.

Doubting and scorning are very opposite phases of mind: we here address the _doubter_; with the _scorner_ we have nothing to do; if _ridicule_ is his substitute for argument, by all means let him enjoy it; and if _calling names_ is his substitute for patient investigation, let him enjoy that pastime also—hard words break no bones; but for the _doubter_, for the man who has his honest difficulties, and finds large stumbling-blocks in the path of unresisting acquiescence in household faiths, for such an one I have much to say in this chapter, if he will read it,—to him I stretch forth my hand in cordial greeting, and invite him to examine evidence, and consider facts; and then, whatever may be the result, whether I shake _his doubts_ or he shake _my faith_, we shall at least have acted a manly and a straightforward part. At any rate, we ought ever to meet as friends, and to be candid and forbearing, as men liable to err through manifold besetments and biasses.

Having thus thrown myself upon my reader’s candour, by a clear avowal of the spirit in which such controversies ought to be conducted, let us together proceed to the purpose of this chapter. Between Geology and Scripture interpretation there _are_ apparent and great contradictions—that all admit: on the very threshold of our future remarks, let us allow most readily that between the usually recognised interpretations of Scripture and the well-ascertained facts of Geological science, there are most appalling contradictions; and the questions arising thence are very important, both in a scientific and in a theological point of view. Is there any method of reconciliation, by which the harmony of the facts of science with the statements of the Bible can be shown? Where is the real solution to be found? Are we mistaken in our interpretations, or are we mistaken in our discoveries? Have we to begin religion again _de novo_, or may the Bible and the Book of Nature remain just as we have been accustomed to regard them; both as equally inspired books of God, waiting only the service and worship of man, their priest and interpreter?

These are questions surely of no common importance. Neither the Christian nor the doubter act a consistent part in ignoring them. Should the Christian say, “I want no teachings of science: I want no learned phrases and learned researches to assist me in understanding my Bible: for aught I care, all the ‘ologies’ in the world may perish as carnal literature: I know the Book is true, and decline any controversy with the mere intellectual disputant;” and if the Christian should go on to add, as probably he would in such a state of mind, and as, alas! too many have done to the lasting disgust and alienation of the thoughtful and intelligent: “These are the doubts of a ‘philosophy falsely so called:’ science has nothing to do with Revelation: they have separate paths to pursue; let them each go their own way: and should there come a collision between the two, we are prepared to give up all science once and for ever, whatever it may teach, rather than have our views upon Revelation disturbed:”—now, if the Christian talks like that, he is acting a most unwise part. He is doing in his limited sphere of influence what the Prussian Government intended to have done when Strauss’ “Life of Christ” appeared. It was the heaviest blow that unbelief had ever struck against Christianity, and the Government of Prussia with several theological professors were disposed to prosecute its author, and forbid the sale of the book. But the great Neander deprecated this course, as calculated to give the work a spurious celebrity, and as wearing the aspect of a confession that the book was unanswerable. He advised that it should be met, not by _authority_, but by _argument_, believing that the truth had nothing to fear in such a conflict. His counsel prevailed, and the event has shown that he was right.

If, on the other hand, the doubter should say, “The intelligence of the day has outgrown our household faiths; men are no longer to be held in trammels of weakness and superstition, or to be dragooned into Religion;—the old story about the Bible, why, you know we can’t receive that, and look upon those compilations that pass by that name as divinely inspired Books; we have long since been compelled to abandon the thought that Christianity has any historic basis, or that its Books have any claim upon the reverence or faith of the nineteenth century, as of supernatural origin.”

To such an one I should say, that this begging of the question, this _petitio principii_, is no argument; these are statements that require every one of them a thorough demonstration before they are admitted; you deny the Christian one single postulate: you deny him the liberty of taking _anything_ for granted; and then begin yourself with demanding his assent unquestioned to so large a postulate as your very first utterance involves, “that the intelligence of the age has outgrown our household faiths.” Before you proceed you must prove that; and we must know what is meant by those terms, before we can stand upon common ground, and hold anything like argument upon these debated points.

From such general observations let us come to the precise objects before us: Geology and Scripture are supposed to be at variance specially on three points. _The age of the earth_: _the introduction of death_: and _the Noachian Deluge_. These apparent contradictions are the most prominent difficulties, and cause the most startling doubts among those who imagine Science to be antagonistic to Christian revelation. I propose to devote a little attention to each of these questions, while I endeavour honestly to show how, in my opinion, apparent contradictions may be reconciled. The questions are these, to state them in a popular form: 1. _Is the world more than 6,000 years old?_ and if it is, how are the statements of Scripture and Geology to be reconciled? 2. _Was death introduced into the world before the fall of man?_ and if it was, how are the truths of Scripture on this question to be explained? and, 3. What was the character of the _Noachian Deluge_? was it partial or universal? and what are the apparent discrepancies in this case, between science and the Bible?

Perhaps before I proceed a step further I ought to add that, in my belief, the age of the earth, so far as its material fabric, _i.e._ its crust, is concerned, dates back to a period so remote, and so incalculable, that the epoch of the earth’s creation is wholly unascertained and unascertainable by our human arithmetic; whether this is contradicted in the Scripture, is another question.

With regard to the introduction of death, I believe that death upon a most extensive scale prevailed upon the earth, and in the waters that are under the earth, ages, yea countless ages, before the creation of man—before the sin of any human being had been witnessed; that is what Geology teaches most indisputably: whether the Scriptures contradict this statement, is another question.

With regard to the Noachian Deluge, I believe that it was quite partial in its character, and very temporary in its duration; that it destroyed only those animals that were found in those parts of the earth then inhabited by man; and that it has not left one single shell, or fossil, or any drift or other remains that can be traced to its action. Whether the Scriptures teach any other doctrine, is another question.

By this time the ground between us is narrowed, and I may probably anticipate that I shall have objections to answer, or misapprehensions to remove, quite as much on the part of those who _devoutly believe_, as on the part of those who _honestly doubt_ the Christian Scriptures.

First then,

I. _How old is the world?_ How many years is it since it was called into being, as one of the planets? How many centuries have elapsed since its first particle of matter was created?

The answer comes from a thousand voices, “How old? why, 6,000 years, and no more, or closely thereabouts! Every child knows that;—talk about the age of the world at this time of day, when the Bible clearly reveals it!”

Now I ask, Where does the Bible reveal it? Where is the chapter and the verse in which its age is recorded? I have read my Bible somewhat, and feel a deepening reverence for it, but as yet I have never read that. I see the age of man recorded there; I see the revelation that says the _human_ species is not much more than 6,000 years old; and geology says this testimony is true, for no remains of man have been found even in the tertiary system, the latest of all the geological formations. “_The Bible, the writings of Moses_,” says Dr. Chalmers, “_do not fix the antiquity of the globe; if they fix any thing at all, it is only the antiquity of the species._”

It may be said that the Bible does not dogmatically teach this doctrine of the antiquity of the globe; and we reply, Very true; but how have we got the idea that the Bible was to teach us all physical science, as well as theology. Turretin went to the Bible for _Astronomy_: Turretin was a distinguished professor of theology in his day, and has left behind him large proofs of scholarship and piety. Well, Turretin went to the Bible, determined to find _his system_ of astronomy in it; and of course he found it. “The sun,” he says, “is not fixed in the heavens, but moves through the heavens, and is said in Scripture to rise and to set, and by a miracle to have stood still in the time of Joshua; if _the sun did not move, how 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 450 miles_?” And if it be said in reply, that Scripture speaks according to common opinion, then says Turretin, “We answer, that the Spirit of God best understands natural things, and is not the author of any error.”

We smile at such “ecclesiastical drum” noise now, and we can well afford to do so: but when people go to the Bible, determined to find there, not a _central truth_, but the truths of physics, in every department of natural science, are we to be surprised that they come away disappointed and angry? As Michaelis says, (quoted by Dr. Harris, in his “Man Primeval,” p. 12,) “Should a stickler for Copernicus and the true system of the world carry his zeal so far as to say, that _the city of Berlin sets at such an hour_, instead of making use of the common expression, that the sun sets at Berlin at such an hour, he speaks the truth, to be sure, but his manner of speaking it is pedantry.”

Now, this is just the way to make thoughtful men unbelievers: and we will not adopt that plan, because it is not honest, neither is it clever; the Gordian knot of every question might easily be solved in this way.

Bearing in mind that the question we are now trying to solve is this, “What is the evidence afforded by Geology, as to the history of creation, and in what way does the geological age of the world affect the supposed statement of Scripture, that the world is only 6,000 years old?” I reply thus, and I prefer to use the words of others rather than my own, lest it should be supposed that I am introducing mere novelties of opinion on this subject:—“That the first sentence in Genesis is a simple, independent, all-comprehending axiom to this effect; that matter, elementary or combined, aggregated only or organized, and dependent, sentient and intellectual beings have not existed from eternity, either in self-continuity or in succession: but had a beginning; that their beginning took place by the all-powerful will of One Being, the self-existent, independent and infinite in all perfection, and that the date of that beginning is not made known.”

These are the words of Dr. Pye Smith,[123] of whose name as an authority, both in matters of science and philology, no one need be ashamed.

Dr. Redford says, “We ought to understand Moses as saying, indefinitely, far back, and concealed from us in the mystery of eternal ages, prior to the first moment of mundane time, ‘God created the heavens and the earth.’”

“My firm persuasion is,” says Dr. Harris, “that the first verse of Genesis was designed by the Divine Spirit to announce the absolute origination of the material universe by the Almighty Creator, and that it is so understood in the other parts of Holy Writ; that, passing by an indefinite interval, the second verse describes the state of our planet immediately prior to the Adamic creation; and that the third verse begins the account of the six days’ work.”

Dr. Davidson, in his “Sacred Hermeneutics,” says,—“If I am reminded, in a tone of animadversion, that I am making science, in this instance, the interpreter of Scripture, my reply is, that I am simply making the works of God illustrate His word in a department in which they speak with a distinct and authoritative voice; that it is all the same whether our geological or theological investigations have been prior, if we have not forced the one into accordance with the other. And it may be deserving consideration whether or not the conduct of those is not open to just animadversion who first undertake to pronounce on the meaning of a passage of Scripture, irrespective of all appropriate evidence, and who then, when that evidence is explored and produced, insist on their _à priori_ interpretation as the only true one.”

But I quote no more: such are some of the eminent theological contributions to this department of science:—satisfactory in this respect, that a fair interpretation of Scripture does not require us to fix any precise date, much less the inconsiderable one of six thousand years, as the period of the earth’s formation.

Geology teaches the same thing.—Of the various formations that compose the earth’s trust, to the ascertained extent of ten miles, suppose we select two,—the Old Red Sandstone and the Chalk formations. Laborious and scientific men have been at the pains to calculate the gradual increase of some of these _now proceeding deposits_,—such as the Deltas, in course of formation at the mouth of the Nile, and at the gorges of the Ganges; and they find that the progress of the depth of increase is exceedingly small,—probably not more than a foot in many years. Mr. Maculloch, a name standing very high for accurate investigation, states, from his own observation, that a particular Scottish lake does not form its deposit at the bottom, and hence raise its level, at the rate of more than half-a-foot in a century; and he observes, that the country surrounding that lake presents a vertical depth of far more than 3,000 feet, in the single series of the Old Red Sandstone formation; and no sound geologist, he hence concludes, will, therefore, accuse the computer of exceeding, if, upon the same ratio as the contiguous lake, he allows 600,000 years for the production of this series of rock alone.

A last instance which may here be adduced, of the apparent length of time required for the construction of a particular rock, offers itself in the Chalk formation. The enormous masses of this rock, presenting their tall white precipices in such simple grandeur to our view, might well excite our astonishment at the periods which would seem needful for their collection and deposition, even if they were mere _inorganic_ concretions of calcareous matter. But what shall we say when the investigations of the microscope have lately revealed to us that these mountains of chalk, instead of being formed of mere inert matter, are, on the contrary, mighty congeries of decayed animal life,—the white apparent particles, of which the chalk masses are composed, being each grain a well-defined organized being, in form still so perfect, their shells so entire, and all their characteristics so discoverable, as to cause no doubt to naturalists as to the species in the animal economy to which they belonged. How justly does Sir Charles Lyell, who in his “Elements” records at length this surprising discovery, exclaim,—

“The dust we tread upon was once alive!”

“Look at the lofty precipices which lay naked a slight section of the Chalk at the Culvers, or the Needles in the Isle of Wight, or the still loftier Shakspeare Cliff at Dover, and let the mind form a conception, if it can, of the countless generations of these minutest of living creatures it must have required to build up, from their decayed bodies and their shelly exuviæ, layer on layer, those towering masses thus brought to our view. Who shall dare to compute the time for this entire elaboration? The contemplation almost advances us a step towards forming a conception of infinitude.”[124]

I need not dwell longer on the antiquity of the globe:—Geology and Scripture present no conflicting testimonies on this subject. Our _interpretation_ of Scripture has, undoubtedly, been modified; but the living Word itself abideth, in all its grandeur and purity, for ever. And “the time is not far distant when the high antiquity of the globe will be regarded as no more opposed to the Bible than the earth’s revolution round the sun and on its axis. Soon shall the horizon, where geology and revelation meet, be cleared of every cloud, and present only an unbroken and magnificent circle of truth.”[125]

The reader shall not be detained so long on the second point of inquiry, which is

II. “Was death introduced into the world before the fall of man? and if it was, how are the statements of Scripture, on this question, to be explained?” To this I have replied by anticipation, that, in my opinion, death, upon a most extensive scale, prevailed upon the earth, and in the waters that are under the earth, countless ages before the creation of man. Into the proof of this position allow me to go very briefly, although I am well aware that I run the risk of incurring the charge of heterodoxy, when I state my full conviction, that _death_, as well as the _world_, was _pre-Adamite_. The general impression is the contrary; but general impressions are not always right:—“general impression” is a very unsubstantial ghost to deal with, very like that cant phrase we spoke of at the beginning of this lecture,—“the intelligence of the age.” “General impression” has it, that death was _not_ pre-Adamite; that there was _no_ death before the fall; and that, to _say_ the contrary, is, at least, to tread on very dangerous ground. In vain does Geology—“now happily a true science, founded on facts, and reduced to the dominion of definite laws”—lay bare the Silurian rocks, and discover even _there_ extinct forms of life in exquisitely beautiful preservation. In vain does Geology, after showing us the fossil trilobite and coral, unfold the volume of the Old Red Sandstone, and show us _there_ the fossil remains of fish—so perfect that we might imagine them casts rather than fossils. In vain does Geology open its vast Oolitic system, and show us _there_ other forms of extinct life in fossil insects, tortoises, mighty saurians, and huge iguanodons. In vain does Geology lay bare the Chalk, with its marine deposits; and the Tertiary formation, with its enormous theroid mammalia, far surpassing in size the largest animals we are acquainted with. In vain are all these fossil remains exhibited imbedded in the earth; and in vain do we search, amidst all these, for one fossil remain of man, or one fossil vestige of man’s works. The easy, the cheap, the unreflective answer is, “Oh! these things were created there, or else Noah’s flood left them there.”

Of course, we can fall back upon a miracle as having done all this; but to have recourse to miracles when no miracle is recorded, is just to shake our faith in that all-inspired testimony, that supernatural Book, the existence of which is the great miracle of time. But there are the fossils! How did they come there if the forms of animal life, once inhabiting those remains, had not previously lived and died? Created! What? Created fossils? Then why not, when the Almighty created man, did he not create, at the same time, some skeletons of _man_, and place them in the earth, as he put skeletons of trilobites, fishes, reptiles, and mammals there? Our common sense and reverence both reject the idea. As to the puerile notion that Noah’s flood put them there, did not Noah’s flood overwhelm man as well as animals? and as the bones of man are as durable as the bones of animals, how is it that we never meet with a fossil human skull or thigh bone, or house?

We believe that death was a part of the divine plan of God’s creation; that death is a law of all organic life—a necessary law and a most benevolent provision; that the living structure of all animals derives its substance from dead organic matter. We believe that, altogether apart from human sin, preceding and successive generations must be the order of being; for if there were no death, animals would soon pass beyond the limit of provision sufficient for nutritive support, or of localities for suitable habitations. We believe that if there had been no death prior to man’s sin, it would involve the supposition that all animals were herbivorous; whereas, even the little _ladybird_ cannot live without its meal of _aphides_; and, so believing, we find our faith in Scripture deepened when, seeing on every hand the extensive proofs of death, we find man, the moment he lost his lordship and proud eminence, and reduced himself voluntarily to the condition of animalism, immediately brought _penally_ within the influence of that law of death, whose existence he must have recognised in the death of animals from the first day of his creation.

Does any one reply, “This is contrary to Scripture?” I ask them what Scripture teaches that the death of _animals_ is the result of man’s sin?—rather would not Scripture sanction the thought that death was a part of the divine plan of God’s creation, and that the certainty of man’s transgression was the reason for giving this constitution to nature? True, Milton sings, in his noble poem, that will live as long as the English language lives—

“Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe:”

but we are not obliged to call the Paradise Lost our Bible; or to quote Milton as a physiological authority, although the prevalence of the opinion that death was not pre-Adamite, and a good deal of theology besides, is more of Miltonic than of Scripture teaching.

I leave this branch of my subject far before it is exhausted: so far from that, each of the three points enumerated might easily be expanded into a lecture; and I can only hope that my brevity in treating these topics will not be misconstrued into a desire to shirk any of the difficulties with which their investigation is surrounded.

III. I come, lastly, to the question of the _Noachian Deluge_, and shall again repeat my own words: “What was the character of the Noachian Deluge?—was it partial or universal? and what are the apparent discrepancies, in this case, between science and the Bible?” And I have added to this my belief that the Noachian Deluge was quite partial in its character, and very temporary in its duration: that it destroyed only those animals that were found in those parts of the earth habitable by man, and that it has not left a single shell or fossil, or any drift boulders or pebbles, or any other remains that may be traced to its action.

Very briefly we shall try and prove this; and perhaps the most popular way will be the best remembered,—only that the reader will bear in mind that this little book does not pretend to exhaust the subject, but only to realize the idea expressed at the beginning of this chapter. Presuming, that all have in their recollection the Scriptural account of the Noachian Deluge, instead of quoting words with which all are familiar, I will only remark, as the basis of my illustrations, that rain descended, and probably the ocean overflowed, for forty days; that the waters lay upon the land, and covered them one hundred and fifty days; that at the end of that time they began to subside, and that in twelve months and twenty-seven days they were gone from the face of the earth, and the Noachian family liberated from the ark.

The question is, was this flood universal, and were all kinds of animals preserved in the ark? To which my answer, as involving my belief, is this, that the flood was _local_, and that only the animals peculiar to Armenia were provided for in Noah’s ark.

“_Oh! but the Bible says it was universal_,” says everybody. Yes; but that, you know, is just the question between us. The terms “all the earth” _seem_ to imply universality, but they do not necessarily involve this. “_All_ countries came to Egypt to buy corn;” certainly not all the world literally, but all the surrounding countries. So there were once dwelling at Jerusalem devout Jews “from out of _every nation_ under heaven;” but not _literally_ out of every nation, for the names of the nations are immediately given, and we find the nations to have been a few between Egypt and the Black Sea, and between Italy and Palestine. There are many other illustrations of a similar character: these will suffice: I only adduce these to show that at the beginning Scripture does not oblige us to consider “all” as meaning “every one;” or to understand literally “all the inhabitants of the earth” as meaning every creature.

Now, looking at the structure and composition of the earth’s crust, especially its fossiliferous rocks, I am driven to one of three conclusions, each of them involving difficulty, I acknowledge, but the one that involves the least is, of course, the most preferable. Either I must admit—

1. That the fossils in these rocks were all deposited in order and in succession, without injury, through a crust of rocks ten miles in thickness, during twelve months’ violent diluvial action:

2. Or that they were all deposited there during the 15,000 or 16,000 years that had elapsed since the creation of man prior to the Deluge; that is, supposing the creation of man and the creation of the earth to have been synchronous. Or, lastly, which theory I accept—

3. That the date of the earth’s physical being is unknown to us, and that the fossiliferous rocks were deposited in decades of ages before the creation of man.

For, on the other hand, let us suppose the flood to have been universal, in the strict and literal sense of the term; then let me suggest some of the consequences and difficulties of such a theory.

1. One consequence would be that some remains of man or of his works would have been found; but nothing of this kind has occurred. Even Armenia has been geologically examined, and no human remains have been found; and surely man’s bones would last as long as the shells of a trilobite or terebratula?

2. And, secondly, the organic remains, the fossils themselves, would have been found confusedly heaped together; whereas, the remains in the crust of the earth are as carefully arranged as the contents of a well-ordered cabinet. We know always to a certainty what fossils will be found in any rock before we examine that rock.

3. Besides which, some, at least, of the organic remains found ought to correspond with existing beings and species: yet the contrary is the case, except only a few fossils found near the surface of the earth, in that portion of the earth’s crust occupied by the tertiary system.

Nor is this all. Consider the _vast difficulties_ the universal flood theory has to contend with, all of which are removed by the theory we have adopted.

1. _There is the quantity of water required._ If all over the earth the water rose twenty-two feet six inches above the tops of the highest mountains, the quantity of water required would be eight times the whole quantity of water now existing. Where all this could have come from first and gone to afterwards, are prodigious stumbling-blocks. Of course we can resort to miracle; but this is not the way to get rid of difficulty in a manly and honest spirit.

2. _Then consider the number of animals the ark must have contained._ There are 1,000 species of mammalia, 5,000 species of birds, 2,000 species of reptiles, and 120,000 well-ascertained and distinct species of insects. Do we pretend that all these were housed and fed for nearly thirteen months in a vessel that was only 450 feet long, 75 feet broad, and 45 feet high; and that such a vessel contained room for them, and their food, besides that of man, for such a long period. The little toys of Noah’s ark are certainly pretty, but very mischievous, and most of the popular notions of the flood have grown up from our nurseries as much from the use of this toy in this case, as from the reading of Paradise Lost in the other: and the result is, the Bible is made responsible for it all.

3. Then consider the subsequent distribution of animals: the polar bear and the tropical elephant, the ferocious tiger and a young fawn, going out together in order, and without violence: of course we can suppose another miracle to repress passions and violence. Besides which, in addition to the fauna, the animal kingdom, we must ask what became of the flora or vegetable kingdom during this period, if the flood were universal? We have at least twenty-five botanical provinces, with their peculiar and numberless farms of vegetable life; what became of them? Were they preserved in the ark, or under the water?—for such questions must be answered by those who charge us with inconsistency in attempting to reconcile the facts of science with the words of Scripture. And as a last difficulty, (suggested first, I believe, by Dr. Pye Smith, and which I shall therefore state in _his_ words, lest it should seem that I use “plainness of speech,”) let us look at the descent from Ararat out of the ark, into Armenia, with all these animals, birds, insects, plants and trees. “That mountain is 17,000 feet high, and perpetual snow covers about 5,000 feet from its summit. If the water rose, at its liquid temperature, so as to overflow that summit, the snows and icy masses would be melted; and on the retiring of the flood, the exposed mountain would present its pinnacles and ridges, dreadful precipices of naked rock, adown which the four men and the four women, and with hardly any exception the quadrupeds, would have found it utterly impossible to descend. To provide against this difficulty, to prevent them from being dashed to pieces, must we again suppose a miracle? Must we conceive of the human beings and the animals as transported through the air to the more level regions below; or that, by a miracle equally grand, they were enabled to glide unhurt adown the wet and slippery faces of the rock?”

Such are some of the difficulties and some of the consequences that must flow from an acceptance of any other theory than the one I have proposed: that the flood was partial in its character, extending only over the habitable parts of the earth; and that it was so temporary in its character as not to have left a single trace of its influence visible on rock or fossil.

I have thus endeavoured to suggest points of reconciliation between the accepted facts of Geology and the recorded statements of Scripture; and if this slight contribution be accepted as an aid to faith, and a proof of candour on my part to meet those who linger on the border land of doubt, my purpose will be fully answered.

Let me add, in the words of Chenevix Trench—words uttered in the University of Cambridge not long since: “May we in a troubled time be helped to feel something of the grandeur of the Scriptures, and so of the manifold wisdom of that Eternal Spirit by whom it came; and then petty objections and isolated difficulties, though they were multiplied as the sands of the sea, will not harass us. For what are they all to the fact, that for more than 1,000 years the Bible collectively taken, has gone hand in hand with civilization, science, law—in short, with the moral and intellectual cultivation of the species, always supporting and often leading the way? Its very presence as a believed book, has rendered the nations emphatically a chosen race; and this, too, in exact proportion as it is more or less generally studied. Of those nations which in the highest degree enjoy its influences, it is not too much to affirm that the differences, public and private, physical, moral, and intellectual, are only less than what might be expected from a diversity in species. Good and holy men, and the best and wisest of mankind, the kingly spirits of history enthroned in the hearts of mighty nations, have borne witness to its influence, and have declared it to be beyond compare the most perfect instrument and the only adequate organ of humanity: the organ and instrument of all the gifts, powers, and tendencies, by which the individual is privileged to rise beyond himself, to leave behind and lose his dividual phantom self, in order to find his true self in that distinctness where no division can be,—in the Eternal I AM, the ever-living WORD, of whom all the elect, from the archangel before the throne to the poor wrestler with the Spirit until the breaking of day, are but the fainter and still fainter echoes.”

M. CLAY, PRINTER HEAD STREET HILL.

-----

Footnote 1:

Whewell’s Astronomy and Physics, p. 48.

Footnote 2:

From παλαιός, _ancient_, and ζωόν, _life_; ancient-life period.

Footnote 3:

Hughes, Physical Geography. 3d ed. p. 21.

Footnote 4:

Hughes, Physical Geog. p. 22.

Footnote 5:

Dr. Pye Smith.

Footnote 6:

As Chimborazo in South America, 21,414; Ararat, 16,000; Dhawalagiri,
in the Himalayas, 28,000 feet above the level of the sea; compared
with which what a mole-hill is Vesuvius, only 8,947 feet; or Blue
Mountain Peak, 8,600, or even Mont Blanc, that monarch of mountains,
which is 15,816 feet above the sea!

Footnote 7:

Hughes, p. 16.

Footnote 8:

Chambers’ Rudiments of Geology, p. 71.

Footnote 9:

These wells are so frequently spoken of as to need no explanation,
further than to remind the reader that they are so called from having
been first introduced in the province of Artois, the ancient Artesium
in France.

Footnote 10:

The deepest Artesian well is the famous one in the Plaine de Grenelle,
Paris. This well yields 516 gallons a minute; its temperature is 81°
Fahr.; and its depth is nearly 1,800 feet.

Footnote 11:

How truly hieroglyphics—sacred carvings; (_ieros_, sacred, _glupho_, I
carve;) and in this sense there is a holier meaning than Shakspeare
could have dreamt of in his well-known lines, when applied by the
geologist to his researches:—

“And this our life, exempt from public haunt,
Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,
_Sermons in stones_, and good in everything.”

Footnote 12:

And I may say, _my friend_ also, to whom, during my residence in
Jamaica, I was frequently indebted for contributions on natural
history to the _Jamaica Friendly Instructor_, of which I was Editor.

Footnote 13:

A Naturalist’s Sojourn in Jamaica, by P. H. Gosse, Esq. pp. 496–7.

Footnote 14:

So called because of its _grained_ or _granular_ appearance.

Footnote 15:

First brought from Syene, in Egypt.

Footnote 16:

Feld-spar, written also felspar, a compound of _feld_, field, and
spar.

Footnote 17:

See Ansted’s Ancient World, p. 21.

Footnote 18:

Memnon, or Ramesis. This famous head is in the British Museum; the
body is of greenstone, the head of syenite, and the bust one
continuous mass.

Footnote 19:

From _dis_ and _integer_. The separation of the whole parts of a rock,
without chemical action, by means of the light, the air, or the rain,
is called disintegration.

Footnote 20:

Lieut. Portlock on Geology, p. 93.

Footnote 21:

Ansted’s Geology, Descriptive and Practical, vol. ii. pp. 290, 291.

Footnote 22:

Ansted’s Geology, p. 291.

Footnote 23:

As the ancients did not know or use the compound metal brass, though
bronze was common amongst them, we must in this verse, and all others
in which the word “brass” is used, understand it to mean
copper.—Hughes’ Scripture Geography, Art. Geology of Palestine, p.
133.

Footnote 24:

Murray’s Hand-book for Cornwall, p. 199.

Footnote 25:

Ansted, vol. ii. p. 418.

Footnote 26:

Whewell, Anniversary Address to Geol. Society, 1839.

Footnote 27:

In Memoriam.

Footnote 28:

Dr. Pye Smith says 140,000 feet.

Footnote 29:

See a valuable map of fossils published by the Christian Knowledge
Society.

Footnote 30:

Trilobite: _treis_, three, and _lobos_, a lobe; having three lobes.

Footnote 31:

Bridgewater Treatise, vol. i. p. 396.

Footnote 32:

A fossil shell allied to the Argonauta and Carinaria.

Footnote 33:

“Man has no tail, _quantum mutatus_; but the notion of a
much-ridiculed philosopher of the last century is not altogether
without foundation; for the bones of a caudal extremity exist in an
undeveloped state in the os coccygis of the human subject.” Poor
_man_!—Vestiges of Creation, p. 71.

Footnote 34:

Sedgwick, p. 216, “On the Studies of the University of Cambridge.”

Footnote 35:

“My School and Schoolmasters,” by Hugh Miller.

Footnote 36:

“Old Red Sandstone; or, New Walks in an Old Field;” by Hugh Miller, p.
48.

Footnote 37:

“By mind, by hand, and by hammer.”

Footnote 38:

“Old Red Sandstone,” p. 66.

Footnote 39:

Ichthyolite: _ichthus_, a fish, _lithos_, a stone: fossil fish, or the
figure or impression of a fish in the rock.

Footnote 40:

“Old Red Sandstone,” pp. 41, 42.

Footnote 41:

“Old Red Sandstone,” p. 69.

Footnote 42:

From _akanthos_, a thorn, and _pterugion_, the fin.

Footnote 43:

From _malakos_, soft, and _pterugion_, the fin.

Footnote 44:

1. Ganoid, from _ganos_, splendour, because the scales are coated with
a bright enamel.

Footnote 45:

2. Placoid, from _plax_, a plate; sometimes large, sometimes reduced
to a point; _e.g._ shark.

Footnote 46:

3. Ctenoid, from _kteis_ (gen. _ktenos_, a comb); scales jagged like a
comb.

Footnote 47:

4. Cycloid, from _kuklos_, a circle; scales smooth and simple: _e.g._
salmon, &c.

Footnote 48:

From _kephalē_, the head; _aspis_, a buckler.

Footnote 49:

Coccosteus, from _kokkos_, a berry, and _osteon_, a bone.

Footnote 50:

“Old Red Sandstone,” p. 86.

Footnote 51:

Pterichthys: _pteron_, a wing, and _ichthus_, a fish.

Footnote 52:

“Old Red Sandstone,” pp. 80, 81.

Footnote 53:

Osteolepis: _osteon_, a bone, and _lepis_, a scale.

Footnote 54:

Operculum, the flap which covers the gill.

Footnote 55:

“Old Red Sandstone,” p. 111.

Footnote 56:

“Vast quantities:” let any reader go and turn over the non-bituminous
shale lying on the waste heaps of every coalpit, and he will see that
this is no exaggeration.

Footnote 57:

Capillus Veneris.

Footnote 58:

Corruption of _arrière-dos_, a fire-place. See a view and description
of one in “A Visit to Penshurst,” in Howitt’s “Visits to Remarkable
Places,” Second Series.

Footnote 59:

Juicy and soft, as peas, beans, plantains, bananas, &c.

Footnote 60:

“Ancient World,” pp. 76, 77.

Footnote 61:

This may seem strange at first; but I have journeyed through tropical
forests that realized completely this sketch, so far as stillness and
silence are concerned. A modern and most accomplished naturalist says
of a Jamaica virgin forest, “Animal life is almost unseen; the
solitude is scarcely broken by the voices of birds, except that now
and then the rain-bird or the hunter (large cat-tailed cuckoos that
love the shade) sound their startling rattle, or the mountain
partridge utters those mournful cooings which are like the moans of a
dying man.”—Gosse’s Jamaica, p. 198.

Footnote 62:

From κάλαμος (_calamus_), a reed.

Footnote 63:

Ansted’s “Ancient World,” p. 82.

Footnote 64:

Mesozoic: _i.e._ middle life period; _mesos_, middle, _zoos_, life.

Footnote 65:

The Religious Tract Society.

Footnote 66:

Lyell’s “Manual of Elementary Geology.” Postscript, p. 13.

Footnote 67:

Ansted’s Geology, vol i. p. 306.

Footnote 68:

Ichnites; from _ichnon_, a footstep, and _eidos_, like.

Footnote 69:

_Ornithos_, a bird, and _ichnon_.

Footnote 70:

Marsupial, from _marsupium_, a pouch; animals of the fourth order of
Cuvier, that have a pouch in which the young are carried.

Footnote 71:

Batrachian, from _batrachos_, a frog; animals in Cuvier’s fourth class
of reptiles.

Footnote 72:

_Cheir_, the hand, _therion_, a wild beast; a wild beast with a foot
like a hand.

Footnote 73:

From _labyrinthus_, a labyrinth, and _odous_, a tooth; so called from
the labyrinthine structure of the tooth.

Footnote 74:

In some cases we find, corresponding to a set of footmarks, a
continuous furrow, presumed to be the impression of a tail dragged
along the sand by the animal while walking.

Footnote 75:

Ansted’s Ancient World, pp. 125–127.

Footnote 76:

Knight’s Cyclopædia of Arts, &c.

Footnote 77:

Quarterly Review, May, 1852. Article on Roger de Coverley.

Footnote 78:

This is a corruption, we are inclined to think, of the word “layers;”
one of those provincial corruptions of the Queen’s English that get
stereotyped.

Footnote 79:

Buckland’s Bridgewater Treatise. pp. 351, 352.

Footnote 80:

A fossil bivalve, allied to the oyster, and very abundant in the
secondary strata.

Footnote 81:

Belemnite, from _belemnos_, a dart, and so called from its
arrow-headed shape.

Footnote 82:

Saurian, from _sauros_, a lizard, the name by which the great family
of lizards is designated.

Footnote 83:

From _ichthus_, a fish, and _sauros_, a lizard; so called from its
resemblance to both.

Footnote 84:

Heteroclite; _heteros_, another, and _klitos_, inclining; a word
applied to any thing or person deviating from common forms.

Footnote 85:

Very unlike the alligator, whose eyes are placed at a considerable
distance behind the nose.

Footnote 86:

From _pleiōn_, more, and _sauros_, a lizard; because it is more like a
lizard than the Ichthyosaurus.

Footnote 87:

Mantel’s Fossils of the British Museum, p. 341.

Footnote 88:

This formation is sometimes called the Jurassic system.

Footnote 89:

Lyell’s Manual of Elementary Geology, p. 12, ed. 1852.

Footnote 90:

“So vast an expanse!” Mr. Darwin traced coral reefs in the Pacific,
4,000 miles long and 600 broad. Between the coasts of Malabar and
Madagascar there is a chain of coral reefs, called the Maldives and
Laccadives, 480 miles long and 50 miles wide. On the east coast of
Australia there is an unbroken reef of 350 miles long; and between
Australia and Guinea, coral reefs extend 700 miles in length. Truly
the coral animals, like the “conies,” are a “feeble folk,” but their
habitations survive our proudest monuments.

Footnote 91:

Hugh Miller’s First Impressions, pp. 203, 204.

Footnote 92:

Brash is s Wiltshire word for short or brittle; and thus a
quick-tempered, irritable person, is said to have a _brashy_ temper.

Footnote 93:

Geology for Beginners (Weale’s Series), p. 147.

Footnote 94:

Juke’s Popular Geology, pp. 42–44.

Footnote 95:

From _krinos_, a lily, and _eidos_, like; lily-shaped animals of the
Radiated division, forming a link between the animal and vegetable
world.

Footnote 96:

From _trochos_, a wheel; wheel-shaped crinoideans.

Footnote 97:

From _pteron_, a wing, and _dactulos_, a finger; the wing-fingered
animal.

Footnote 98:

The term _Weald_ or _Wold_ is the old Saxon for our present _Wood_;
and now, altered by pronunciation, is found in connexion with many
words and names of places: _e.g. Waltham_ (Weald-ham), the wood house
or home; Walthamstow, the wood house store, and so on. Thus it is that
words are “fossil poetry.”

Footnote 99:

Alison’s description of South America, in History of Europe (Article,
South American Revolution); vol. viii.

Footnote 100:

“Our disposition is, and has been, not to multiply miracles after the
sort in which this has been done by many more _zealous_ than _wise_
friends of revelation. In all cases we allow the miracle without
question, which is distinctly claimed to be such in the Scriptures,
and where the circumstances clearly indicate that a miracle was
necessary,—we say ‘necessary,’ because we are persuaded that the
Almighty has almost invariably chosen to act through natural agencies,
and under the laws which he has imposed on nature, whenever they are
adequate to produce the required result. We believe it is one of the
beautiful peculiarities of the Bible, that it has none of those
gratuitous and barren wonders, which form the mass of the pretended
miracles which the various systems of false religion produce.... For
our own part, we do not wish to hear of small miracles, which leave us
doubtful whether there be any miracle at all. If we are to have
miracles, let them be decidedly miraculous, and let not our veneration
for the Divine character be offended by exhibitions of the Almighty,
as laying bare his holy arm to remove the small remaining difficulty
which theorists leave him to execute.”—_Dr. Kitto’s Biblical History
of Palestine._

Footnote 101:

We have a fine specimen before us which we brought from Demerara,
answering well to Gosse’s description of the iguana found in Jamaica.
“In the eastern parts of the island the great iguana (_Cyclura
lophoma_), with its _dorsal crest, like the teeth of a saw, running
all down its back_, may be seen lying out on the branches of the
trees, or playing bo-peep from a hole in the trunk.” It is considered
a great delicacy by many, but it never seemed Christian food to us,
and we never ventured to provoke our palate with a taste.

Footnote 102:

_Enaliosaurians_ are _sea_ lizards, such as those found in the Lias;
and _deinosaurians_ are _terrible_ lizards, such as those found in the
Wealden.

Footnote 103:

Ansted’s Ancient World, pp. 164–168.

Footnote 104:

Just published by Bohn, in his valuable “Scientific Library;” a marvel
of cheapness and value.

Footnote 105:

Since writing the above we have met with the following, which proves
that this origin of chalk is not so fabulous as some think it:—“Lieut.
Nelson, Mr. Dance, and others have shown, that the waste and débris
derived from coral reefs produces a substance exactly resembling
chalk. I can corroborate this assertion from my own observations, both
on some very white chalky limestones in Java and the neighbouring
islands, which I believe to be nothing else than raised fringing coral
reefs, and on the substance brought up by the lead over some hundreds
of miles in the Indian Archipelago, and along the north-east coast of
Australia, and the coral sea of Flinders,”—_Juke’s Physical Geology_,
p. 263.

Footnote 106:

We take the origin of the word Folkstone to mean, that that old town
was once built of the brick that may be made of the galt: it was the
folk’s-stone.

Footnote 107:

“The Religion of Geology,” &c., by E. Hitchcock, LL.D. &c. p. 70.

Footnote 108:

Mantell’s “Geological Excursions,” p. 145.

Footnote 109:

Richardson, p. 391.

Footnote 110:

_Under-borne_ rocks; _upo_, below, and _ginomai_, to be formed.

Footnote 111:

_Middle life_ period: _mesos_, middle, and _zoos_, life.

Footnote 112:

Recent-life period: _kainŏs_, recent, and _zoos_, life.

Footnote 113:

Juke’s Practical Geology, p. 265.

Footnote 114:

Lyell’s Manual of Geology, pp. 97, 98.

Footnote 115:

Ansted’s Geology, vol. ii. p. 14.

Footnote 116:

Even Hitchcock’s good book is sadly disfigured and damaged, by trying
to make geology prove too much. How can geology teach or suggest sin
and the resurrection?

Footnote 117:

British Quarterly, Feb. 1852.

Footnote 118:

Owen’s British Fossil Mammals and Birds, p. 255.

Footnote 119:

Mantell, pp. 477–479.

Footnote 120:

Mantell, p. 471.

Footnote 121:

The skeleton is not more than 150 years old, and is probably one of an
Indian who fell in war; and has been covered with carbonate of lime,
held in solution in some spring.

Footnote 122:

Hugh Miller’s “First Impressions of England and its People,” p. 362.

Footnote 123:

No sooner did geology give signs of being able to speak from her
subterranean abode, and say something new about the history of this
old world, than Dr. Smith was among the foremost of the geologists,
intent upon the interpretation of these mysterious, and at first
incoherent sounds. At times the sounds seemed unscriptural, but his
faith never failed; at other times it seemed in confirmation of
Scripture, and he was filled with delight. There were sepulchres older
than what he had accounted the era of death, and he must solve the
mystery. Mineralogy, to which from his youth he had given considerable
attention, became to him history more ancient than that of Moses, and
poetry more fascinating than that of Homer. His minerals became books
of wonderful tales; his fossils, before riddles of nature, the
pictures of things in ancient worlds. The earth was a land of
monuments, and the rock which before seemed nothing more than the
solid masonry of the foundation on which men might build their
dwellings, became the enduring chronicle of the millions of years in
which extinct ages had risen, flourished and decayed. From that time
he suffered no discovery of the geologists to escape his attention;
and every valuable book upon the subject in English, German, or
French, contributed its supplies to mitigate his insatiate craving
after further information.

Dr. Smith had another reason for devoting a large proportion of his
time to geological studies. The new science had something to say about
Holy Scripture. It threatened, as many understood its first ambiguous
words, to contradict the book of Genesis.