{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35408/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35408","id":"gutenberg_35408","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35408","summary":null,"tags":["Bible and geology","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Earth/Agricultural/Farming","Religion and science"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was\nproduced from images generously made available by The\nInternet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF GEOLOGY AND ITS CONNECTED SCIENCES.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: SECTION OF THE EARTH'S CRUST.]\n\n\n\n\n  THE RELIGION OF GEOLOGY AND ITS CONNECTED SCIENCES.\n\n\n  BY EDWARD HITCHCOCK, D. D., LL. D.,\n  PRESIDENT OF AMHERST COLLEGE, AND PROFESSOR OF NATURAL THEOLOGY\n  AND GEOLOGY.\n\n\n  \"Science has a foundation, and so has religion; let them unite\n  their foundations, and the basis will be broader, and they will\n  be two compartments of one great fabric reared to the glory of\n  God. Let the one be the outer and the other the inner court. In\n  the one, let all look, and admire, and adore; and in the other,\n  let those who have faith kneel, and pray, and praise. Let the\n  one be the sanctuary where human learning may present its richest\n  incense as an offering to God; and the other the holiest of all,\n  separated from it by a veil now rent in twain, and in which, on a\n  blood sprinkled mercy seat, we pour out the love of a reconciled\n  heart, and hear the oracles of the living God.\"--_M'Cosh._\n\n\n  EIGHTH THOUSAND.\n\n  BOSTON:\n  PHILLIPS, SAMPSON, AND COMPANY.\n  1854.\n\n\n\n\n  Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1851, by\n\n  PHILLIPS, SAMPSON, & CO.,\n\n  In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the District\n  of Massachusetts.\n\n\n  STEREOTYPED AT THE BOSTON STEREOTYPE FOUNDRY.\n\n\n\n\nTO MY BELOVED WIFE.\n\n\nBoth gratitude and affection prompt me to dedicate these lectures to you.\nTo your kindness and self-denying labors I have been mainly indebted for\nthe ability and leisure to give any successful attention to scientific\npursuits. Early should I have sunk under the pressure of feeble health,\nnervous despondency, poverty, and blighted hopes, had not your sympathies\nand cheering counsels sustained me. And during the last thirty years of\nprofessional labors, how little could I have done in the cause of science,\nhad you not, in a great measure, relieved me of the cares of a numerous\nfamily! Furthermore, while I have described scientific facts with the pen\nonly, how much more vividly have they been portrayed by your pencil! And\nit is peculiarly appropriate that your name should be associated with mine\nin any literary effort where the theme is geology; since your artistic\nskill has done more than my voice to render that science attractive to the\nyoung men whom I have instructed. I love especially to connect your name\nwith an effort to defend and illustrate that religion which I am sure is\ndearer to you than every thing else. I know that you would forbid this\npublic allusion to your labors and sacrifices, did I not send it forth to\nthe world before it meets your eye. But I am unwilling to lose this\nopportunity of bearing a testimony which both justice and affection urge\nme to give. In a world where much is said of female deception and\ninconstancy, I desire to testify that one man at least has placed implicit\nconfidence in woman, and has not been disappointed. Through many checkered\nscenes have we passed together, both on the land and the sea, at home and\nin foreign countries; and now the voyage of life is almost ended. The ties\nof earthly affection, which have so long united us in uninterrupted\nharmony and happiness, will soon be sundered. But there are ties which\ndeath cannot break; and we indulge the hope that by them we shall be\nlinked together and to the throne of God through eternal ages.\n\n  In life and in death I abide\n    Your affectionate husband,\n      EDWARD HITCHCOCK.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nMost of the following lectures were written as much as eight or ten years\nago, though additions and alterations have been made, from time to time,\nto adapt them to the progress of science. They were undertaken at the\nsuggestion of my friend, Rev. Henry Neill, then of Hatfield, now of Lenox.\nI had no definite intention as to the use to be made of the lectures; but\nhaving for many years turned my attention to the bearings of science, and\nespecially of geology, upon religion, I felt a desire to put upon paper\nthe final results of my examinations. I threw them into the lecture form,\nthat I might, if best, deliver them to the geological classes which I\nshould instruct in the college with which I am connected. This I have done\nfor many years, and also have used them in various places before lyceums.\nThey are at length published, from a conviction that something of the\nkind, from some quarter, is needed. Many of the thoughts, indeed, which,\nat the time they were put upon paper, were original, have since been\nbrought out by other writers. Yet enough of this description probably\nremain to expose me to severe criticism. I beg the intelligent Christian,\nhowever, before he condemns my views, to settle it in his mind what he can\nsubstitute for them that will be more honorable to religion. It is much\neasier to find fault with a mode of defending the truth than to invent a\nbetter method. We may not be pleased with certain views in vindication of\nreligion, and yet the alternative of rejecting them may be so much worse\nas to lead us at least to be silent. Would that Christian critics had\nalways kept this fact in mind when writing upon the views of geologists!\nThey would find often that they are straining at a gnat and must swallow a\ncamel.\n\nIf my views are erroneous, as exhibited in these lectures, I cannot plead\nthat they have been hastily adopted. Most of them, indeed, have been the\nsubjects of thought occasionally for thirty years. I hope, however, that\nall my suggestions will not be thought of equal importance in my own\nestimation; since some of them are merely hypothetical hints thrown out\nfor the consideration of abler minds.\n\nThis work does not exhibit quite so much of logical exactness as I could\nwish. But my leading object has been fully carried out, viz., to exhibit\nall the religious bearings of geology. Several of the lectures, however,\nhave been written as if independent of all the rest; and, therefore, the\nreader will find some leading thoughts repeated, but always in different\nconnections.\n\nAfter acknowledging that more than a quarter of a century has elapsed\nsince this subject first engaged my attention, it may be useless for me to\nask any indulgence from criticism. But really, I feel less prepared to\nwrite upon it than I did during the first five years in which I studied\nit. I have learnt that it is a most difficult subject. It requires, in\norder to master it, an acquaintance with three distinct branches of\nknowledge, not apt to go together. First, an acquaintance with geology in\nall its details, and with the general principles of zoology, botany, and\ncomparative anatomy; secondly, a knowledge of sacred hermeneutics, or the\nprinciples of interpreting the Scriptures; thirdly, a clear conception of\nthe principles of natural and revealed religion.\n\nAs examples of efforts made by men who were deficient in a knowledge of\nsome of these branches, I am compelled to quote a large proportion of the\nworks which, within the last thirty or forty years, have been written on\nthe religion of geology; especially on its connection with revealed\nreligion. I am happy to except such writers as Dr. J. Pye Smith, Dr.\nChalmers, Dr. Harris, Dr. Buckland, Professor Sedgwick, Professor Whewell,\nDr. King, Dr. Anderson, and Hugh Miller; for they, to a greater or less\nextent, acquainted themselves with all the subjects named above, before\nthey undertook to write. But a still larger number of authors, although\nmen of talents, and familiar, it may be, with the Bible and theology, had\nno accurate knowledge of geology. The results have been, first, that, by\nresorting to denunciation and charges of infidelity, to answer arguments\nfrom geology which they did not understand, they have excited unreasonable\nprejudices and alarm among common Christians respecting that science and\nits cultivators; secondly, they have awakened disgust, and even contempt,\namong scientific men, especially those of sceptical tendencies, who have\ninferred that a cause which resorts to such defences must be very weak.\nThey have felt very much as a good Greek scholar would, who should read a\nsevere critique upon the style of Isocrates, or Demosthenes, and, before\nhe had finished the review, should discover internal evidence that the\nwriter had never learnt the Greek alphabet.\n\nOn the other hand, prejudices and disgust equally strong have been\nproduced in the mind of many a man well versed in theology and biblical\nexegesis by some productions of scientific men upon the religious bearings\nof geology, because they advanced principles which the merest tyro in\ndivinity would know to be false and fatal to religion, and which they\nadvocated only because they had never studied the Bible or theology.\n\nAnd here I would remark that it does not follow, because a man is eminent\nin geology, that his opinion is of any value upon the religion of geology.\nFor the two subjects are quite distinct, and a man may be a Coryphaeus in\nthe principles of geology, who is an ignoramus in its religious\napplications. Indeed, many of the ablest writers upon geology take the\nground that its religious bearings do not belong to the science.\n\nThese statements, instead of pleading my apology for the following work,\nmay only show my temerity and vanity. Nevertheless, they afford me an\nopportunity of calling the attention of the religious public to the great\ninadequacy of the means now possessed of acquiring a knowledge of the\ndifferent branches of natural science. I refer especially to comparative\nanatomy, zoology, botany, and geology, in our literary and theological\nseminaries. The latter, so far as I know, do not pretend to give any\ninstruction in these branches. And in our colleges that instruction is\nconfined almost entirely to a few brief courses of lectures; often so few\nthat the students scarcely find out how ignorant they are of the subjects;\nand hence those who are expecting to enter the sacred ministry vainly\nimagine that, at almost any period of their future course, they can, in a\nfew weeks, become sufficiently acquainted with physical science to meet\nand refute the sceptic. In all our seminaries, however, abundant provision\nis made, as it ought to be, for the study of intellectual philosophy and\nbiblical interpretation.\n\nSo well satisfied are two of the most enlightened and efficient Christian\ndenominations in Great Britain--the Congregationalists and the Scottish\nFree Church--of the need of more extensive acquaintance with the natural\nsciences in ministers of the gospel, that they have attached a\nprofessorship of natural history to their theological seminaries. That in\nthe New College in Edinburgh is filled by the venerable Dr. Fleming; that\nin the New College in London by Dr. Lankester. From a syllabus of Dr.\nFleming's course of lectures, which he put into my hands last summer, I\nperceive that it differs little from the instruction in natural science in\nthe colleges of our country. This being the case, it strikes me that this\nis not exactly the professorship that is needed in the theological\nseminaries of our country. But they do need, it seems to me,\nprofessorships of natural theology, to be filled by men who are\npractically familiar with the natural sciences. If any such chairs exist\nin these seminaries, I do not know it. They are amply provided with\ninstruction in the metaphysics of theology, hermeneutics, and\necclesiastical history; and I should be sorry to see these departments\nless amply provided for. But here is the wide field of natural theology,\nlarge enough for several professorships, which finds no place, save a nook\nin the chair of dogmatics. This might have answered well enough when the\nbattle-field with scepticism lay in the region of metaphysics, or history,\nor biblical interpretation. But the enemy have, within a few years past,\nintrenched themselves within the dominions of natural science; and there,\nfor a long time to come, must be the tug of the war. And since they have\nsubstituted skeletons, and trees, and stones, as weapons, in the place of\nabstractions, so must Christians do, if they would not be defeated. Let me\nrefer to a few examples to show how inadequately furnished the minister\nmust be for such a contest, who has used only the means of instruction\nprovided in our existing seminaries, literary and theological.\n\nTake the leading points discussed in the following lectures. How can a man\nwho has heard only a brief and hurried course of thirty lectures on\nchemistry, twenty on anatomy and physiology, fifteen upon zoology, ten\nupon botany, ten upon mineralogy, and twenty upon geology, at the college,\nwith no additional instruction at the theological seminary,--how can he\njudge correctly of points and reasoning difficult to be mastered by adepts\nin these sciences? How certain to be worsted in an argument with an\naccomplished naturalist who is a sceptic!\n\nSuppose the sceptic takes the ground advocated by Oken and the author of\nthe \"Vestiges.\" Let the clergyman, whom I have supposed, read the works of\nMiller and Sedgwick in reply to the development hypothesis, and see\nwhether he can even understand their arguments without a more careful\nstudy of the sciences on which they rest.\n\nA subject of no small importance in its religious bearings has recently\nexcited a good deal of sharp discussion in this country. I refer to the\nquestions of the specific unity and unity of origin of the human race. To\na person who has never studied the subject, it seems a matter easy to\nsettle; yet, in fact, it demands extensive research even to understand.\nAnd we have seen one of the most accomplished zoologists and anatomists of\nthe present age take ground on these points in opposition to the almost\nuniversal opinion. The result has been that not a few talented replies to\nhis arguments have appeared, mostly, I believe, from ministers. I have not\nseen them all. But in respect to those which I have read it has seemed to\nme, without having the least sympathy with the views of Professor Agassiz,\nthat the authors have not the most remote conception of the principal\narguments on which he relies, derived from zoology and comparative\nanatomy; nor do I believe that they can understand and appreciate them\nuntil they have studied those sciences.[1]\n\nAlthough I fear that theologians are not aware of the fact, yet probably\nthe doctrines of materialism are more widely embraced at this day than\nalmost any other religious error. But in which of our schools, save the\nmedical, is there any instruction given in physiology and zoology, that\nwill prepare a man to make the least headway against such delusions? The\narguments by which materialism is defended are among the most subtle in\nthe whole range of theology and natural science; and without a knowledge\nof the latter they can neither be appreciated nor refuted. The mere\nmetaphysical abstractions by which they are usually met excite only the\ncontempt of the acute physiologist who is a materialist.\n\nI might refer, in this connection, to the whole subject of pantheism, in\nits chameleon forms. The rhapsodies of spiritual pantheism must, indeed,\nbe met by metaphysics equally transcendental. But, after all, it is from\nbiology that the pantheist derives his choicest weapons. He appeals, also,\nto astronomy, zoology, and geology; nor is it the superficial naturalist\nthat can show how hollow is the foundation on which he rests.\n\nThese are only a few examples of the points of physical science on which\nscepticism at this moment has batteries erected with which to assail\nspiritual religion. Will the minister but slightly familiar with the\nground chosen by the enemy be able not only to silence his guns, but, as\nevery able defender of the truth ought to do, to turn them against its\nfoes? Surely it needs a professor of natural theology in our theological\nseminaries, (and if such chairs existed in our colleges they would be\nserviceable,) to teach those who expect to be officers in the sacramental\nhost how to carry on the holy war. I do not see how much more time can be\ngiven to the natural sciences in our colleges than is usually done,\nwithout encroaching upon other indispensable branches. If, therefore,\nprovision be not made for studying the religious bearings of these\nsciences in our theological seminaries, our youthful evangelists must go\nforth to their work without the ability to vindicate the cause of religion\nagainst the assaults of the sceptical naturalist. Would not, then, those\nwealthy and benevolent individuals be great public benefactors, who should\nendow professorships of natural religion in our schools of the prophets?\n\nBut I must not pursue this subject farther. I commit my work to the public\nwith no raised expectations of its welcome reception. I have a high\nopinion of the enlightened candor of, the educated classes of our country,\nespecially those in the ministry. Yet I know that many prejudices exist\nagainst science in its connections with religion. And, therefore, my only\nhope of any measure of success in this effort rests upon the divine\nblessing. But if the work be not pleasing to Infinite Wisdom and\nBenevolence, why should I desire for it an ephemeral success among men?\n\nAMHERST COLLEGE, May 1, 1851.\n\n\n\n\nEXPLANATION OF THE FRONTISPIECE.\n\n\nThis section of the earth's crust is intended to bring under the eye the\nleading features of geology.\n\n\n1. _The relative Position of the Stratified and the Unstratified Rocks._\n\nThe unstratified rocks, viz., granite, sienite, porphyry, trap, and lava,\nare represented as lying beneath the stratified class, for the most part,\nyet piercing through them in the centre of the section, and by several\ndikes or veins, through which masses have been protruded to the surface.\nThe unstratified class are all colored red, to indicate their igneous\norigin. Granite seems to have been first melted and protruded, and it\ncontinued to be pushed upward till the close of the secondary period of\nthe stratified rocks, as is shown by the vein of granite on the section.\nSienite and porphyry seem to have been next thrust up, from below the\ngranite; next, the varieties of trap were protruded from beneath the\nporphyry; and last, the lava, which still continues to be poured out upon\nthe surface from beneath all the rest.\n\n\n2. _The Stratified Rocks._\n\nThe stratified rocks represented on both flanks of the granite peak in the\nsection, appear to have been deposited from water, and subsequently more\nor less lifted up, fractured, and bent. An attempt is made, on the right\nhand side of the section, to exhibit the foldings and inclination of the\nstrata. The lowest are bent the most, and their dip is the greatest; and,\nas a general fact, there is a gradual approach to horizontality as we rise\non the scale.\n\n\n3. _The right hand side of the Section._\n\nThe strata on the right hand are divided into five classes: first and\nlowest, the _crystalline_, or _primary_, destitute of organic remains, and\nprobably metamorphosed from a sedimentary to a crystalline state, by the\naction of subjacent heat. 2. The _palaeozoic class_, or those containing\nthe earliest types of animals and plants, and of vast thickness, mostly\ndeposited in the ocean. 3. _The secondary class_, reaching from the top of\nthe lower new red or Permian system, to the top of the chalk. 4. _The\ntertiary strata_, partially consolidated, and differing entirely from the\nrocks below by their organic contents. 5. _Alluvium_, or strata now in a\ncourse of deposition. This classification is sometimes convenient, and\nfrequently used by geologists.\n\n\n4. _The left hand Side._\n\nOn the left hand side of the section the strata are so divided as to\ncorrespond to the six great groups of animals and plants that have\nappeared on the globe. The names attached to the groups are derived from\n[Greek: zoos] (_vivus_, living,) with the Greek numerals prefixed. The\nlowest group, being destitute of organic remains, is called _azoic_, (from\n[Greek: a] privitive and [Greek: zoos],) that is, wanting in the traces of\nlife; and corresponds to the crystalline group on the other side of the\nsection, embracing gneiss, mica slate, limestone, and clay slate, of\nunknown thickness. The _protozoic group_ corresponds to the palaeozoic of\nthe right hand side, and embraces lower and upper Silurian, Devonian, or\nold red sandstone, the carboniferous group, and the Permian, or lower new\nred; the whole in Great Britain not less than thirty-three thousand feet\nthick. The _deutozoic group_ consists only of the triassic, or upper new\nred sandstone, and is only nine hundred feet thick, but marks a distinct\nperiod of life. The _tritozoic_ embraces the lias and oolite, with the\nWealden, and is three thousand six hundred feet thick. The _tetrazoic_\nconsists of the chalk and green sand, one thousand five hundred feet\nthick. The _pentezoic_ embraces the tertiary strata of the thickness of\ntwo thousand feet. The _hectozoic_ is confined to the modern deposits,\nonly a few hundred feet thick, but entombing all the existing species of\nanimals.\n\n\n5. _Characteristic Organic Remains._\n\nHad space permitted, I should have put upon the section a reference to the\nmost characteristic and peculiar mineral, animal, or plant, in the\ndifferent groups. Thus the azoic group is _crystalliferous_, or\ncrystal-bearing. The lower or Silurian part of the protozoic group is\n_brachiopodiferous_, _trilobiferous_, _polypiferous_, and\n_cephalopodiferous_; that is, abounding in brachiopod and cephalopod\nshells; in polypifers, or corals; and in trilobites, a family of\ncrustaceans. The middle part, or the Devonian, is _thaumichthiferous_, or\ncontaining remarkable fish. The upper part, or the coal measures, is\n_carboniferous_; that is, abounding in coal. _The deutozoic group_ is\n_ichniferous_, or track-bearing, from the multitude of its fossil\nfootmarks. The _tritozoic group_ is _reptiliferous_, or reptile-bearing,\nfrom the extraordinary lizards which abound in it. The _tetrazoic_ is\n_foraminiferous_, from the abundance of coral animalcula, called\nforaminifera, or polythalmia, which it contains. The _pentezoic_ is\n_mammaliferous_, because it contains the remains of mammalia, or\nquadrupeds. The _hectozoic_ is _homoniferous_, or man-bearing, because it\nembraces human remains.\n\nThere is no one place on earth where all the facts exhibited on this\nsection are presented before us together. Yet all the facts occur\nsomewhere, and this section merely brings them into systematic\narrangement.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                                Page\n\n  LECTURE I.\n    REVELATION ILLUSTRATED BY SCIENCE,                             1\n\n  LECTURE II.\n    THE EPOCH OF THE EARTH'S CREATION UNREVEALED,                 33\n\n  LECTURE III.\n    DEATH A UNIVERSAL LAW OF ORGANIC BEINGS ON THIS GLOBE\n    FROM THE BEGINNING,                                           71\n\n  LECTURE IV.\n    THE NOACHIAN DELUGE COMPARED WITH THE GEOLOGICAL DELUGES,    112\n\n  LECTURE V.\n    THE WORLD'S SUPPOSED ETERNITY,                               146\n\n  LECTURE VI.\n    GEOLOGICAL PROOFS OF THE DIVINE BENEVOLENCE,                 179\n\n  LECTURE VII.\n    DIVINE BENEVOLENCE AS EXHIBITED IN A FALLEN WORLD,           219\n\n  LECTURE VIII.\n    UNITY OF THE DIVINE PLAN AND OPERATION IN ALL AGES OF THE\n    WORLD'S HISTORY,                                             252\n\n  LECTURE IX.\n    THE HYPOTHESIS OF CREATION BY LAW,                           285\n\n  LECTURE X.\n    SPECIAL AND MIRACULOUS PROVIDENCE,                           327\n\n  LECTURE XI.\n    THE FUTURE CONDITION AND DESTINY OF THE EARTH,               370\n\n  LECTURE XII.\n    THE TELEGRAPHIC SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE,                      409\n\n  LECTURE XIII.\n    THE VAST PLANS OF JEHOVAH,                                   445\n\n  LECTURE XIV.\n    SCIENTIFIC TRUTH, RIGHTLY APPLIED, IS RELIGIOUS TRUTH,       476\n\n\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF GEOLOGY.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE I.\n\nREVELATION ILLUSTRATED BY SCIENCE.\n\n\nThe leading object, which I propose in the course of lectures which I now\ncommence, is to develop the relations between geology and religion. This\ncannot be done fully and fairly, however, without exhibiting also many of\nthe religious bearings of several other sciences. I shall, therefore, feel\njustified in drawing illustrations and arguments from any department of\nhuman knowledge which may afford them. I place geology first and most\nconspicuous on the list, because I know of no other branch of physical\nscience so prolific in its religious applications.\n\nIn treating of this subject, I shall first exhibit the relations between\nscience and revealed religion, and afterwards between science and natural\nreligion; though in a few cases these two great branches cannot be kept\nentirely distinct.\n\nGeology is usually regarded as having only an unfavorable bearing upon\nrevealed religion; and writers are generally satisfied if they can\nreconcile apparent discrepancies. But I regard this as an unfair\nrepresentation; for if geology, or any other science, proves to us that\nwe have not fairly understood the meaning of any passage of Scripture, it\nmerely illustrates, but does not oppose, revelation.\n\nA fundamental principle of Protestant Christianity is, that the Scriptures\nof the Old and New Testaments are the only infallible standard of\nreligious truth; and I desire to hold up this principle prominently at the\noutset, as one to which I cordially subscribe. The mass of evidence in\nfavor of the divine inspiration of the Bible is too great to be set aside\nby any thing short of scientific demonstration. Were the Scriptures to\nteach that the whole is not equal to its parts, the mind could not,\nindeed, believe it. But if it taught a truth which was only contrary to\nthe probable deductions of science, science, I say, must yield to\nScripture; for it would be more reasonable to doubt the probabilities of a\nsingle science, than the various and most satisfactory evidence on which\nrevelation rests. I do not believe that even the probabilities of any\nscience are in collision with Scripture. But the supposition is made to\nshow how strong are my convictions of the evidence and paramount authority\nof the Bible.\n\nBut does it follow, from these positions, that science can throw no light\nupon the truths of Scripture? By no means; and it will be my leading\nobject, in this lecture, to show how this may be done by science in\ngeneral, and by geology in particular.\n\nIn discussing this subject, we ought to bear in mind the object of\nscience, and the object of revelation. And by the term science I refer\nmainly to physical science. Its grand aim is, by an induction from facts,\nto discover the laws by which the material universe is governed. Those\nlaws do, indeed, lead the mind almost necessarily to their divine Author.\nBut this is rather the incidental than the direct result of scientific\ninvestigations, and belongs rather to natural theology than to natural\nscience.\n\nOn the other hand, the exclusive object of revelation is of a moral\ncharacter. It is a development of the divine character and the divine\ngovernment; especially that part of it which discloses a plan for the\nreconciliation of a lost and wicked world to the favor of God by the death\nof his Son. Every other subject mentioned in Scripture is incidental, and\nwould not have been noticed had it not some connection with the plan of\nsalvation. The creation of the world and the Noachian deluge, for\ninstance, are intimately related to the divine character and government,\nand therefore they are described; and the same is true of the various\nphenomena of nature which are touched upon in the Bible.\n\nIf these positions be correct, it follows, that as we ought not to expect\nto find the doctrines of religion in treatises on science, so it is\nunreasonable to look for the principles of philosophy in the Bible. Nay,\nwe ought not to expect to find the terms used by the Sacred writers\nemployed in their strict scientific sense, but in their popular\nacceptation. Indeed, as the Scriptures were generally addressed to men in\nthe earliest and most simple states of society, with very limited views of\nthe extent of creation, we ought to suppose that, in all cases where no\nnew fact is revealed, the language was adapted to the narrow ideas which\nthen prevailed. When, for instance, the sacred writers speak of the rising\nand setting of the sun, we cannot suppose they used language with\nastronomical correctness, but only according to appearances. Hence we\nought not to be very confident, that when they employ the term _earth_,\nthey meant that spherical, vast globe which astronomy proves the earth to\nbe, but rather that part of it which was inhabited, which was all the idea\nthat entered into the mind of a Jew. God might, indeed, have revealed new\nscientific as well as religious truth. But there is no evidence that in\nthis way he has anticipated a single modern discovery. This would have\nbeen turning aside from the much more important object he had in view,\nviz., to teach the world religious truth. Such being the case, the\nlanguage employed to describe natural phenomena must have been adapted to\nthe state of knowledge among the people to whom the Scriptures were\naddressed.\n\nAnother inference from these premises is, that there may be an apparent\ncontradiction between the statements of science and revelation. Revelation\nmay describe phenomena according to apparent truth, as when it speaks of\nthe rising and setting of the sun, and the immobility of the earth; but\nscience describes the same according to the actual truth, as when it gives\na real motion to the earth, and only an apparent motion to the heavens.\nHad the language of revelation been scientifically accurate, it would have\ndefeated the object for which the Scriptures were given; for it must have\nanticipated scientific discovery, and therefore have been unintelligible\nto those ignorant of such discoveries. Or if these had been explained by\ninspiration, the Bible would have become a text-book in natural science,\nrather than a guide to eternal life.\n\nThe final conclusion from these principles is, that since science and\nrevelation treat of the same subjects only incidentally, we ought only to\nexpect that the facts of science, rightly understood, should not\ncontradict the statements of revelation, correctly interpreted. Apparent\ndiscrepancies there may be; and it would not be strange, if for a time\nthey should seem to be real; either because science has not fully and\naccurately disclosed the facts, or the Bible is not correctly\ninterpreted; but if both records are from God, there can be no real\ncontradiction between them. But, on the other hand, we have no reason to\nexpect any remarkable coincidences, because the general subject and object\nof the two records are so unlike. Should such coincidences occur, however,\nthey will render it less probable that any apparent disagreement is real.\n\nIf the positions taken in these preliminary remarks be correct, it will\nfollow, that in judging of the agreement or disagreement between\nrevelation and science, it is important, in the first place, that we\nrightly understand the Bible; and, in the second place, that we carefully\nascertain what are the settled and demonstrated principles of science. An\nexamination of these points will constitute the remainder of this lecture.\n\nThe meaning of the Scriptures is to be determined in the same way as the\nmeaning of any other book written in similar circumstances. Its\ninspiration puts no bar in the way of the most rigid application of the\nrules of criticism, nor renders it unnecessary to seek for light in\nwhatever quarter it can be obtained. The rules of grammatical and\nrhetorical construction, the study of contemporary writers, a knowledge of\nthe history, customs, opinions, and prejudices of the times, and other\ncircumstances that need not be mentioned, become important means of\nattaining the true _usus loquendi_, or principle of interpretation. But I\npass by all these on the present occasion, because no one doubts their\nimportance in rightly understanding the Bible. I maintain that scientific\ndiscoveries furnish us with another means of its correct interpretation,\nwhere it describes natural phenomena. And in this position we shall not\nprobably find an entire unanimity of opinion. Let us, therefore, proceed\nto examine its truth.\n\nIt will not be denied that modern science has corrected the opinions of\nmen in regard to very many natural phenomena. The same term that conveyed\none idea to an ancient reader, or hearer, of the Bible, often conveys an\nopposite meaning to a modern ear. And yet that term may be very proper to\nuse in modern times, if understood to express only apparent, and not real\ntruth. The Jew understood it to mean the latter; and it would seem as if\nwe might employ modern scientific discovery to enable us to decide in\nwhich sense the Bible did use the term. For if we admit the Jew to have\nbeen correct in his interpretation, then we bring revelation into direct\ncollision with the demonstrations of physics.\n\nBut facts are vastly more satisfactory in deciding this question than\nreasoning, and I shall now proceed to adduce some examples in which modern\nscientific discovery has thrown light upon the meaning of the Bible.\n\nFor one or two examples I appeal to chemistry. In the book of Proverbs,\n(chap. 25, v. 20,) we find it said, that _as vinegar upon nitre, so is he\nthat singeth songs to a heavy heart_. We should expect from this statement\nthat when we put vinegar upon what we call nitre, it would produce some\ncommotion analogous to the excitement of song-singing. But we should try\nthe experiment in vain; for no effect whatever would be produced. Again,\nit is said by the prophet Jeremiah, (chap. 2, v. 22,) _Though thou wash\nthee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked\nbefore me, saith the Lord._ Here, too, we should expect that the use of\nthe nitre would increase the purifying power of the soap; but the\nexperiment would prove rather the reverse. The chemist, however, informs\nus that there is a substance, viz., the _carbonate of soda_, which, if\nsubstituted for the nitre, would effervesce with vinegar, and aid the\npurifying power of soap, and thus strikingly illustrate the thought both\nof Solomon and Jeremiah. And on recurring to the original, we find that\n[Hebrew] (nether, _nitrum_, _natrum_) does not necessarily mean the salt\nwhich we call nitre, but rather a fossil alkali, the _natron_ of the\nancients, and the carbonate of soda of the moderns.\n\nIt is probably the prevailing opinion among intelligent Christians at this\ntime, and has been the opinion of many commentators, that when Peter\ndescribes the future destruction of the world, he means that its solid\nsubstance, and indeed that of the whole material universe, will be utterly\nconsumed or annihilated by fire. This opinion rests upon the common belief\nthat such is the effect of combustion. But chemistry informs us, that no\ncase of combustion, how fiercely soever the fire may rage, annihilates the\nleast particle of matter; and that fire only changes the form of\nsubstances. Nay, there is no reason whatever to suppose that one particle\nof matter has been annihilated since the world began. The chemist moreover\nasserts that all the solid parts of the globe have already undergone\ncombustion, and that although heat may melt them, it cannot burn them. Nor\nis there any thing upon or within the earth capable of combustion, but\nvegetables, and animals, and a few gases. Has Peter, then, made a mistake\nbecause he did not understand modern chemistry? We have only to examine\nhis language carefully, as it seems to me, in order to be satisfied that\nhe means only, that whatsoever upon, or within, the earth, is combustible,\nwill be burned up at the final conflagration; and that the whole globe,\nthe _elements_, _will melt with fervent heat_. He nowhere asserts, or\nimplies, that one particle of matter will be annihilated by that\ncatastrophe. Thus science, instead of proving his statements to be\nerroneous, only enables us more correctly to understand them.\n\nScarcely any truth seems more clearly taught in the Bible than the future\nresurrection of the body. Yet this doctrine has always been met by a most\nformidable objection. It is said that the body laid in the grave is ere\nlong decomposed into its elements, which are scattered over the face of\nthe earth, and enter into new combinations, even forming a part of other\nhuman bodies. Hence not even Omnipotence can raise from the grave the\nidentical body laid there, because the particles may enter successively\ninto a multitude of other human bodies. I am not aware that any successful\nreply has ever been given to this objection, until chemistry and natural\nhistory taught us the true nature of bodily identity; and until recently\nthe objector has felt sure that he had triumphed. But these sciences teach\nus that the identity of the body consists, not in a sameness of particles,\nbut in the same kinds of elementary matter, combined in the same\nproportion, and having the same form and structure. Hence it is not\nnecessary that the resurrection body should contain a single particle of\nthe matter laid in the grave, in order to be the same body; which it will\nbe if it consist of the same kinds of matter combined in the same\nproportions, and has the same form and structure. For the particles of our\nbodies are often totally changed during our lives; yet no one imagines\nthat the old man has not the same body as in infancy.[2] What but the\nprinciples of science could have thus vindicated a precious doctrine of\nrevelation?\n\nIn the description which Paul gives of the spiritual body, a\nnaturalist,--and I fancy no one but a naturalist,--will discover its\nspecific identity. By this I mean that it will possess peculiarities that\ndistinguish it from every thing else, but which are so closely related to\nthe characteristics of the natural body in this world, from which it was\nderived, that one acquainted with the latter would recognize the former.\nHence the Christian's friends in another world may be recognized by him\nfrom their external characters, just as we identify the plants and animals\nof spring with those that seemed to perish in the preceding autumn. There\nis neither time nor room for the proof of this exegesis, which is founded\nchiefly upon the principles of natural history; but for their elucidation,\nI must refer to another place.[3]\n\nI take my next example from meteorology. It was the opinion of the\nancients that the earth, at a certain height, was surrounded by a\ntransparent hollow sphere of solid matter, which they called the\nfirmament. When rain descended, they supposed it was through windows, or\nholes, made in this crystalline curtain suspended in mid heaven. To these\nnotions the language of the Bible is frequently conformed. In the account\nof the creation, in Genesis, we have a description of the formation of\nthis firmament, and how it divided the waters below it, viz., the ocean,\nlakes, and rivers, from the waters above it, viz., the clouds. Again, in\nthe account of the deluge, the windows of heaven are said to have been\nopened. But it is hardly necessary to say, that meteorology has shown\nthat no such solid firmament exists over our heads; that, in fact, nothing\nbut one homogeneous, transparent atmosphere encloses the earth, in which\nthe clouds float at different altitudes at different times. Are we, then,\nto suppose that the sacred writers meant to teach as certain truth, the\nfiction of a solid firmament; or that on this subject they conformed their\nlanguage to the prevailing belief, because it was not their object to\nteach philosophy, meaning neither to assert nor to deny the existence of a\nsolid firmament, but using language that was optically, although not\nphysically, correct, and which, therefore, conformed to the general\nbelief? It is doubtful whether any thing but scientific discovery could\nenable us to decide this question. But since it is certain that the solid\nfirmament does not exist, we must admit that the Bible did not intend to\nteach its existence, or allow it to teach a falsehood; and since we know\nthat it does often speak, in natural things, according to apparent, and\nnot real truth, it is most reasonable to give such a construction to its\nlanguage in the present instance.\n\nBut the most decisive example I have to give on this subject is derived\nfrom astronomy. Until the time of Copernicus, no opinion respecting\nnatural phenomena was thought more firmly established, than that the earth\nis fixed immovably in the centre of the universe, and that the heavenly\nbodies move diurnally around it. To sustain this view, the most decided\nlanguage of Scripture could be quoted. God is there said to have\n_established the foundations of the earth, so that they could not be\nremoved forever_; and the sacred writers expressly declare that the sun\nand other heavenly bodies _arise and set_, and nowhere allude to any\nproper motion in the earth. And those statements corresponded exactly to\nthe testimony of the senses. Men felt the earth to be immovably firm\nunder their feet, and when they looked up, they saw the heavenly bodies\nin motion. What bold impiety, therefore, did it seem, even to men of\nliberal and enlightened minds, for any one to rise up and assert that all\nthis testimony of the Bible and of the senses was to be set aside! It is\neasy to conceive with what strong jealousy the friends of the Bible would\nlook upon the new science which was thus arraying itself in bold defiance\nof inspiration, and how its votaries would be branded as infidels in\ndisguise. We need not resort to Catholic intolerance to explain how it\nwas, that the new doctrine of the earth's motion should be denounced as\nthe most fatal heresy, as alike contrary to Scripture and sound\nphilosophy, and that even the venerable Galileo should be forced to recant\nit upon his knees. What though the astronomer stood ready with his\ndiagrams and formulas to demonstrate the motion of the earth; who would\ncalmly and impartially examine the claims of a scientific discovery,\nwhich, by its very announcement, threw discredit upon the Bible and the\nsenses, and contradicted the unanimous opinion of the wise and good,--of\nall mankind, indeed,--through all past centuries? Rather would the\ndistinguished theologians of the day set their ingenuity at work to frame\nan argument in opposition to the dangerous neology, that should fall upon\nit like an avalanche, and grind it to powder. And to show you how firm and\nirresistible such an argument would seem, we need no longer tax the\nimagination; for Francis Turretin, a distinguished Protestant professor of\ntheology, whose writings have even to the present day sustained no mean\nreputation, has left us an argument on the subject, compacted and arranged\naccording to the nicest rules of logic, and which he supposed would stand\nunrefuted as long as the authority of the Bible should be regarded among\nmen. He propounds the inquiry, \"Do the sun and moon move in the heavens\nand revolve around the earth, while the earth remains at rest?\" This he\naffirms, \"in opposition to certain philosophers,\" and sustains his\nposition by the following arguments: \"First. The sun is said [in\nScripture] to move in the heavens, and to rise and set. (Ps. 19, v. 5.)\nThe sun is _as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a\nstrong man to run a race_. (Ps. 104, v. 19.) _The sun knoweth his going\ndown._ (Eccles. 1, v. 5.) _The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down._\nSecondly. The sun, by a miracle, stood still in the time of Joshua.\n(Joshua, ch. 10, v. 12, 13, 14,) and by a miracle it went back in the time\nof Hezekiah. (Isa. ch. 38, v. 8.) Thirdly. The earth is said to be _fixed\nimmovably_. (Ps. 93, v. 1.) _The world also is established, that it cannot\nbe moved._ (Ps. 104, v. 5.) _Who laid the foundations of the earth, that\nit should not be removed forever._ (Ps. 119, v. 90, 91.) _Thou hast\nestablished the earth, and it abideth. They continue this day according to\nthine ordinances._ Fourthly. Neither could birds, which often fly off\nthrough an hour's circuit, be able to return to their nests; for in the\nmean time the earth would move four hundred and fifty of our miles.\nFifthly. Whatever flies or is suspended in the air ought [by this theory]\nto move from west to east; but this is proved not to be true from birds,\narrows shot forth, atoms made manifest in the sun, and down floating in\nthe atmosphere.\"\n\nIf it be replied to this reasoning that the Scripture, in natural things,\nspeaks according to the common opinion, Turretin answers, \"First, that the\nspirit of God best understands natural things; secondly, that, in giving\ninstruction in religion, he meant these things should be used, not abused;\nthirdly, that he is not the author of any error; fourthly, neither is he\nto be corrected on this pretence by our blind reason.\"\n\nIf it be replied that birds, the air, and all things are moved with the\nearth, he answers, \"First, that this is a mere fiction, since air is a\nfluid body; and secondly, if so, by what force would birds be able to go\nfrom east to west.\"--_Compendium Theologicae Didactico-Elencticae_,\n(Amsterdam, 1695.)\n\nIn the present state of knowledge we may smile at some of these arguments;\nbut to men who had been taught to believe, as in a self-evident principle,\nthat the earth was immovable and the heavenly bodies in motion, the most\nof them must have been entirely satisfactory; and especially must the\nScriptures have seemed in _point blank_ opposition to the astronomical\nheresy. What, then, has so completely annihilated this argument, that now\nthe merest schoolboy would be ashamed to advocate it? The clear\ndemonstrations of science have done it. Not only has the motion of the\nearth been established, but it has been made equally obvious that this\ntruth is in entire harmony with the language of Scripture; so that neither\nthe infidel nor the Christian ever suspect, on this ground, any collision\nbetween the two records. So soon as the philologist perceived that there\nwas no escape from the astronomical demonstration, he was led to reexamine\nhis interpretation of Scripture, and found that the whole difficulty lay\nin his assuming that the sacred writers intended to teach scientific\ninstead of popular truth. Only admitting that they spoke of astronomical\nphenomena, according to appearances and in conformity to common opinion,\nand their language became perfectly proper. It conveyed no error, and is\nin fact as well adapted now as ever to the common intercourse of life.\nYet, in consequence of the scientific discovery, that language conveys\nquite a different meaning to our minds from what it did to those who\nsupposed it to teach a scientific truth. Hence it strikingly illustrates\nthe value of scientific discovery in enabling us rightly to understand the\nBible.\n\nIs it necessary to quote any more examples to establish the principle that\nscientific discovery is one of the means which the philologist should\nemploy in the interpretation of Scripture? And if the principle has been\nfound of service in chemistry, meteorology, and astronomy, why should it\nbe neglected in the case of geology? Why should not this science also,\nwhich has probably more important religious bearings than any other, be\nappealed to in illustration of the meaning of Scripture, when phenomena\nare described of which geology takes cognizance? I know that some will\nreply, that the principles of geology are yet too unsettled to be allowed\nto modify the interpretation of the Bible. This brings me to the second\npart of my subject, in which I am to inquire whether the principles of\nphysical science, and of geology in particular, are so far settled that we\ncan feel ourselves upon firm ground as we compare them with the principles\nof revelation.\n\nBefore proceeding to this part of the subject, however, I must pause a\nmoment, in order to point out another mode, in which science may\ncontribute to elucidate Scripture. In the way just described, it may\nenable the interpreter more correctly to understand the language, but it\nmay also give a fuller illustration to the sentiments of the Bible.\nRevelation, for instance, represents God as benevolent. Now, if we can\nderive from the records of geology striking and hitherto unthought-of\nmanifestations of this attribute, we shall make the doctrine of Scripture\nmore impressive; or, if we appeal to the numerous changes which the earth\nhas undergone, and the vast periods which they have occupied, we find that\nthe unsearchableness of divine wisdom, and the vastness of the divine\nplans, are brought more vividly before the mind, and task its power of\ncomprehension more than illustrations from any other quarter. In short,\nthe principles of religion that derive important elucidation from science,\nand especially from geology, are very numerous, as I hope to show in\nsubsequent lectures. But I now return to the inquiry, whether the\nprinciples of science, and especially of geology, are so well settled that\nwe can employ them in this manner.\n\nAs to the more mathematical sciences, there will be no one to doubt but\nsome of their principles must be admitted as infallible truth; for our\nminds are so constituted that they are incapable of resisting a fair\npresentation of mathematical demonstration. Now, there is scarcely any\nphysical science that is not based more or less upon mathematical truth;\nand as to the facts in those sciences, some of them are so multiplied, and\nspeak so uniformly the same language, that we doubt them no more than we\ndo a mathematical demonstration. Other classes of facts are less decided;\nand in some cases they are so insulated as to be regarded as anomalies, to\nbe set aside until better understood. The same grades of certainty exist\nin respect to inferences from the facts of science. Some theories are\nscarcely less doubtful than mathematics; others are as strong as probable\nreasoning can make them; and others are merely plausible. Hypotheses are\nstill less to be trusted, though sometimes extremely probable.\n\nNow, most of the physical sciences embrace facts, theories, and\nhypotheses, that range widely along the scale of probability, from decided\ndemonstration to ingenious conjecture. It is easy, however, in general, to\ndistinguish the demonstrated and the permanent from the conjectural and\nthe fanciful; and when we bring the principles of any science into\ncomparison with religion, it is chiefly the former that should be\nconsidered, although scientific hypothesis may sometimes be made to\nillustrate religious hypothesis. But, passing by all other sciences, it is\nmy desire to present before you, on this occasion, the claims of geology,\nas having fundamental principles so well settled that they claim attention\nfrom the interpreter of the Bible. I ought, however, to remark, that there\nexists a strange jealousy of this science even among intelligent men; a\nsuspicion that its votaries have jumped at strange and dangerous\nconclusions through the influence of hypothesis, and that in fact the\nwhole science is little else but hypothesis, and that there is almost no\nagreement even among its ablest cultivators. It is indeed a comparatively\nrecent science, and its remarkable developments have succeeded one another\nso rapidly, as to leave men in doubt whether it would not prove a dazzling\nmeteor, instead of a steady and permanent luminary. When the men who are\nnow in the full maturity of judgment and reason, (and whose favorable\nopinion I am, therefore, anxious above that of all others to secure,) when\nthese were young, geology did not constitute a branch of finished\neducation; and amid the pressure of the cares and duties of middle life,\nhow few find the leisure, to say nothing of the disposition, carefully to\ninvestigate a new and extensive science! Even though younger men should be\nfound standing forth as the advocates of geology, yet how natural for\nthose more advanced to impute this to the ardor and love of novelty,\ncharacteristic of youth!\n\nThere is another difficulty, in relation to this subject, that embarrasses\nme. It is not even yet generally understood that geology is a branch of\nknowledge which requires long and careful study fully to understand; that\na previous knowledge of many other sciences is indispensable in order to\ncomprehend its reasonings; that its reasonings are in fact, for the most\npart, to be mastered only by long and patient consideration; and finally,\nand more especially, that they will appear inconclusive and feeble, unless\na man has become somewhat familiar with specimens of rocks and fossils,\nand has examined strata as they lie in the earth. How very imperfect must\nbe the most intelligent man's knowledge of botany, who had never examined\nany plants; or of chemistry, who had not seen any of the simple\nsubstances, nor experiments upon them in the laboratory; or of\ncrystallography, whose eyes had perhaps never rested upon a crystal. No\nless important is it that he, who would reason correctly about rocks and\ntheir organic contents, should have studied rocks. But upon such an amount\nof knowledge it is no disparagement to say we have no right to presume in\nall, even of publicly educated men. Before such a state of preparation can\nexist, it is necessary that practical geology, at least, should be\nintroduced into our schools of every grade, as it might be with great\nsuccess.\n\nIt ought to be mentioned, in this connection, that, within a few years\npast, geology has experienced several severe attacks of a peculiar\ncharacter. Men of respectable ability, and decided friends of revelation,\nhaving got fully impressed with the belief that the views of geologists\nare hostile to the Bible, have set themselves to an examination of their\nwritings, not so much with a view of understanding the subject, as of\nfinding contradictions and untenable positions. The next step has been to\nwrite a book against geology, abounding, as we might expect from men of\nwarm temperament, of such prejudices, and without a practical knowledge of\ngeology, with striking misapprehensions of facts and opinions, with\npositive and dogmatic assertions, with severe personal insinuations, great\nignorance of correct reasoning in geology, and the substitution of wild\nand extravagant hypotheses for geological theories.\n\nHence English literature has been prolific of such works as \"A Comparative\nEstimate of the Mineral and Mosaic Geologies,\" by Granville Penn; the\n\"Geology of Scripture,\" by Fairholme; \"Scriptural Geology,\" by Dr. Young;\n\"Popular Geology subversive of Divine Revelation,\" by Rev. Henry Cole;\n\"Strictures on Geology and Astronomy,\" by Rev. R. Wilson; \"Scripture\nEvidences of Creation, and Geology, and Scripture Cosmogony,\" by anonymous\nauthors; and many other similar productions that might be named. The warm\nzeal displayed, and doubtless felt, by these writers for the Bible; their\nfamiliar reference to eminent geological authors, as if they understood\nthem; the skill in philology, which they frequently exhibit; and the want\nof a wide-spread and accurate knowledge of geology in the community,--have\ngiven to these works a far more extensive circulation than those works\nhave had, which view geology as illustrating and not opposing revelation.\nForemost among these is the lectures of the venerable and learned Dr. John\nPye Smith, late principal of the Homerton Divinity College, London, \"On\nthe Relations between the Holy Scriptures and some Parts of Geological\nScience.\"[4] This work, the result of long and patient research, and\nemanating from a man of eminent piety as well as learning, affords a full\nrefutation of all the works that have been named, and in the kindness and\ncandor of its spirit exhibits a fine contrast to their intolerance and\ndogmatism. In the profound works of Dr. Harris, entitled \"The Pre-Adamite\nEarth,\" and \"Man Primeval,\" the connections of geology and revelation are\nbriefly but ably treated, and also its connection with natural religion.\nQuite recently, a small and more popular work on this subject has been\npublished by Rev. David King, LL. D., of Glasgow, well worthy of\nattention. \"The Course of Creation,\" by Rev. John Anderson, D.D. of recent\npublication, displays much learning and candor. But the causes that have\nbeen mentioned have secured a much wider circulation for the class of\nworks first named, than for the latter, among the religious community\ngenerally. The consequence is, that the public mind is possessed of many\nprejudices unfavorable to the religious bearings of geology, and\nunfavorable to an impartial examination of its claims.\n\nUnder these circumstances, all that I can do is to state definitely what I\napprehend to be the established principles of the science that have a\nbearing upon religious truth, and refer my hearers to standard works on\nthe subject for the proof that they are true. If any will not take the\ntrouble to examine the proofs, I trust they will have candor and\nimpartiality enough not to deny my positions.\n\nThe first important conclusion, to which every careful observer will come,\nis, that the rocks of all sorts, which compose the present crust of the\nglobe, so far as it has been explored, at least to the depth of several\nmiles, appear to have been the result of second causes; that is, they are\nnow in a different state from that in which they were originally created.\n\nIt is indeed a favorite idea with some, that all the rocks and their\ncontents were created just as we now meet them, in a moment of time; that\nthe supposed remains of animals and plants, which many of them contain,\nand which occur in all states, from an animal or plant little changed, to\na complete conversion into stone, were never real animals and plants, but\nonly resemblances; and that the marks of fusion and of the wearing of\nwater, exhibited by the rocks, are not to be taken as evidences that they\nhave undergone such processes, but only that it has pleased God to give\nthem that appearance and that in fact it was as easy for God to create\nthem just as they now are as in any other form.\n\nIt is a presumption against such a supposition, that no men, who have\ncarefully examined rocks and organic remains, are its advocates. Not that\nthey doubt the power of God to produce such effects, but they deny the\nprobability that He has exerted it in this manner; for throughout nature,\nwherever they have an opportunity to witness her operations, they find\nthat when substances appear to have undergone changes, by means of\nsecondary agencies, they have in fact undergone them; and, therefore, the\nwhole analogy of nature goes to prove that the rocks have experienced\ngreat changes since their deposition. If rocks are an exception to the\nrest of nature,--that is, if they are the effect of miraculous\nagency,--there is no proof of it; and to admit it without proof is to\ndestroy all grounds of analogical reasoning in natural operations; in\nother words, it is to remove the entire basis of reasoning in physical\nscience. Every reasonable man, therefore, who has examined rocks, will\nadmit that they have undergone important changes since their original\nformation.\n\nIn the second place, the same general laws appear to have always prevailed\non the globe, and to have controlled the changes which have taken place\nupon and within it. We come to no spot, in the history of the rocks, in\nwhich a system different from that which now prevails appears to have\nexisted. Great peculiarities in the structure of animals and plants do\nindeed occur, as well as changes on a scale of magnitude unknown at\npresent; but this was only a wise adaptation to peculiar circumstances,\nand not an infringement of the general laws.\n\nIn the third place, the geological changes which the earth has undergone,\nand is now undergoing, appear to have been the result of the same\nagencies, viz., heat and water.\n\nFourthly. It is demonstrated that the present continents of the globe,\nwith perhaps the exception of some of their highest mountains, have for a\nlong period constituted the bottom of the ocean, and have been\nsubsequently either elevated into their present position, or the waters\nhave been drained off from their surface. This is probably the most\nimportant principle in geology; and though regarded with much scepticism\nby many, it is as satisfactorily proved as any principle of physical\nscience not resting on mathematical demonstration.\n\nFifthly. The internal parts of the earth are found to possess a very high\ntemperature; nor can it be doubted that at least oceans of melted matter\nexist beneath the crust, and perhaps even all the deep-seated interior is\nin a state of fusion.\n\nSixthly. The fossiliferous rocks, or such as contain animals and plants,\nare not less than six or seven miles in perpendicular thickness, and are\ncomposed of hundreds of alternating layers of different kinds, all of\nwhich appear to have been deposited, just as rocks are now forming, at the\nbottom of lakes and seas; and hence their deposition must have occupied an\nimmense period of time. Even if we admit that this deposition went on in\nparticular places much faster than at present, a variety of facts forbids\nthe supposition that this was the general mode of their formation.\n\nSeventhly. The remains of animals and plants found in the earth are not\nmingled confusedly together, but are found arranged, for the most part, in\nas much order as the drawers of a well-regulated cabinet. In general, they\nappear to have lived and died on or near the spots where they are now\nfound; and as countless millions of these remains are often found piled\ntogether, so as to form almost entire mountains, the periods requisite\nfor their formation must have been immensely long, as was taught in the\npreceding proposition.\n\nEighthly. Still further confirmation of the same important principle is\nfound in the well-established fact, that there have been upon the globe,\nprevious to the existing races, not less than five distinct periods of\norganized existence; that is, five great groups of animals and plants, so\ncompletely independent that no species whatever is found in more than one\nof them, have lived and successively passed away before the creation of\nthe races that now occupy the surface. Other standard writers make the\nnumber of these periods of existence as many as twelve. Comparative\nanatomy testifies that so unlike in structure were these different groups,\nthat they could not have coexisted in the same climate and other external\ncircumstances.\n\nNinthly. In the earliest times in which animals and plants lived, the\nclimate over the whole globe appears to have been as warm as, or even\nwarmer than, it is now between the tropics. And the slow change from\nwarmer to colder appears to have been the chief cause of the successive\ndestruction of the different races; and new ones were created, better\nadapted to the altered condition of the globe; and yet each group seems to\nhave occupied the globe through a period of great length, so that we have\nhere another evidence of the vast cycles of duration that must have rolled\naway even since the earth became a habitable globe.\n\nTenthly. There is no small reason to suppose that the globe underwent\nnumerous changes previous to the time when animals were placed upon it;\nthat, in fact, the time was when the whole matter of the earth was in a\nmelted state, and not improbably also even in a gaseous state. These\npoints, indeed, are not as well established as the others that have been\nmentioned; but, if admitted, they give to the globe an incalculable\nantiquity.\n\nEleventhly. It appears that the present condition of the earth's crust and\nsurface was of comparatively recent commencement; otherwise the steep\nflanks of mountains would have ceased to crumble down, and wide oceans\nwould have been filled with alluvial deposits.\n\nTwelfthly. Among the thirty thousand species of animals and plants found\nin the rocks,[5] very few living species have been detected; and even\nthese few occur in the most recent rocks, while in the secondary group,\nnot less than six miles thick, not a single species now on the globe has\nbeen discovered. Hence the present races did not exist till after those in\nthe secondary rocks had died. No human remains have been found below those\nalluvial deposits which are now forming by rivers, lakes, and the ocean.\nHence geology infers that man was one of the latest animals that was\nplaced on the globe.\n\nThirteenthly. The surface of the earth has undergone an enormous amount of\nerosion by the action of the ocean, the rivers, and the atmosphere. The\nocean has worn away the solid rock, in some parts of the world, not less\nthan ten thousand feet in depth, and rivers have cut channels through the\nhardest strata, hundreds of feet deep and several miles long; both of\nwhich effects demand periods inconceivably long.\n\nFourteenthly. At a comparatively recent date, northern and southern\nregions have been swept over and worn down by the joint action of ice and\nwater, the force in general having been directed towards the equator.\nThis is called the _drift_ period.\n\nFifteenthly. Since the drift period, the ocean has stood some thousands of\nfeet above its present level in many countries.\n\nSixteenthly. There is evidence, in regard to some parts of the world, that\nthe continents are now experiencing slow vertical movements--some places\nsinking, and others rising. And hence a presumption is derived that, in\nearly times, such changes may have been often repeated, and on a great\nscale.\n\nSeventeenthly. Every successive change of importance on the earth's\nsurface appears to have been an improvement of its condition, adapting it\nto beings of a higher organization, and to man at last, the most perfect\nof all.\n\nFinally. The present races of animals and plants on the globe are for the\nmost part disposed in groups, occupying particular districts, beyond whose\nlimits the species peculiar to those provinces usually droop and die. The\nsame is true, to some extent, as to the animals and plants found in the\nrocks; though the much greater uniformity of climate, that prevailed in\nearly times, permitted organized beings to take a much wider range than at\npresent; so that the zoological and botanical districts were then probably\nmuch wider. But the general conclusion, in respect to living and extinct\nanimals, is, that there must have been several centres of creation, from\nwhich they emigrated as far as their natures would allow them to range.\n\nIt would be easy to state more principles of geology of considerable\nimportance; but I have now named the principal ones that bear upon the\nsubject of religion. A brief statement of the leading truths of theology,\nwhether natural or revealed, which these principles affect, and on which\nthey cast light, will give an idea of the subjects which I propose to\ndiscuss in these lectures.\n\nThe first point relates to the age of the world. For while it has been the\nusual interpretation of the Mosaic account, that the world was brought\ninto existence nearly at the same time with man and the other existing\nanimals, geology throws back its creation to a period indefinitely but\nimmeasurably remote. The question is not whether man has existed on the\nglobe longer than the common interpretation of Genesis requires,--for here\ngeology and the Bible speak the same language,--but whether the globe\nitself did not exist long before his creation; that is, long before the\nsix days' work, so definitely described in the Mosaic account? In other\nwords, is not this a case in which the discoveries of science enable us\nmore accurately to understand the Scriptures?\n\nThe introduction of death into the world, and the specific character of\nthat death described in Scripture as the consequence of sin, are the next\npoints where geology touches the subject of religion. Here, too, the\ngeneral interpretation of Scripture is at variance with the facts of\ngeology, which distinctly testify to the occurrence of death among animals\nlong before the existence of man. Shall geology here, also, be permitted\nto modify our exposition of the Bible?\n\nThe subject of deluges, and especially that of Noah, will next claim our\nattention. For though it is now generally agreed that geology cannot\ndetect traces of such a deluge as the Scriptures describe, yet upon some\nother bearings of that subject it does cast light; and so remarkable is\nthe history of opinions concerning the Noachian deluge, that it could not\non that account alone be properly passed in silence.\n\nIt is well known that the philosophy of antiquity, almost without\nexception, regarded matter as eternal; and in modern times, metaphysical\ntheology has done its utmost to refute the supposed dangerous dogma.\nGeology affords us some new views of the subject; and although it does not\ndirectly refute the doctrine, it brings before us facts of such a nature\nas to show, that, so far as religion is concerned, such a refutation is of\nlittle importance. This will furnish another theme of discussion.\n\nIt may be thought extravagant, but I hazard the assertion, that no science\nis so prolific of direct testimony to the benevolence of the Deity as\ngeology; and some of its facts bear strongly upon the objections to this\ndoctrine. So important a subject will, therefore, occupy at least one or\ntwo lectures.\n\nIn all ages, philosophers have, in one form or another, endeavored to\nexplain the origin and the phenomena of creation by a power inherent in\nnature, independent of a personal Deity, usually denominated _natural\nlaw_. And in modern times this hypothesis has assumed a popular form and a\nplausible dress. Not less than one lecture is demanded for its\nexamination, especially as its advocates appeal with special confidence to\ngeology for its support.\n\nIn existing nature, no one fact stands out more prominently than unity of\ndesign; and it is an interesting inquiry, whether the same general system\nprevailed through the vast periods of geological history as that which now\nadorns our globe. This question I shall endeavor to answer in the\naffirmative, by appealing to a multitude of facts.\n\nAnother question of deep interest in theology is, whether the Deity\nexercises over the world any special providence; whether he ever\ninterferes with the usual order of things by introducing change; or\nwhether he has committed nature to the control of unalterable laws,\nwithout any direct efficiency. Light is thrown on these points by the\nresearches of geology, if I mistake not; and I shall not fail to attempt\nits development.\n\nThis science also discloses to us many new views of the vast plans of the\nDeity, and thus enlarges our conceptions of his wisdom and knowledge. In\nthis field we must allow ourselves to wander in search of the golden\nfruit.\n\nIn the course of the discussion, we shall direct our attention to the new\nheavens and the new earth described in the Bible, and inquire whether\ngeology does not cast a glimpse of light upon that difficult subject.\n\nIn approaching the close of our subject, we shall introduce a few lectures\nhaving a wider range, and deriving less elucidation from geology than from\nother sciences. One is a consideration of the physical effects of human\nactions upon the universe. And in conclusion of the whole subject, we\nshall endeavor to show that the bearings of all science, when rightly\nunderstood, are eminently favorable to religion, both in this world and\nthe next.\n\nWith a few miscellaneous inferences from the principles advanced, I shall\nclose this lecture.\n\nIn the first place, we see that the points of connection between geology\nand religion are numerous and important. A few years since, geology,\ninstead of being appealed to for the illustration of religious truth, was\nregarded with great jealousy, as a repository of views favorable to\ninfidelity, and even to atheism. But if the summary which I have exhibited\nof its religious relations be correct, from what other science can we\nobtain so many illustrations of natural and revealed religion?\nDistinguished Christian writers are beginning to gather fruit in this new\nfield, and the clusters already presented us by such men as Dr. Chalmers,\nDr. Pye Smith, Dr. Buckland, Dr. Harris, and Dr. King, are an earnest of\nan abundant harvest. I hazard the prediction that the time is not far\ndistant when it will be said of this, as of another noble science, \"The\nundevout _geologist_ is mad.\"\n\nSecondly. I would bespeak the candid attention of those sceptical minds,\nthat are ever ready to imagine discrepancies between science and religion,\nto the views which I am about to present. The number of such is indeed\ncomparatively small; yet there are still some prepared to seize upon every\nnew scientific fact, before it is fully developed, that can be made to\nassume the appearance of opposition to religion. It is strange that they\nshould not ere this time despair of making any serious impression upon the\ncitadel of Christianity. For of all the numerous assaults of this kind\nthat have been made, not one has destroyed even an outpost of religion.\nJust so soon as the subject was fully understood, every one of them has\nbeen abandoned; and even the most violent unbeliever never thinks, at the\npresent day, of arraying them against the Bible. One needs no prophetic\ninspiration to be confident that every geological objection to\nChristianity, which perhaps now and then an unbeliever of limited\nknowledge still employs, will pass into the same limbo of forgetfulness.\n\nFinally. I would throw out a caution to those friends of religion who are\nvery fearful that the discoveries of science will prove injurious to\nChristianity. Why should the enlightened Christian, who has a correct idea\nof the firm foundation on which the Bible rests, fear that any disclosures\nof the arcana of nature should shake its authority or weaken its\ninfluence? Is not the God of revelation the God of nature also? and must\nnot his varied works tend to sustain and elucidate, instead of weakening\nand darkening, one another? Has Christianity suffered because the\nCopernican system of astronomy has proved true, or because chemistry has\ndemonstrated that the earth is already for the most part oxidized, and\ntherefore cannot literally be burned hereafter? Just as much as gold\nsuffers by passing through the furnace. Yet how many fears agitated the\nhearts of pious men when these scientific truths were first announced! The\nvery men who felt so strong a conviction of the truth of the Bible, that\nthey were ready to go to the stake in its defence, have trembled and\nuttered loud notes of warning when the votaries of science have brought\nout some new fact, that seemed perhaps at first, or when partially\nunderstood, to contravene some statement of revelation. The effect has\nbeen to make sceptical minds look with suspicion, and sometimes with\ncontempt, upon Christianity itself. It has built up a wall of separation\nbetween science and religion, which is yet hardly broken down. For\nnotwithstanding the instructive history of the past on this subject,\nalthough every supposed discrepancy between philosophy and religion has\nvanished as soon as both were thoroughly understood, yet so soon as\ngeology began to develop her marvellous truths, the cry of danger to\nreligion became again the watchword, and the precursor of a more extended\nand severe attack upon that science than any other has ever experienced,\nand the prelude, I am sorry to say, of severe personal charges of\ninfidelity against many an honest friend of religion.\n\nIn contrast to the contracted views and groundless fears that have been\ndescribed, it is refreshing to meet with such sentiments as the following,\nfrom men eminent for learning, and some of them veterans in theological\nscience. With these I close this lecture.\n\n\"Those rocks which stand forth in the order of their formation,\" says Dr.\nChalmers, \"and are each imprinted with their own peculiar fossil remains,\nhave been termed the archives of nature, where she hath recorded the\nchanges that have taken place in the history of the globe. They are made\nto serve the purpose of scrolls or inscriptions, on which we might read of\nthose great steps and successions by which the earth has been brought into\nits present state; and should these archives of nature be but truly\ndeciphered, we are not afraid of their being openly confronted with the\narchives of revelation. It is unmanly to blink the approach of light, from\nwhatever quarter of observation it may fall upon us; and those are not the\nbest friends of Christianity, who feel either dislike or alarm when the\ntorch of science, or the torch of history, is held up to the Bible. For\nourselves, we are not afraid when the eye of an intrepid, if it be only a\nsound philosophy, scrutinizes, however jealously, all its pages. We have\nno dread of any apprehended conflict between the doctrines of Scripture\nand the discoveries of science, persuaded, as we are, that whatever story\nthe geologists of our day shall find engraven on the volume of nature, it\nwill only accredit that story which is graven on the volume of\nrevelation.\"--_Chalmers's Works_, vol. ii. p. 227.\n\n\"For our own part,\" says Rev. Henry Melville, \"we have no fears that any\ndiscoveries of science will really militate against the disclosures of\nScripture. We remember how, in darker days, ecclesiastics set themselves\nagainst philosophers who were investigating the motions of the heavenly\nbodies, apprehensive that the new theories were at variance with the\nBible, and therefore resolved to denounce them as heresies, and stop their\nspread by persecution. But truth triumphed; bigotry and ignorance could\nnot long prevail to the hiding from the world the harmonious walkings of\nstars and planets; and ever since, the philosophy which laid open the\nwonders of the universe hath proved herself the handmaid of revelation,\nwhich divulged secrets far beyond her gaze. And thus, we are persuaded,\nshall it always be; science may scale new heights and explore new depths,\nbut she shall bring back nothing from her daring and successful excursions\nwhich will not, when rightly understood, yield a fresh tribute of\ntestimony to the Bible. Infidelity may watch her progress with eagerness,\nexulting in the thought that she is furnishing facts with which the\nChristian system may be strongly assailed; but the champions of revelation\nmay confidently attend her in every march, assured that she will find\nnothing which contradicts, if it do not actually confirm, the word which\nthey know to be divine.\"--_Sermons, 2d Am. edit._ vol. ii. p. 298.\n\n\"Shall it then any longer be said,\" says Dr. Buckland, \"that a science,\nwhich unfolds such abundant evidence of the being and attributes of God,\ncan reasonably be viewed in any other light than as the efficient\nauxiliary and handmaid of religion? Some few there still may be, whom\ntimidity, or prejudice, or want of opportunity, allow not to examine its\nevidence; who are alarmed by the novelty, or surprised by the extent and\nmagnitude, of the views which geology forces on their attention, and who\nwould rather have kept closed the volume of witness, which has been sealed\nup for ages, beneath the surface of the earth, than impose upon the\nstudent in natural theology the duty of studying its contents;--a duty in\nwhich, for lack of experience, they may anticipate a hazardous or a\nlaborious task, but which, by those engaged in it, is found to afford a\nrational, and righteous, and delightful exercise of their highest\nfaculties, in multiplying the evidences of the existence, and attributes,\nand providence of God.\"\n\n\"It follows then,\" says Dr. J. Pye Smith, \"as a universal truth, that the\nBible, faithfully interpreted, erects no bar against the most free and\nextensive investigation, the most comprehensive and searching induction.\nLet but the investigation be sufficient, and the induction honest; let\nobservation take its farthest flight; let experiment penetrate into all\nthe recesses of nature; let the veil of ages be lifted up from all that\nhas been hitherto unknown,--if such a course were possible, religion need\nnot fear; Christianity is secure, and true science will always pay homage\nto the divine Creator and Sovereign, _of whom, and through whom, and to\nwhom are all things; and unto whom be glory forever_.\"--_Lectures on\nScripture and Geology, 4th London edit._ p. 223.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE II.\n\nTHE EPOCH OF THE EARTH'S CREATION UNREVEALED.\n\n\nThe Mosaic account of the creation of the universe has always been\ncelebrated for its sublime simplicity. Though the subject be one of\nunparalleled grandeur, the writer makes not the slightest effort at\nrhetorical embellishment, but employs language which a mere child cannot\nmisapprehend. How different, in this respect, is this inspired record from\nall uninspired efforts that have been made to describe the origin of the\nworld!\n\nBut notwithstanding the great simplicity and clearness of this\ndescription, its precise meaning has occasioned as much discussion as\nalmost any passage of Scripture. This results chiefly from its great\nbrevity. Men with different views of inspiration, cosmogony, and\nphilosophy, engage in its examination, not so much to ascertain its\nmeaning, as to find out whether it teaches their favorite speculative\nviews; and because it says nothing about them, they attempt to fasten\nthose views upon it, and thus make it teach a great deal more than the\nmind of the Spirit. My simple object, at this time, is to ascertain\nwhether the Bible fixes the time when the universe was created out of\nnothing.\n\nThe prevalent opinion, until recently, has been, that we are there taught\nthat the world began to exist on the first of the six days of creation, or\nabout six thousand years ago. Geologists, however, with one voice, declare\nthat their science indicates the earth to have been of far higher\nantiquity. The question becomes, therefore, of deep interest, whether the\ncommon interpretation of the Mosaic record is correct.\n\nLet us, in the first place, examine carefully the terms of that record;\nwithout reference to any of the conclusions of science.\n\nA preliminary inquiry, however, will here demand attention, to which I\nhave already given some thoughts in the first lecture. The inquiry relates\nto the mode in which the sacred writers describe natural phenomena.\n\nDo they adapt their descriptions to the views and feelings of\nphilosophers, or even the common people, in the nineteenth century, or to\nthe state of knowledge and the prevalent opinions of a people but slightly\nremoved from barbarism?\n\nDo they write as if they meant to correct the notions of men on natural\nsubjects, when they knew them to be wrong; or as if they did not mean to\ndecide whether the popular opinion were true or false? These points have\nbeen examined with great skill and candor by a venerable clergyman of\nEngland, whose praise is in all the American churches, and whose skill in\nsacred philology, and profound acquaintance with the Bible, none will\nquestion, any more than they will his deep-toned piety and enlarged and\nliberal views of men and things. I refer to Dr. J. Pye Smith, lately at\nthe head of the Homerton Divinity College, near London.[6]\n\nHe first examines the style in which the Old Testament describes the\ncharacter and operations of Jehovah, and shows that it is done \"in\nlanguage borrowed from the bodily and mental constitution of man, and from\nthose opinions concerning the works of God in the natural world, which\nwere generally received by the people to whom the blessings of revelation\nwere granted.\" Constant reference is made to material images, and to human\nfeelings and conduct, as if the people addressed were almost incapable of\nspiritual and abstract ideas. This, of course, gives a notion of God\ninfinitely beneath the glories of his character; but to uncultivated minds\nit was the only representation of his character that would give them any\nidea of it. Nay, even in this enlightened age, such descriptions are far\nmore impressive than any other upon the mass of mankind; while those,\nwhose minds are more enlightened, find no difficulty in inculcating the\npure truth respecting God from these comparatively gross descriptions.\n\nNow, if, upon a point of such vast importance as the divine character,\nrevelation, thus condescends to human weakness and ignorance, much more\nmight we expect it, in regard to the less important subject of natural\nphenomena. We find, accordingly, that they are described as they appear to\nthe common eye, and not in their real nature; or, in the language of\nRosenmuller, the Scriptures speak \"according to optical, and not physical\ntruth.\" They make no effort to correct even the grossest errors, on these\nsubjects, that then prevailed.\n\nThe earth, as we have seen on a former occasion, is described as\nimmovable, in the centre of the universe, and the heavenly bodies as\nrevolving round it diurnally. The firmament over us is represented as a\nsolid, extended substance, sustaining an ocean above it, with openings, or\nwindows, through which the waters may descend. In respect to the human\nsystem, the Scriptures refer intellectual operations to the reins, or the\nregion of the kidneys, and pain to the bones. In short, the descriptions\nof natural things are adapted to the very erroneous notions which\nprevailed in the earliest ages of society and among the common people. But\nit is as easy to interpret such descriptions in conformity to the present\nstate of physical science, as it is to divest the scriptural\nrepresentations of the Deity of their material dress, and make them\nconform to the spiritual views that now prevail. No one regards it as any\nobjection to the Old Testament, that it gives a description of the divine\ncharacter so much less spiritual than the views adopted by the theologians\nof the nineteenth century; why then should they regard it as derogatory to\ninspiration to adopt the same method as to natural objects?\n\nThese considerations will afford us some assistance in rightly\ninterpreting the description of the creation, in the first chapter of\nGenesis, to which we will now turn our attention.\n\n_In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was\nwithout form and void. And darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the\nSpirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there\nbe light, and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good. And\nGod divided the light from the darkness, and the light he called day, and\nthe darkness he called night. And the evening and the morning were the\nfirst day._\n\nThe first question that arises, on reading this passage, is, whether the\ncreation here described was a creation out of nothing, or out of\npreexisting materials. The latter opinion has been maintained by some\nable, and generally judicious commentators and theologians, such as\nDoederlin and Dathe in Germany, Milton in England, and Bush and Schmucker\nin this country. They do not deny that the Bible, in other places, teaches\ndistinctly the creation of the universe out of nothing. But they contend\nthat the word translated _to create_, in the first verse of Genesis,\nteaches only a renovation, or remodelling, of the universe from matter\nalready in existence.\n\nThat there is a degree of ambiguity in all languages, in the words that\nsignify to _create_, to _make_, to _form_, and the like, cannot be\ndoubted; that is, these words may be properly used to describe the\nproduction of a substance out of matter already in existence, as well as\nout of nothing; and, therefore, we must resort to the context, or the\nnature of the subject, to ascertain in which of those senses such words\nare used. The same word, for instance, (_bawraw_,) that is used in the\nfirst verse of Genesis, to describe the creation of the universe, is\nemployed in the 27th verse of the same chapter, to describe the formation\nof man out of the dust of the earth. There was, however, no peculiar\nambiguity in the use of the Hebrew words _bawraw_ and _awsaw_, which\ncorrespond to our words _create_ and _make_; and, therefore, it is not\nnecessary to be an adept in Hebrew literature to judge of the question\nunder consideration. We have only to determine whether the translation of\nthe Mosaic account of the creation most reasonably teaches a production of\nthe matter of the universe from nothing, or only its renovation, and we\nhave decided what is taught in the original.\n\nNow, there can hardly be a doubt but Moses intended to teach, in this\npassage, that the universe owed its origin to Jehovah, and not to the\nidols of the heathen; and since all acknowledge that other parts of\nScripture teach, that, when the world was made, it was produced out of\nnothing, why should we not conclude that the same truth is taught in this\npassage? The language certainly will bear that meaning; indeed, it is\nalmost as strong as language can be to express such a meaning; and does\nnot the passage look like a distinct avowal of this great truth, at the\nvery commencement of the inspired record, in order to refute the opinion,\nso prevalent in early times, that the world is eternal?\n\nThe next inquiry concerning the passage relates to the phrase _the heavens\nand the earth_. Does it comprehend the universe? So it must have been\nunderstood by the Jews; for their language could not furnish a more\ncomprehensive phrase to designate the universe. True, these words, like\nthose already considered, are used sometimes in a limited sense. But in\nthis place their broadest signification is in perfect accordance with the\nscope of the passage and with the whole tenor of the Scripture. We may,\ntherefore, conclude with much certainty, that God intended in this place\nto declare the great truth, that there was a time in past eternity when\nthe whole material universe came into existence at his irresistible\nfiat:--a truth eminently proper to stand at the head of a divine\nrevelation.\n\nBut when did this stupendous event occur? Does the phrase _in the\nbeginning_ show us when? Surely not; for no language can be more\nindefinite as to time. Whenever it is used in the Bible, it merely\ndesignates the commencement of the series of events, or the periods of\ntime, that are described. _In the beginning was the word_; that is, at the\ncommencement of things the word was in existence; consequently was from\neternity. But in Genesis the act of creation is represented by this phrase\nsimply as the commencement of the material universe, at a certain point of\ntime in past eternity, which is not chronologically fixed. The first verse\nmerely informs us, that the first act of the Deity in relation to the\nuniverse was the creation of the heavens and the earth out of nothing.\n\nIt is contended, however, that the first verse is so connected with the\nsix days' work of creation, related in the subsequent verse, that we must\nunderstand the phrase _in the beginning_ as the commencement of the first\nday. This is the main point to be examined in relation to the passage, and\ntherefore deserves a careful consideration.\n\nIf the first verse must be understood as a summary account of the six\ndays' work which follows in detail, then _the beginning_ was the\ncommencement of the first day, and of course only about six thousand years\nago. But if it may be understood as an announcement of the act of creation\nat some indefinite point in past duration, then a period may have\nintervened between that first creative act and the subsequent six days'\nwork. I contend that the passage admits of either interpretation, without\nany violence to the language or the narration.\n\nThe first of these interpretations is the one usually received, and,\ntherefore, it will be hardly necessary to attempt to show that it is\nadmissible. The second has had fewer advocates, and will, therefore, need\nto be examined.\n\nThe particle _and_, which is used in our translation of this passage to\nconnect the successive sentences, furnishes an argument to the English\nreader against this second mode of interpretation, which has far less\nforce with one acquainted with the original Hebrew. The particle thus\ntranslated is the general connecting particle of the Hebrew language, and\n\"may be copulative, or disjunctive, or adversative; or it may express a\nmere annexation to a former topic of discourse,--the connection being only\nthat of the subject matter, or the continuation of the composition. This\ncontinuative use forms one of the most marked peculiarities of the Hebrew\nidiom, and it comprehends every variety of mode in which one train of\nsentiment may be appended to another.\"--J. Pye Smith, _Scrip. and Geol._\np. 195, 4th edit.\n\nIn the English Bible this particle is usually rendered by the copulative\nconjunction _and_; in the Septuagint, and in Josephus, however, it\nsometimes has the sense of _but_. And some able commentators are of\nopinion that it admits of a similar translation in the passage under\nconsideration. The elder Rosenmuller says we might read it thus: \"_In the\nbeginning God created the heavens and the earth. Afterwards the earth was\ndesolate_,\" &c. Or the particle _afterwards_ may be placed at the\nbeginning of any of the succeeding verses. Thus, In the beginning God\ncreated the heavens and the earth, and the earth was desolate, and\ndarkness was upon the face of the waters. _Afterwards_ the Spirit of God\nmoved upon the face of the waters. Dr. Dathe, who has been styled, by good\nauthority, (Dr. Smith,) \"a cautious and judicious critic,\" renders the\nfirst two verses in this manner: \"In the beginning God created the heavens\nand the earth; but afterwards the earth became waste and desolate.\" If\nsuch translations as these be admissible, the passage not only allows, but\nexpressly teaches, that a period intervened between the first act of\ncreation and the six days' work. And if such an interval be allowed, it is\nall that geology requires to reconcile its facts to revelation. For\nduring that time, all the changes of mineral constitution and organic\nlife, which that science teaches to have taken place on the globe,\nprevious to the existence of man, may have occurred.\n\nIt is a presumption in favor of such an interpretation that the second\nverse describes the state of the globe after its creation and before the\ncreation of light. For if there were no interval between the fiat that\ncalled matter into existence, and that which said, _Let there be light_,\nwhy should such a description of the earth's waste and desolate condition\nbe given?\n\nBut if there had been such an intervening period, it is perfectly natural\nthat such a description should precede the history of successive creative\nacts, by which the world was adorned with light and beauty, and filled\nwith inhabitants.\n\nBut, after all, would such an interpretation have ever been thought of,\nhad not the discoveries of geology seemed to demand it?\n\nThis can be answered by inquiring whether any of the writers on the Bible,\nwho lived before geology existed, or had laid claims for a longer period\nprevious to man's creation, whether any of these adopted such an\ninterpretation. We have abundant evidence that they did. Many of the early\nfathers of the church were very explicit on this subject. Augustin,\nTheodoret, and others, supposed that the first verse of Genesis describes\nthe creation of matter distinct from, and prior to, the work of six days.\nJustin Martyr and Gregory Nazianzen believed in an indefinite period\nbetween the creation of matter and the subsequent arrangement of all\nthings. Still more explicit are Basil, Caesarius, and Origen. It would be\neasy to quote similar opinions from more modern writers, who lived\nprevious to the developments of geology. But I will give a paragraph from\nBishop Patrick only, who wrote one hundred and fifty years ago.\n\n\"How long,\" says he, \"all things continued in mere confusion after the\nchaos was created, before light was extracted from it, we are not told. It\nmight have been, for any thing that is here revealed, a great while; and\nall that time the mighty Spirit was making such motions in it, as\nprepared, disposed, and ripened every part of it for such productions as\nwere to appear successively in such spaces of time as are here afterwards\nmentioned by Moses, who informs us, that after things were digested and\nmade ready (by long fermentation perhaps) to be wrought into form, God\nproduced every day, for six days together, some creature or other, till\nall was finished, of which light was the very first.\"--_Commentary, in\nloco._\n\nSuch evidence as this is very satisfactory. For at the present day one\ncannot but fear that the discoveries of geology may too much influence him\ninsensibly to put a meaning upon Scripture which would never have been\nthought of, if not suggested by those discoveries, and which the language\ncannot bear. But those fathers of the church cannot be supposed under the\ninfluence of any such bias; and, therefore, we may suppose the passage in\nitself to admit of the existence of a long period between the beginning\nand the first demiurgic day.\n\nAgainst these views philologists have urged several objections not to be\ndespised. One is, that light did not exist till the first day, and the sun\nand other luminaries not till the fourth day; whereas the animals and\nplants dug from the rocks could not have existed without light. They could\nnot, therefore, have lived in the supposed long period previous to the six\ndays.\n\nIf it be indeed true, that light was not called into existence till the\nfirst day, nor the sun till the fourth, this objection is probably\ninsuperable. But it would be easy to cite the opinions of many\ndistinguished and most judicious expounders of the Bible, showing that the\nwords of the Hebrew original do not signify a literal creation of the sun,\nmoon, and stars, on the fourth day, but only constituting or appointing\nthem, at that time, to be luminaries, and to furnish standards for the\ndivision of time and other purposes.\n\nThe word used is not the same as that employed in the first verse to\ndescribe the creation of the world; and the passage, rightly understood,\nimplies the previous existence of the heavenly bodies. \"The words [Hebrew]\nare not to be separated from the rest,\" says Rosenmuller, \"or to be\nrendered _fiant luminaria_, let there be light; i. e., _let light be\nmade_; but rather, _let lights be_; that is, serve, in the expanse of\nheaven, for distinguishing between day and night; and let them be, or\nserve, for signs,\" &c. \"The historian speaks (v. 16, end) of the\ndetermination of the stars to certain uses, which they were to render to\nthe earth, and not of their first formation.\" In like manner we may\nsuppose that the production of light was only rendering it visible to the\nearth, over which darkness hitherto brooded; not because no light was in\nexistence, but because it did not shine upon the earth.\n\nAnother objection to this interpretation is, that the fourth commandment\nof the decalogue expressly declares, that _in six days the Lord made\nheaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is_, &c., and thus cuts\noff the idea of a long period intervening between the _beginning_ and the\nsix days. I acknowledge that this argument carries upon the face of it a\ngood deal of strength; but there are some considerations that seem to me\nto show it to be not entirely demonstrative.\n\nIn the first place, it is a correct principle of interpreting language,\nthat when a writer describes an event in more than one place, the briefer\nstatement is to be explained by the more extended one. Thus, in the second\nchapter of Genesis, we have this brief account of the creation: _These are\nthe generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created,\nin the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens._\n\nNow, if this were the only description of the work of creation on record,\nthe inference would be very fair that it was all completed in a single\nday.\n\nYet when we turn to the first chapter, we find the work prolonged through\nsix days. The two statements are not contradictory; but the briefer one\nwould not be understood without the more detailed. In like manner, if we\nshould find it distinctly stated in the particular account of the creation\nof the universe, in the first chapter of Genesis, that a long period\nactually intervened between the beginning and the six days, who would\nsuppose the statement a contradiction to the fourth commandment? It is\ntrue, we do not find such a fact distinctly announced in the Mosaic\naccount of the creation. But suppose we first learn that it did exist from\ngeology; why should we not be as ready to admit it as if stated in\nGenesis, provided it does not contradict any thing therein recorded? For\nillustration: let us refer to the account given in Exodus of the parents\nof Moses and their family. _And there went a man of the name of Levi, and\ntook to wife a daughter of Levi. And the woman conceived and bare a son,_\n(that is, Moses,) _and when she saw that he was a goodly child, she hid\nhim three months._ (Ex. ii. 12.) Suppose, now, that no other account\nexisted in the Bible of the family of this Levite; we could not surely\nhave suspected that Moses had an elder brother and sister. But imagine the\nBible silent on the subject, and that the fact was first brought to light\nin deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics in the nineteenth century; who\ncould hesitate to admit its truth because omitted in the Pentateuch? or\nwho would regard it in opposition to the sacred record? With equal\npropriety may we admit, on proper geological evidence, the intercalation\nof a long period between the beginning and the six days, if satisfied that\nit does not contradict the Mosaic account. Hence all that is necessary, in\nthis connection, for me to show, is, that such contradictions would not be\nmade out by such a discovery.\n\nOnce more: if this long period had existed, we should hardly have expected\nan allusion to it in the fourth commandment, if the views we have taken\nare correct as to the manner in which the Old Testament treats of natural\nevents. It is literally true, that all which the Jews understood by the\nheavens and the earth, was made, (_awsaw_,) that is, renovated, arranged,\nand constituted,--for so the word often means,--in six literal days. Had\nthe sacred writer alluded to the earth while without form and void, or to\nthe heavenly bodies as any thing more than shining points in the\nfirmament, placed there on the fourth day, he could not have been\nunderstood by the Hebrews, without going into a detailed description, and\nthus violating what seems to have been settled principles in writing the\nBible, viz., not to treat of natural phenomena with scientific accuracy,\nnor to anticipate any scientific discovery.\n\nI wish it to be distinctly understood, that I am endeavoring to show,\nonly, that the language of Scripture will admit of an indefinite interval\nbetween the first creation of matter and the six demiurgic days. I am\nwilling to admit, at least for the sake of argument, that the common\ninterpretation, which makes matter only six thousand years old, is the\nmost natural. But I contend that no violence is done to the language by\nadmitting the other interpretation. And in further proof of this position,\nI appeal to the testimony of distinguished modern theologians and\nphilologists, as I have to several of the ancients. This point cannot,\nindeed, be settled by the authority of names. But I cannot believe that\nany will suppose such men as I shall mention were led to adopt this view\nsimply because geologists asked for it, while their judgments told them\nthat the language of the Bible would not bear such a meaning. When such\nmen, therefore, avow their acquiescence in such an interpretation, it\ncannot but strengthen our confidence in its correctness.\n\n\"The interval,\" says Bishop Horsley, \"between the production of the matter\nof the chaos and the formation of light, is undescribed and unknown.\"\n\n\"Were we to concede to naturalists,\" says Baumgarten Crusius, \"all the\nreasonings which they advance in favor of the earth's early existence, the\nconclusion would only be, that the earth itself has existed much more than\nsix thousand years, and that it had then already suffered many great and\nimportant revolutions. But if this were so, would the relation of Moses\nthereby become false and untenable? I cannot think so.\"\n\n\"By the phrase _in the beginning_,\" says Doederlin, \"the time is declared\nwhen something began to be. But when God produced this remarkable work,\nMoses does not precisely define.\"\n\n\"We do not know,\" says Sharon Turner, \"and we have no means of knowing, at\nwhat point of the ever-flowing eternity of that which is alone\neternal,--the divine subsistence,--the creation of our earth, or any part\nof the universe, began.\" \"All that we can learn explicitly from revelation\nis, that nearly six thousand years have passed since our first parents\nbegan to be.\"\n\n\"The words in the text,\" says Dr. Wiseman, \"do not merely express a\nmomentary pause between the first fiat of creation and the production of\nlight; for the participial form of the verb, whereby the Spirit of God,\nthe creative energy, is represented as brooding over the abyss, and\ncommunicating to it the productive virtue, naturally expresses a\ncontinuous, and not a passing action.\"\n\n\"I am strongly inclined to believe,\" says Bishop Gleig, \"that the matter\nof the corporeal universe was all created at once; though different\nportions of it may have been reduced to form at very different periods.\nWhen the universe was created, or how long the solar system remained in a\nchaotic state, are vain inquiries, to which no answer can be given.\"\n\n\"The detailed history of creation in the first chapter of Genesis,\" says\nDr. Chalmers, \"begins at the middle of the second verse; and what precedes\nmight be understood as an introductory sentence, by which we are most\nappositely told, both that God created all things at the first, and that\nafterwards--by what interval of time it is not specified--the earth lapsed\ninto a chaos, from the darkness and disorder of which the present system\nor economy of things was made to arise. Between the initial act and the\ndetails of Genesis, the world, for aught we know, might have been the\ntheatre of many revolutions, the traces of which geology may still\ninvestigate,\" &c.\n\n\"A philological survey of the initial sections of the Bible, (Gen. i. 1 to\nii. 3,)\" says Dr. Pye Smith, \"brings out the result;\"\n\n1. \"That the first sentence is a simple, independent, all-comprehending\naxiom, to this effect,--that _matter_, elementary or combined, aggregated\nonly or organized, and _dependent, sentient, and intellectual beings_ have\nnot existed from eternity, either in self-continuity or succession, but\nhad a beginning; that their beginning took place by the all-powerful will\nof one Being; the self-existent, independent and infinite in all\nperfection; and that the date of that beginning is not made known.\"\n\n2. \"That at a recent epoch, our planet was brought into a state of\ndisorganization, detritus, or ruin, (perhaps we have no perfectly\nappropriate term,) from a former condition.\"\n\n3. \"That it pleased the Almighty, wise and benevolent Supreme, out of that\nstate of ruin to adjust the surface of the earth to its now existing\ncondition,--the whole extending through the period of six natural days.\"\n\n\"I am forming,\" continues Dr. Smith, \"no hypotheses in geology; I only\nplead that _the ground is clear_, and that the dictates of the Scripture\n_interpose no bar_ to observation and reasoning upon the mineralogical\nconstitution of the earth, and the remains of organized creatures which\nits strata disclose. If those investigations should lead us to attribute\nto the earth and to the other planets and astral spheres an antiquity\nwhich millions or ten thousand millions of years might fail to represent,\n_the divine records forbid not their deduction_.\"--_Script. and Geol._ p.\n502.\n\nSays Dr. Bedford, \"We ought to understand Moses as saying, _indefinitely\nfar back, and concealed from us in the mystery of eternal ages, prior to\nthe first moment of mundane time_, God created the heavens and the\nearth.\"--Smith, _Script. and Geol._ 4th edit.\n\n\"My firm persuasion is,\" says Dr. Harris, \"that the first verse of Genesis\nwas designed, by the divine Spirit, to announce the absolute origination\nof the material universe by the Almighty Creator; and that it is so\nunderstood in the other parts of holy writ; that, passing by an indefinite\ninterval, the second verse describes the state of our planet immediately\nprior to the Adamic creation, and, that the third verse begins the account\nof the six days' work.\"\n\n\"If I am reminded, in a tone of animadversion, that I am making science,\nin this instance, the interpreter of Scripture, my reply is, that I am\nsimply making the works of God illustrate his word in a department in\nwhich they speak with a distinct and authoritative voice; that \"it is all\nthe same whether our geological or theological investigations have been\nprior, if we have not forced the one into accordance with the\nother.\"--(Davidson, _Sacred Hermeneutics_.) \"And that it might be\ndeserving consideration, whether or not the conduct of those is not open\nto just animadversion, who first undertake to pronounce on the meaning of\na passage of Scripture, irrespective of all the appropriate evidence, and\nwho then, when that evidence is explored and produced, insist on their _a\npriori_ interpretation as the only true one.\"--_Pre-Adamite Earth_, p.\n280.\n\n\"Our best expositors of Scripture,\" says Dr. Daniel King, of Glasgow,\n\"seem to be now pretty generally agreed, that the opening verse in Genesis\nhas no necessary connection with the verses which follow. They think it\nmay be understood as making a separate and independent statement regarding\nthe creation proper, and that the phrase 'in the beginning' may be\nexpressive of an indefinitely remote antiquity. On this principle the\nBible recognizes, in the first instance, the great age of the earth, and\nthen tells us of the changes it underwent at a period long subsequent, in\norder to render it a fit abode for the family of man. The work of the six\ndays was not, according to this view, a creation in the strict sense of\nthe term, but a renovation, a remodelling of preexisting\nmaterials.\"--_Principles of Geology explained_, &c. p. 40, 1st edit.\n\n\"Whether the Mosaic creation,\" says Dr. Schmucker, of the Lutheran church\nin this country, \"refers to the present organization of matter, or to the\nformation of its primary elements, it is not easy to decide. The question\nis certainly not determined by the usage of the original words, [Hebrew]\nwhich are frequently employed to designate mediate formation. Should the\nfuture investigations of physical science bring to light any facts,\nindisputably proving the anterior existence of the matter of this earth,\nsuch facts would not militate against the Christian Scriptures.\"\n\n\"That a very long period,\" says Dr. Pond,--\"how long no being but God can\ntell,--intervened between the creation of the world and the commencement\nof the six days' work recorded in the following verses of the first\nchapter of Genesis, there can, I think, be no reasonable doubt.\"\n\nBut I need not adduce any more advocates of the interpretation of Genesis,\nfor which I contend. Men more respected and confided in by the Christian\nworld I could not quote, though I might enlarge the number; but I trust it\nis unnecessary. I trust that all who hear me are satisfied that the Mosaic\nhistory of the creation of the world does fairly admit of an\ninterpretation which leaves an undefined interval between the creation of\nmatter and the six days' work. Let it be recollected that I do not\nmaintain that this is the most natural interpretation, but only that the\npassage will fairly admit it by the strict rules of exegesis. The question\nstill remains to be considered, whether there is sufficient reason to\nadopt it as the true interpretation. To show that there is, I now make my\nappeal to geology. This is a case, it seems to me, in which we may call in\nthe aid of science to ascertain the true meaning of Scripture. The\nquestion is, Does geology teach, distinctly and uncontrovertibly, that the\nworld must have existed during a long period prior to the existence of the\nraces of organized beings that now occupy its surface?\n\nTo give a popular view of the evidence sustaining the affirmative of this\nquestion is no easy task. It needs a full and accurate acquaintance with\nthe multiplied facts of geology, and, what is still more rare, a\nfamiliarity with geological reasoning, in order to feel the full force of\nthe arguments that prove the high antiquity of the globe. Yet I know that\nI have a right to presume upon a high degree of scientific knowledge, and\nan accurate acquaintance with geology, among those whom I address.\n\nIn the first place, I must recur to a principle already briefly stated in\na former lecture, viz., that a careful examination of the rocks presents\nirresistible evidence, that, in their present condition, they are all the\nresult of second causes; in other words, they are not now in the condition\nin which they were originally created. Some of them have been melted and\nreconsolidated, and crowded in between others, or spread over them. Others\nhave been worn down into mud, sand, and gravel, by water and other agents,\nand again cemented together, after having enveloped multitudes of animals\nand plants, which are now imbedded as organic remains. In short, all known\nrocks appear to have been brought into their present state by chemical or\nmechanical agencies. It is indeed easy to say that these appearances are\ndeceptive, and that these rocks may, with perfect ease, have been created\njust as we now find them. But it is not easy to retain this opinion, after\nhaving carefully examined them. For the evidence that they are of\nsecondary origin is nearly as strong, and of the same kind too, as it is\nthat the remains of edifices lately discovered in Central America are the\nwork of man, and were not created in their present condition.\n\nIn the second place, processes are going on by which rocks are formed on a\nsmall scale, of the same character as those which constitute the great\nmass of the earth. Hence it is fair to infer, that all the rocks were\nformed in a similar manner. Beds of gravel, for instance, are sometimes\ncemented together by heat, or iron, or lime, so as to resemble exactly the\nconglomerates found in mountain masses among the ancient rocks. Clay is\nsometimes converted into slate by heat, as is soft marl into limestone, by\nthe same cause. In fact, we find causes now in operation that produce all\nthe varieties of known rocks, except some of the oldest, which seem to\nneed only a greater intensity in some of the causes now at work to produce\nthem. By ascertaining the rate at which rocks are now forming, therefore,\nwe can form some opinion as to the time requisite to produce those\nconstituting the crust of the globe. If, for instance, we can determine\nhow fast ponds, lakes, and oceans are filling up with mud, sand, and\ngravel, conveyed to their bottoms, we can judge of the period necessary to\nproduce those rocks which appear to have been formed in a similar manner;\nand if there is any evidence that the process was more rapid in early\ntimes, we can make due allowance.\n\nIn the third place, all the stratified rocks appear to have been formed\nout of the fragments of other rocks, worn down by the action of water and\natmospheric agencies. This is particularly true of that large proportion\nof these rocks which contain the remains of animals and plants. The mud,\nsand, and gravel of which these are mostly composed, must have been worn\nfrom rocks previously existing, and have been transported into lakes, and\nthe ocean, as the same process is now going on. There the animals and\nplants, which died in the waters, and were transported thither by rivers,\nmust have been buried; next, the rocks must have been hardened into stone,\nby admixture with lime, or iron, or by internal heat; and, finally, have\nbeen raised above the waters, so as to become dry land. Beds of limestone\nare interstratified with those of shale, sandstone, and conglomerate; but\nthese form only a small proportion of the whole, and, besides, were mostly\nformed in an analogous manner, though by agencies more decidedly chemical.\n\nNow, for the most part, this process of forming rocks by the accumulation\nof mud, sand, and gravel is very slow. In general, such accumulations, at\nthe bottom of lakes and the ocean, do not increase more than a few inches\nin a century. During violent floods, indeed, and in a few limited spots,\nthe accumulation is much more rapid; as in the Lake of Geneva, through\nwhich the Rhone, loaded with detritus from the Alps, passes, where a delta\nhas been formed two miles long and nine hundred feet thick, within eight\nhundred years.[7] And occasionally such rapid depositions probably took\nplace while the older rocks were in the course of formation. But in\ngeneral, the work seems to have gone on as slowly as it usually does at\npresent.\n\nYet, in the fourth place, there must have been time enough since the\ncreation to deposit at least ten miles of rocks in perpendicular\nthickness, in the manner that has been described. For the stratified rocks\nare at least of that thickness in Europe, and in this country much\nthicker; or, if we regard only the fossiliferous strata as thus deposited,\n(since some geologists might hesitate to admit that the non-fossiliferous\nrocks were thus produced,) these are six and a half miles thick in Europe,\nand still thicker in this country. How immense a period was requisite for\nsuch a work! Some do, indeed, contend that the work, in all cases, as we\nhave allowed it in a few, may have been vastly more rapid than at the\npresent day. But the manner in which the materials are arranged, and\nespecially the preservation of the most delicate parts of the organic\nremains, often in the very position in which the animals died, show the\nquiet and slow manner in which the process went on.\n\nIn the fifth place, it is certain that, since man existed on the globe,\nmaterials for the production of rocks have not accumulated to the average\nthickness of more than one hundred or two hundred feet; although in\nparticular places, as already mentioned, the accumulations are thicker.\nThe evidence of this position is, that neither the works nor the remains\nof man have been found any deeper in the earth than in the upper part of\nthat superficial deposit called _alluvium_. But had man existed while the\nother deposits were going on, no possible reason can be given why his\nbones and the fruits of his labors should not be found mixed with those of\nother animals, so abundant in the rocks, to the depth of six or seven\nmiles. In the last six thousand years, then, only one five hundredth part\nof the stratified rocks has been accumulated. I mention this fact, not as\nby any means an exact, but only an approximate, measure of the time in\nwhich the older rocks were deposited; for the precise age of the world is\nprobably a problem which science never can solve. All the means of\ncomparison within our reach enable us to say, only, that its duration must\nhave been immense.\n\nIn the sixth place, during the deposition of the stratified rocks, a great\nnumber of changes must have occurred in the matter of which they are\ncomposed. Hundreds of such changes can be easily counted, and they often\nimply great changes in the waters holding the materials in solution or\nsuspension; such changes, indeed, as must have required different oceans\nover the same spot. Such events could not have taken place without\nextensive elevations and subsidences of the earth's crust; nor could such\nvertical movements have happened without much intervening time, as many\nfacts, too technical to be here detailed, show. Here, then, we have\nanother evidence of vast periods of time occupied in the secondary\nproduction and arrangements of the earth's crust.\n\nIn the seventh place, numerous races of animals and plants must have\noccupied the globe previous to those which now inhabit it, and have\nsuccessively passed away, as catastrophes occurred, or the climate became\nunfit for their residence. Not less than thirty thousand species have\nalready been dug out of the rocks; and excepting a few hundred species,\nmostly of sea shells, occurring in the uppermost rocks, none of them\ncorrespond to those now living on the globe. In Europe, they are found to\nthe depth of about six and a half miles; and in this country, deeper; and\nno living species is found more than one twelfth of this depth. All the\nrest are specifically and often generically unlike living species; and the\nconclusion seems irresistible, that they must have lived and died before\nthe creation of the present species. Indeed, so different was the climate\nin those early times,--it having been much warmer than at present in most\nparts of the world,--that but few of the present races could have lived\nthen. Still further: it appears that, during the whole period since\norganized beings first appeared on the globe, not less than four, or five,\nand probably more--some think as many as ten or twelve--entire races have\npassed away, and been succeeded by recent ones; so that the globe has\nactually changed all its inhabitants half a dozen times. Yet each of the\nsuccessive groups occupied it long enough to leave immense quantities of\ntheir remains, which sometimes constitute almost entire mountains. And in\ngeneral, these groups became extinct in consequence of a change of\nclimate; which, if imputed to any known cause, must have been an extremely\nslow process.\n\nNow, these results are no longer to be regarded as the dreams of fancy,\nbut the legitimate deductions from long and careful observation of facts.\nAnd can any reasonable man conceive how such changes can have taken place\nsince the six days of creation, or within the last six thousand years? In\norder to reconcile them with such a supposition, we must admit of\nhypotheses and absurdities more wild and extravagant than have ever been\ncharged upon geology. But admit of a long period between the first\ncreative act and the six days, and all difficulties vanish.\n\nIn the eighth place, the denudations and erosions that have taken place on\nthe earth's surface indicate a far higher antiquity to the globe, even\nsince it assumed essentially its present condition, than the common\ninterpretation of Genesis admits. The geologist can prove that in many\ncases the rocks have been worn away, by the slow action of the ocean, more\nthan two miles in depth in some regions, and those very wide; as in South\nWales, in England. As the continents rose from the ocean, the slow\ndrainage by the rivers has excavated numerous long and deep gorges,\nrequiring periods incalculably extended.\n\nI do not wonder that, when the sceptic stands upon the banks of Niagara\nRiver, and sees how obviously the splendid cataract has worn out the deep\ngorge extending to Lake Ontario, he should feel that there is a standing\nproof that the common opinion, as to the age of the world, cannot be true;\nand hence be led to discard the Bible, if he supposes that to be a true\ninterpretation.\n\nBut the Niagara gorge is only one among a multitude of examples of erosion\nthat might be quoted; and some of them far more striking to a geologist.\nOn Oak Orchard Creek, and the Genesee River, between Rochester and Lake\nOntario, are similar erosions, seven miles long. On the latter river,\nsouth of Rochester, we find a cut from Mount Morris to Portage, sometimes\nfour hundred feet deep. On many of our south-western rivers we have what\nare called _canyons_, or gorges, often two hundred and fifty feet deep, and\nseveral miles long. Near the source of Missouri River are what are called\nthe Gates of the Rocky Mountains, where there is a gorge six miles long\nand twelve hundred feet deep. Similar cuts occur on the Columbia River,\nhundreds of feet deep, through the hard trap rock, for hundreds of miles,\nbetween the American Falls and the Dalles. At St. Anthony's Falls, on the\nMississippi, that river has worn a passage in limestone seven miles long,\nwhich distance the cataract has receded. On the Potomac, ten miles west of\nWashington, the Great Falls have worn back a passage sixty to sixty-five\nfeet deep, four miles, continuously--a greater work, considering the\nnature of the rock, than has been done by the Niagara. The passage for the\nHudson, through the highlands, is probably an example of river erosion; as\nis also that of the Connecticut at Brattleboro' and Bellows Falls. In\nthese places, it can be proved that the river was once at least seven\nhundred feet above its present bed. On the Deerfield River, a tributary of\nthe Connecticut, we have a gulf called the _Ghor_, eight miles long and\nseveral hundred feet deep, cut crosswise through the mica slate and gneiss\nby the stream.\n\nOn the eastern continent I might quote a multitude of analogous cases.\nThere is, for instance, the Wady el Jeib, in soft limestone, within the\nWady Arabah, south of the Dead Sea. The defile is one hundred and fifty\nfeet deep, half a mile wide, and forty miles long. In Mount Lebanon,\nseveral remarkable chasms in limestone have been described by American\nmissionaries, as that on Dog River, (Lycus of the ancients,) six miles\nlong, seventy or eighty feet deep, and from one hundred and twenty to one\nhundred and sixty feet wide; also, Wady Barida, whose walls are six\nhundred to eight hundred feet high. On the River Ravendoor, in Kurdistan,\nis a gorge, described in a letter from Dr. Perkins, one thousand feet\ndeep. Another on the Euphrates, near Diadeen, is seventy feet deep, and is\nspanned by a natural bridge one hundred feet long. On the River Terek, in\nthe Dariel Caucasus, is a pass one hundred and twenty miles long, whose\nwalls rise from one thousand to three thousand feet high. In Africa, the\nRiver Zaire has cut a passage, forty miles long, through mica slate,\nquartz, and syenite; and in New South Wales, Cox River passes through a\ngorge twenty-two hundred yards wide and eight hundred feet high.\n\nNinthly. Since the geological period now passing commenced, called the\n_alluvial_, or pleistocene period, certain changes have been going on,\nwhich indicate a very great antiquity to the drift period, which was the\ncommencement of the alluvial period, and has been considered among the\nmost recent of geological events. I refer to the formation of deltas and\nof terraces.\n\nOf the deltas I will mention but a single example, to which, however, many\nothers correspond. The Mississippi carries down to its mouth\n28,188,803,892 cubic feet of sediment yearly, which it deposits; or one\ncubic mile in five years and eighty-one days. Now, as the whole delta\ncontains twenty-seven hundred and twenty cubic miles, it must have\nrequired fourteen thousand two hundred and four years to form it in this\nmanner.\n\nTerraces occur along some of the rivers of our country from four hundred\nto five hundred feet above their present beds, and around our lakes to the\nheight of nearly one thousand feet. They are composed of gravel, sand,\nclay, and loam, that have been comminuted, and sorted, and deposited, by\nwater chiefly. At a height two or three times greater, on the same rivers\nand lakes, we find what seem to be ancient sea beaches, of the same\nmaterials, deposited earlier, and less comminuted. The same facts also\noccur in Europe, and probably in Asia.\n\nNow, it seems quite certain, that these beaches and terraces were formed\nas the continents were being drained of the waters of the ocean, and the\nrivers were cutting down their beds; which last process has been going on\nin many places to the present day. Yet scarcely nowhere, since the memory\nof man, have even the lowest of these terraces and beaches been formed,\nsave on a very limited scale, and of a few feet in height. The lowest of\nthem have been the sites of towns and cities, ever since the settlement of\nour country, and on the eastern continent much longer. Yet we see the\nprocesses by which they have been formed now in operation; but they have\nscarcely made any progress during the period of human history. How vast\nthe period, then, since the work was first commenced! Yet even its\ncommencement seems to have been no farther back than the drift epoch,\nsince that deposit lies beneath the terraces. But the drift period was\ncomparatively a very recent one on the geological scale. How do such facts\nimpress us with the vast duration of the globe since the first series of\nchanges commenced!\n\nFinally. There is no little reason to believe that, previous to the\nformation of the stratified rocks, the earth passed through changes that\nrequired vast periods of time, by which it was gradually brought into a\nhabitable state. It is even believed that one of its earliest conditions\nwas that of vapor; that, gradually condensing, it became a melted globe of\nfire, and then, as it gradually cooled, a crust formed over its surface;\nand so at last it became habitable. All this is indeed hypothesis; and,\ntherefore, I do not place it in the same rank as the other proofs of the\nearth's antiquity, already adduced. Still this hypothesis has so much\nevidence in its favor, that not a few of the ablest and most cautious\nphilosophers of the present day have adopted it. And if it be indeed true,\nit throws back the creation of the universe to a period remote beyond\ncalculation or conception.\n\nNow, let this imperfect summary of evidence in favor of the earth's high\nantiquity be candidly weighed, and can any one think it strange that every\nman, who has carefully and extensively examined the rocks in their native\nbeds, is entirely convinced of its validity? Men of all professions, and\nof diverse opinions concerning the Bible, have been geologists; but on\nthis point they are unanimous, however they may differ as to other points\nin the science. Must we not, then, regard this fact as one of the settled\nprinciples of science? If so, who will hesitate to say that it ought to\nsettle the interpretation of the first verse of Genesis, in favor of that\nmeaning which allows an intervening period between the creation of matter\nand the creation of light? This is the grand point which I have aimed to\nestablish; and, in conclusion, I beg leave to make a few remarks by way of\ninference.\n\nFirst. This interpretation of Genesis is entirely sufficient to remove all\napparent collision between geology and revelation. It gives the geologist\nfull scope for his largest speculations concerning the age of the world.\nIt permits him to maintain that its first condition was as unlike to the\npresent as possible, and allows him time enough for all the changes of\nmineral constitution and organic life which its strata reveal. It supposes\nthat all these are passed over in silence by the sacred writers, because\nirrelevant to the object of revelation, but full of interest and\ninstruction to the men of science, who should afterwards take pleasure in\nexploring the works of God.\n\nIt supposes the six days' work of creation to have been confined entirely\nto the fitting up the world in its present condition, and furnishing it\nwith its present inhabitants. Thus, while it gives the widest scope to the\ngeologist, it does not encroach upon the literalities of the Bible; and\nhence it is not strange that it should be almost universally adopted by\ngeologists as well as by many eminent divines.\n\nI would not forget to notice in this connection, however, a recent\nproposed extension of this interpretation by Dr. John Pye Smith, founded\non the principle already illustrated, that the sacred writers adapted\ntheir language to the state of knowledge among the Jews. By the term\n_earth_, in Genesis, he supposes, was designed not the whole terraqueous\nglobe, but \"the part of our world which God was adapting for the\ndwelling-place of man and animals connected with him.\" And the narrative\nof the six days' work is a description adapted to the ideas and\ncapacities of mankind in the earliest ages, of a series of operations, by\nwhich the Being of omnipotent wisdom and goodness adjusted and furnished,\nnot the earth generally, but, as the particular subject under\nconsideration here, a PORTION of its surface for most glorious purposes.\nThis portion of the earth he conceives to have been a large part of Asia,\nlying between the Caucasian ridge, the Caspian Sea and Tartary on the\nnorth, the Persian and Indian Seas on the south, and the high mountain\nridges which run at considerable distance on their eastern and western\nflanks. This region was first, by atmospheric and geological causes of\nprevious operation, under the will of the Almighty, brought into a\ncondition of superficial ruin, or some kind of general disorder, probably\nby volcanic agency; it was submerged, covered with fogs and clouds, and\nsubsequently elevated, and the atmosphere, by the fourth day, rendered\npellucid.--_Script. and Geol._ p. 275, 2d edit.\n\nWithout professing to adopt fully this view of my learned and venerable\nfriend, I cannot but remark, that it explains one or two difficulties on\nthis subject, which I shall more fully explain farther on. One is, the\ndifficulty of conceiving how the inferior animals could have been\ndistributed to their present places of residence from a single centre of\ncreation without a miracle. Certain it is, that, as the climate and\nposition of land and water now are, they could not thus migrate without\ncertain destruction to many of them. But by this theory they might have\nbeen created within the districts which they now occupy.\n\nAnother difficulty solved by this theory is, that several hundred species\nof animals, that were created long before man, as their remains found in\nthe tertiary strata show, still survive, and there is no evidence that\nthey ever became extinct; nor need they have been destroyed and\nrecreated, if Dr. Smith's theory be true. Nevertheless, it does not appear\nto me essential to a satisfactory reconciliation of geology and\nrevelation, that we should adopt it. But coming from such high authority,\nand sustained as it is by powerful arguments, it commends itself to our\ncandid examination.\n\nSecondly. I remark, that it is not necessary that we should be perfectly\nsure that the method which has been described, or any other, of bringing\ngeology into harmony with the Bible, is infallibly true. It is only\nnecessary that it should be sustained by probable evidence; that it should\nfairly meet the geological difficulty on the one hand, and do no violence\nto the language or spirit of the Bible on the other. This is sufficient,\nsurely, to satisfy every philosophical mind, that there is no collision\nbetween geology and revelation. But should it appear hereafter, either\nfrom the discoveries of the geologist or the philologist, that our views\nmust be somewhat modified, it would not show that the previous views had\nbeen insufficient to harmonize the two subjects; but only that here, as in\nevery other department of human knowledge, perfection is not attained,\nexcept by long-continued efforts.\n\nI make these remarks, because it is well known that other modes, besides\nthat which I have defended, have been proposed to accomplish the same\nobject; and it is probable that, even to this day, one or two of these\nmodes may be defended, although the general opinion of geologists is in\nfavor of that which I have exhibited.\n\nSome, for instance, have supposed that the fossiliferous strata may all\nhave been deposited in the sixteen hundred years between the creation and\nthe deluge, and by that catastrophe have been lifted out of the ocean.\nOthers have imagined them all produced by that event. But the most\nplausible theory regards the six days of creation as periods of great,\nthough indefinite length, during which all the changes exhibited by the\nstrata of rocks took place. The arguments in defence of this view are the\nfollowing: 1. The word _day_ is often used in Scripture to express a\nperiod of indefinite length. (Luke xvii. 24. John viii. 56. Job xiv. 6.)\n2. The sun, moon, and stars were not created till the fourth day; so that\nthe revolution of the earth on its axis, in twenty-four hours, may not\nhave existed previously, and the light and darkness that alternated may\nhave had reference to some other standard. 3. The Sabbath, or seventh day,\nin which God rested from his work, has not yet terminated; and there is\nreason to suppose the demiurgic days may have been at least of equal\nlength. 4. This interpretation corresponds remarkably with the traditional\ncosmogonies of some heathen nations, as the ancient Etruscans and modern\nHindoos; and it was also adopted by Philo and other Jewish writers. 5. The\norder of creation, as described in Genesis, corresponds to that developed\nby geology. This order, according to Cuvier and Professor Jameson, is as\nfollows: 1. The earth was covered with the sea without inhabitants. 2.\nPlants were created on the third day, and are found abundantly in the coal\nmeasures. 3. On the fifth day, the inhabitants of the waters, then flying\nthings, then great reptiles, and then mammiferous animals, were created.\n4. On the sixth day, man was created.\n\nThe following are the objections to this interpretation: 1. The word _day_\nis not used figuratively in other places of Genesis, (unless perhaps Gen.\nii. 4,) though it is sometimes so used in other parts of Scripture. 2. In\nthe fourth commandment, where the days of creation are referred to, (Exod.\nxx. 9, 10, 11,) no one can doubt but that the six days of labor and the\nSabbath, spoken of in the ninth and tenth verses, are literal days. By\nwhat rule of interpretation can the same word in the next verse be made to\nmean indefinite periods? 3. From Gen. ii. 5, compared with Gen. i. 11, 12,\nit seems that it had not rained on the earth till the third day--a fact\naltogether probable if the days were of twenty-four hours, but absurd if\nthey were long periods. 4. Such a meaning is forced and unnatural, and,\ntherefore, not to be adopted without urgent necessity. 5. This hypothesis\nassumes that Moses describes the creation of all the animals and plants\nthat have ever lived on the globe. But geology decides that the species\nnow living, since they are not found in the rocks any lower down than man\nis, (with a few exceptions,) could not have been contemporaries with those\nin the rocks, but must have been created when man was; that is, on the\nsixth day. Of such a creation no mention is made in Genesis. The inference\nis, that Moses does not describe the creation of the existing races, but\nonly of those that lived thousands of years earlier, and whose existence\nwas scarcely suspected till modern times. Who will admit such an\nabsurdity? If any one takes the ground that the existing races were\ncreated with the fossil ones, on the third and fifth days, then he must\nshow, what no one can, why the remains of the former are not found mixed\nwith the latter. 6. Though there is a general resemblance between the\norder of creation, as described in Genesis and by geology, yet when we\nlook at the details of the creation of the organic world, as required by\nthis hypothesis, we find manifest discrepancy, instead of the coincidence\nasserted by some distinguished advocates of these views. Thus the Bible\nrepresents plants only to have been created on the third day, and animals\nnot till the fifth; and hence, at least, the lower half of the\nfossiliferous rocks ought to contain nothing but vegetables. Whereas, in\nfact, the lower half of these rocks, all below the carboniferous,\nalthough abounding in animals, contain scarcely any plants, and those in\nthe lowest strata, fucoids, or sea-weeds. But the Mosaic account of the\nthird day's work evidently describes flowering and seed-bearing plants,\nnot flowerless and seedless algae. Again: reptiles are described in Genesis\nas created on the fifth day; but reptilia and batrachians existed as early\nas the time when the lower carboniferous, and even old red sandstone\nstrata, were in a course of deposition, as their tracks on those rocks in\nNova Scotia and Pennsylvania evince. In short, if we maintain that Moses\ndescribes fossil as well as living species, we find discrepancy, instead\nof correspondence, between his order of creation and that of geology. But\nadmit that he describes only existing species, and all difficulties\nvanish.\n\nIt appears, then, that the objections to this interpretation of the word\n_day_ are more geological than exegetical. It has accordingly been mostly\nabandoned by men, who, from their knowledge both of geology and scriptural\nexegesis, were best qualified to judge. And even those who are inclined to\nadopt it do also believe in the existence of a long period between the\nbeginning and the demiurgic days. From the earliest times, however, in\nwhich we have writings upon the Scriptures, we find men doubting whether\nthe demiurgic days of Moses are to be taken in a strictly literal sense.\nJosephus and Philo regarded the six days' work as metaphorical. Origen\ntook a similar view, and St. Augustin says, \"It is difficult, if not\nimpossible, for us to conceive what sort of days these were.\" In more\nmodern times, we find many able writers, as Hahn, Hensler, De Luc,\nProfessors Lee and Wait, of the University of Cambridge, Faber, &c.,\nadopting modifications of the same views. Mr. Faber, however, a few years\nsince, abandoned this opinion; and for the most part, geologists and\ntheologians prefer to regard the six days as literal days of twenty-four\nhours. But, generally, they would not regard the opposite opinion to be as\nunreasonable as it would be to reject the Bible from any supposed\ncollision with geology. Yet, in general, they suppose it sufficient, to\nmeet all difficulties, to allow of an indefinite interval between the\n\"beginning\" and the six days' work of creation.\n\nIn the truly scientific system of theology by the venerable Dr. Knapp, we\nfind a proposed interpretation of the Mosaic account of the creation, that\nwould bring it into harmony with geology. \"If we would form a clear and\ndistinct notion of this whole description of creation,\" says he, \"we must\nconceive of six separate _pictures_, in which this great work is\nrepresented in each successive stage of its progress towards completion.\nAnd as the performance of the painter, though it must have natural truth\nfor its foundation, must not be considered, or judged of, as a delineation\nof mathematical or scientific accuracy, so neither must this pictorial\nrepresentation of the creation be regarded as literally and exactly true.\"\nHe then alludes to the various hypotheses respecting the early state of\nthe matter of the globe, and says, \"Any of these hypotheses of the\nnaturalist may be adopted or rejected, the Mosaic geogony\nnotwithstanding.\"[8]\n\nThirdly. The interpretation of Genesis, for which I have contended in this\nlecture, does not affect injuriously any doctrine of revelation. The\ncommunity have, indeed, been taught to believe that the universe was all\nbrought into existence about six thousand years ago; and it always\nproduces a temporary evil to change the interpretation of a passage of the\nBible, even though, as in this case, it be the result of new light shed\nupon it; because it is apt to make individuals of narrow views lose their\nconfidence in the rules of interpretation. But when the change is once\nmade, it increases men's confidence in the Word of God, which is only\npurified, but not shaken, by all the discoveries of modern science. In the\npresent case, it does not seem to be of the least consequence, so far as\nthe great doctrines of the Bible are concerned, whether the world has\nstood six thousand, or six hundred thousand years. Nor can I conceive of\nany truth of the Bible, which does not shine with at least equal\nbrightness and glory, if the longest chronological dates be adopted.\n\nYet, fourthly. I maintain that several of these doctrines are far more\nstrikingly and profitably exhibited, if the high antiquity of the globe be\nadmitted. The common interpretation limits the operations of the Deity, so\nfar as the material universe is concerned, to the last six thousand years.\nBut the geological view carries the mind back along the flow of countless\nages, and exhibits the wisdom of the Deity carrying forward, with infinite\nskill, a vast series of operations, each successive link springing out of\nthat before it, and becoming more and more beautiful, until the glorious\nuniverse in which we live comes forth, not only the last, but the best of\nall. All this while, too, we perceive the heart of infinite Benevolence at\nwork, either in fitting up the world for its future races of inhabitants,\nor in placing upon it creatures exactly adapted to its varying condition;\nuntil man, at last, the crown of all, makes it his delightful abode, with\nnothing to lament but his own apostasy,--with every thing perfect but\nhimself. Can the mind enter such an almost boundless field of\ncontemplation as this, and not feel itself refreshed, and expanded, and\nfilled with more exalted conceptions of the divine plans and divine\nbenevolence than could possibly be obtained within the narrow limits of\nsix thousand years? But I will not enlarge; for I hope I may be allowed,\nin future lectures, to enter this rich field of thought, when we have more\nleisure to survey its beautiful prospects, and pluck its golden fruit.\n\nFinally. If the geological interpretation of Genesis be true, then it\nshould be taught to all classes of the community. It is, indeed, unwise to\nalter received interpretations of Scripture without very strong reasons.\nWe should be satisfied that the new light, which has come to us, is not\nthat of a transient meteor, but of a permanent luminary. We should, also,\nbe satisfied, that the proposed change is consistent with the established\nrules of philology. If we introduce change of this sort before these\npoints are settled, even upon passages that have no connection with\nfundamental moral principles, we shall distress many an honest and pious\nheart, and expose ourselves to the necessity of further change. But on the\nother hand, if we delay the change long after these points are fairly\nsettled, we shall excite the suspicion that we dread to have the light of\nscience fall upon the Bible. Nor let it be forgotten how disastrous has\never been the influence of the opinion that theologians teach one thing,\nand men of science another. Now, in the case under consideration, is there\nany reason to doubt the high antiquity of the globe, as demonstrated by\ngeology? If any point, not capable of mathematical demonstration in\nphysical science, is proved, surely this truth is established. And how\neasily reconciled to the inspired record, by an interpretation entirely\nconsistent with the rules of philology, and with the scope of the\npassage, and the tenor of the Bible! It seems to me far more natural, and\neasy to understand, than that interpretation which it became necessary to\nintroduce when the Copernican system was demonstrated to be true. The\nlatter must have seemed to conflict strongly with the natural and most\nobvious meaning of certain passages of the Bible, at a time when men's\nminds were ignorant of astronomy, and, I may add, of the true mode of\ninterpreting the language of Scripture respecting natural phenomena.\nNevertheless, the astronomical exegesis prevailed, and every child can now\nsee its reasonableness. So it seems to me that the child can easily\napprehend the geological interpretation and its reasons. Why, then, should\nit not be taught to children, that they may not be liable to distrust the\nwhole Bible, when they come to the study of geology? I rejoice, however,\nthat the fears and prejudices of the pious and the learned are so fast\nyielding to evidence; and I anticipate the period, when, on this subject,\nthe child will learn the same thing in the Sabbath school and the literary\ninstitution. Nay, I anticipate the time as not distant, when the high\nantiquity of the globe will be regarded as no more opposed to the Bible\nthan the earth's revolution round the sun and on its axis. Soon shall the\nhorizon, where geology and revelation meet, be cleared of every cloud, and\npresent only an unbroken and magnificent circle of truth.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE III.\n\nDEATH A UNIVERSAL LAW OF ORGANIC BEINGS ON THIS GLOBE FROM THE BEGINNING.\n\n\nDeath has always been regarded by man as the king of terrors, and the\nclimax of all mortal evils; and by Christians its introduction into the\nworld has generally been imputed to the apostasy of our first parents. For\nthe threatening announced to them in Eden was, _In the day thou eatest of\nthe forbidden fruit thou shalt surely die_, implying that if they did not\neat thereof they might live. But _when the woman saw the tree was good for\nfood, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to\nmake one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also\nto her husband with her, and he did eat_. As the result, it is generally\nsupposed that a great change took place in animals and plants, and from\nbeing immortal, they became mortal, in consequence of this fatal deed. But\ngeology asserts that death existed in the world untold ages before man's\ncreation, while physiology declares it to be a universal law of nature,\nand a wise and benevolent provision in such a world as ours. Now, the\nquestion is, Do not these different statements conflict with one another?\nand if so, is the discrepancy apparent only, or real? These are the\nquestions which I now propose to examine, by all the light which we can\nobtain from the Bible and from science.\n\n_The first point to be ascertained in this investigation will be, what the\nBible teaches on this subject._\n\nIn the first place, it distinctly informs us that the death which man\nexperiences, came upon him in consequence of sin.\n\nThe declaration of Paul on this subject is as distinct as language can be.\n_By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death\npassed upon all men, for that all have sinned._ This corresponds with the\noriginal threatening respecting the forbidden fruit. We know that our\nfirst parents ate of it; we know, also, that they died; and the apostle\nplaces these two facts in the relation of cause and effect.\n\nIn the second place, the Bible does not inform us whether the death of the\ninferior animals and plants is the consequence of man's transgression.\n\nIn order to prove this statement, it is necessary to show that the\nlanguage of the Bible, which distinctly ascribes the introduction of death\ninto the world, is limited to man. The first part of the sentence from\nPaul, just quoted, is indeed very general, and may include all organic\nnatures. _By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin._ What\nterms more general or explicit than these could be used? Yet the remainder\nof the sentence shows that the apostle had man mainly in his eye; _and so\ndeath passed upon all men, for that all have sinned_. The death here\nspoken of is limited expressly to man; and, therefore, it is not necessary\nto show that the same terms, in the first part of the sentence, had a more\nextended meaning. Death is spoken of here as the result of sin, and\ncannot, therefore, embrace animals and plants, which are incapable of sin.\nBut after all, the first part of the sentence may intend to teach a\ngeneral truth respecting the origin of every kind of death in the world.\nIt will be seen in the sequel, that to such a meaning I have no objection,\nif it can be established.\n\nAnother very explicit passage on the introduction of death into the world\nis found in Corinthians: _Since by man came death, by man came also the\nresurrection of the dead._ Here, too, the last clause of the sentence\nlimits the meaning to the human family. For no one will doubt that Christ\nis the man here spoken of, by whom came the resurrection of the dead. Now,\nunless the inferior animals and plants will share in a resurrection in\nconsequence of what Christ has done, and in the redemption wrought out by\nhim too, they cannot be included in this passage. And if neither of the\ntexts now quoted extend in their application beyond the human race, I know\nof no other passage in the Bible that teaches, directly or inferentially,\nthat death among the inferior animals or plants resulted from man's\napostasy. I do not deny that there may be a connection between these\nevents; certainly the Scriptures do not teach the contrary. But they\nappear to me rather to leave the question of such a connection undecided,\nand open for the examination of philosophers. If so, we may reason\nconcerning the dissolution of animals, except men, without reference to\nthe Scriptures.\n\n_Under the second part of this investigation, I shall endeavor to show\nthat geology proves violent and painful death to have existed in the world\nlong before man's creation._\n\nIn the oldest of the sedimentary rocks, the remains of animals occur in\nvast numbers; nor will any one, I trust, of ordinary intelligence, doubt\nbut these relics once constituted living beings. Through the whole series\nof rocks, six miles in thickness, we find similar remains, even increasing\nin numbers as we ascend; but it is not till we reach the very highest\nstratum, the mere superficial coat of alluvium, that we find the remains\nof man. The vast multitudes, then, of organized beings that lie entombed\nin rocks below alluvium, must have yielded to death long before man\nreceived his sentence, _Dust thou art, and to dust shalt thou return._\nWill any one maintain that none of these animals preceded man in the\nperiod of their existence? Then why are the remains of men not found with\ntheirs? for his bony skeleton is as likely to be preserved and petrified\nas theirs. Moreover, so unlike to man and other existing tenants of the\nglobe are many of these ancient animals, that the sure laws of comparative\nanatomy show us, that both races could not live and flourish in a world\nadapted to the one or the other. If the temperature had been warm enough\nfor the fossil tribes, and all the circumstances of food and climate\ncongenial to their natures, they would have been unsuited to the present\nraces; and if adapted to the latter, the former must have perished. The\ndifference between the animals and plants dug out of the rocks in this\nlatitude, and those now inhabiting the same region of country, is\ncertainly as great as that between the animals and plants of the torrid\nand temperate zones; in most cases it is greater. Now, suppose that the\nanimals and plants of the temperate zones were to change places with those\nbetween the tropics. A few species might survive, but the greater part\nwould be destroyed. Hence, _a fortiori_, had the living beings now\nentombed in the rocks been placed in the same climate with those now alive\nupon the globe, the like result would have followed. I say _a fortiori_;\nthat is, for a stronger reason, the greater number must have perished; and\nthe stronger reason is, the greater difference between fossil and living\nspecies, than between the latter in torrid and temperate latitudes. It is\ntrue that man is among the species capable of being acclimated to great\nextremes. And yet no physiologist will imagine that even his nature could\nhave long survived in such a climate as formerly existed, when probably\nthe atmosphere was loaded with carbonic acid and other mephitic gases,\nand with moisture and miasms, the result of a rank vegetation, and of a\ntemperature higher than now exists in equatorial countries.\n\nThis argument, furnished by comparative anatomy, to show that man and the\nfossil animals could not have been contemporaries, will probably seem to\nhave little force to those who are not familiar with the history of\norganic life on the globe, and the distribution of species. It is not\ngenerally known that both animals and plants are usually confined to a\nparticular district, and that a removal beyond its boundaries, or the\naccess of a few more degrees of cold, or heat, than is common in the place\nassigned them by nature, will destroy them. To him who understands this\ncurious history, the argument under consideration is perfectly\nsatisfactory, to prove the existence and consequent dissolution of myriads\nof living beings, anterior to man. \"Judging by these indications of the\nhabits of the animals,\" says the distinguished anatomist, Sir Charles\nBell, \"we acquire a knowledge of the condition of the earth during their\nperiod of existence; that it was suited at one time to the scaly tribe of\nthe lacertae, with languid motion; at another, to animals of higher\norganization, with more varied and lively habits; and finally, we learn\nthat at any period previous to man's creation, the surface of the earth\nwould have been unsuitable to him. Any other hypothesis than that of a new\ncreation of animals, suited to the successive changes in the inorganic\nmatter of the globe, the condition of the water, atmosphere, and\ntemperature, brings with it only an accumulation of difficulties.\"--_The\nHand, its Mech._, &c. pp. 31 and 115.\n\nBut when arguing with those who do not feel the force of this argument, I\nwould fall back upon that derived from the fact, that of the ten thousand\nspecies of animals dug out of the rocks beneath alluvium, no relic of man\nhas been found; and ask them whether they can explain such a fact, except\nby the supposition that man was not their contemporary.\n\nIn his admirable Bridgewater Treatise, Dr. Buckland has conclusively shown\nthat the same great system of organization and adaptation has always\nprevailed on the globe. It was the same in those immensely remote ages,\nwhen the fossil animals lived, as it now is. And there is one feature of\nthat system which deserves notice in this argument. At present, we know\nthat there exist large tribes of animals, called carnivorous, provided\nwith organs expressly designed to enable them to destroy other animals,\nand of course to inflict on them violent and painful death. Exactly\nsimilar tribes, and in a like proportion, are found among the fossil\nanimals. They were not always the same tribes; but when one class of\ncarnivora disappeared, another was created to take their place, in order\nto keep down the excessive multiplication of other races, which appears to\nbe the grand object accomplished by the carnivorous races. And that\nanimals of such an organization not only lived in the ages preceding man's\ncreation, but actually destroyed contemporary species, we have the\nevidence in the remains of the one animal enclosed in the body of another,\nby whom it was devoured for food and both are now converted into rock, and\nwill testify to the most sceptical, that death among animals existed in\nthe world before man's transgression.\n\n_Under the third part of this investigation, I shall attempt to show that\nphysiology teaches us that death is a general law of organic natures._\n\nIt is not confined to animals, but embraces also plants. As they\ncorrespond in a striking manner to animals in their reproduction and\ngrowth, so they do in their decay and dissolution. In short, wherever in\nnature we find life and organization, death is inevitable. The amount of\nvital energy varies in different species, and in individuals; but in them\nall, it at length becomes exhausted, and the functions cease. After a\ncertain period, the vessels which convey the nutritive materials, and\nelaborate the proximate principles, become choked with excrementitious\nmatter, assimilation is performed imperfectly, and gradually the vital\nenergies are overpowered, and yield up their charge to the disorganizing\npower of chemical agencies. We can hardly see why the delicate machinery\ncannot hold out longer than it does, or even indefinitely. But experience\nshows us that an irresistible law of nature has fixed the period of its\noperations. In the expressive language of Scripture, which applies to\nplants as well as animals, _there is no discharge in that war_.\n\nA little reflection will convince any one, that in such a system as exists\nin the world, this universal decay and dissolution are indispensable. For\ndead organic matter is essential to the support and nourishment of living\nbeings. Admit, for the sake of the argument, (although it is obviously\nabsurd in respect to the carnivorous races,) that animals might be\nsupported by vegetable food. Yet, if plants must furnish nourishment for\ntheir successors, as well as for animals, the organic matter must at\nlength be exhausted. And, furthermore, how could animals feed on plants\nwithout destroying, as they now do, multitudes of minute insects and\nanimalcules? It is obvious, also, that, for a variety of reasons, the\nmultiplication of animals must soon be arrested, or famine would be the\nresult, or the world would be more than full. In short, it would require\nan entirely different system in nature from the present, in order to\nexclude death from the world. To the existing system it is as essential\nas gravitation, and apparently just as much a law of nature.\n\nTo strengthen this argument still further, comparative anatomy testifies\nthat large classes of animals have a structure evidently intended to\nenable them to feed on other tribes. The teeth of the more perfect\ncarnivorous animals are adapted for seizing and tearing their prey, while\nthose which feed on vegetables have cutting and grinding teeth, but not\nthe canine. So the whole digestive apparatus in the carnivora is more\nsimple, and of less extent, than in the herbivorous tribes, while in the\nformer the gastric juice acts more readily upon flesh, and in the latter\nupon vegetables. The muscular apparatus, also, is developed in greater\npower in the former than in the latter, especially in the neck and fore\npaw. Throughout all the classes of animals, those which feed on flesh are\narmed with poisonous fangs, or talons, or beaks, or other formidable\nweapons, while the vegetable feeders are usually in a great measure\ndefenceless. In short, in the one class we find a perfect adaptation, in\nall the organs, for destroying, digesting, and assimilating other animals,\nand in the other class, an arrangement, equally obvious, for procuring and\ndigesting vegetables. Indeed, you need only show the anatomist the\nskeleton, or even a very small part of the skeleton, of an unknown animal,\nto enable him, in most cases, to decide, what is the food of that animal,\nwith almost as much certainty as if he had for years observed its habits.\nWho can doubt, then, that when a carnivorous animal employs the weapons\nwith which nature has furnished it for the destruction of another animal,\nin order to satisfy its hunger, that it acts in obedience to a law of its\nbeing, originally impressed upon its constitution by the Creator? It is\ntrue, that even the flesh-eating animals may be taught for a time to\nsubsist upon vegetable products. But this is unnatural; and such an\nanimal usually pays the price of thus inverting its original instinct, by\ndisease and premature decay. In a state of nature, an animal would starve\nrather than thus violate its instinctive desires.\n\nI will allude to only one other fact, that shows death to be inseparable\nfrom organized beings, without a constant miraculous interference, in such\na world as ours. Animal organization, in all conceivable circumstances,\nmust be liable to accident, from mere mechanical force, by which life\nwould be destroyed. It may be possible, perhaps, to conceive of a material\ntenement for the soul, which should be unaffected by all forms of\nmechanical violence and chemical action; if, for instance, its\nconstitution were analogous to that supposed medium through which light,\nheat, and electricity, and perhaps gravitation, act. But, surely, our\npresent bodies are far enough removed from such conditions, being of all\nterrestrial things the most liable to ruin from the causes above\nmentioned.\n\nThe conclusions from all these facts and reasonings are, that death is an\nessential feature of the present system of organized nature; that it must\nhave entered into the plan of creation in the divine mind originally, and\nconsequently must have existed in the world before the apostasy of man.\nWhether the entire system of death had any connection with that event, or\nwhether there is any thing peculiar in the death endured by the human\nfamily, will be questions for examination in a subsequent part of my\nlecture.\n\nIn opposition to these conclusions, however, the common theory of death\nmaintains that, when man transgressed, there was an entire change\nthroughout all organic nature; so that animals and plants, which before\ncontained a principle of immortal life, were smitten with the hereditary\ncontagion of disease and death. Those animals which, before that event,\nwere gentle and herbivorous, or frugivorous, suddenly became ferocious or\ncarnivorous. The climate, too, changed, and the sterile soil sent forth\nthe thorn and the thistle, in the place of the rich flowers and fruits of\nEden. The great English poet, in his Paradise Lost, has clothed this\nhypothesis in a most graphic and philosophical dress; and probably his\ndescriptions have done more than the Bible to give it currency. Indeed,\ncould the truth be known, I fancy that, on many points of secondary\nimportance, the current theology of the day has been shaped quite as much\nby the ingenious machinery of Paradise Lost as by the Scriptures; the\ntheologians having so mixed up the ideas of Milton with those derived from\ninspiration, that they find it difficult to distinguish between them.\n\nIn the case under consideration, Milton does not limit the change induced\nby man's apostasy to sublunary things, but, like a sagacious philosopher,\nperceives, also, that the heavenly bodies must have been diverted from\ntheir paths.\n\n                  \"At that tasted fruit,\n  The sun, as from Thyestian banquet, turned\n  His course intended; else-how had the world\n  Inhabited, though sinless, more than now,\n  Avoided pinching cold and scorching heat?\"\n\nThis change of the sun's path, as the poet well knew, could be effected\nonly by some change in the motion of the earth.\n\n  \"Some say he bid the angels turn askance\n  The poles of earth, twice ten degrees and more,\n  From the sun's axle; they with labor pushed\n  Oblique the centric globe.\"\n\nNext we have the effect upon the lower orders of animals described.\n\n                        \"Discord first,\n  Daughter of sin, among the irrational\n  Death introduced: through fierce antipathy,\n  Beast now with beast 'gan war, and fowl with fowl,\n      And fish with fish; to graze the herb all leaving,\n  Devoured each other.\"\n\nThe question arises here, whether such views are sustained by the Bible\nand by science. Few, I presume, would seriously maintain that the act of\nour first parents, which produced what Dr. Chalmers calls \"an unhingement\"\nof the human race, resulted likewise in a change in the motion of the\nearth and the heavenly bodies; since the Bible so clearly describes the\nprevious ordination of days, years, and seasons, on the fourth day of\ncreation. And is there any thing in the language of the Bible that will\njustify the opinion that such changes as this theory supposes took place\nin the productions of the earth, and in the nature of its animals? No\nanatomist can surely be made to believe that, without a constant miracle,\nour carnivorous animals can have become herbivorous, without such a change\nin their organization as must have amounted to a new creation. And such a\nmetamorphosis can hardly have passed unnoticed by the sacred writer. True,\nonly the gramineous and herbaceous substances are in the Bible given to\nthe inferior animals for food, while the fruits are assigned to man. But\nthis passage seems only to be a designation of one part of vegetable\nproductions to men, and another to other animals, and can hardly be\nsupposed to preclude the idea that there might be other tribes requiring\nanimal food.\n\nThe sentence pronounced upon the serpent for his agency in man's apostasy\nseems, at first view, favorable to the opinion that animal natures\nexperienced at the same time important changes; for he is supposed to have\nbeen deprived of limbs, and condemned henceforth to crawl upon the earth,\nand to make the dust his food. But is it the most probable interpretation\nof this passage, which makes the tempter a literal serpent, or only a\nsymbolical one? The naturalist does not surely find that serpents live\nupon dust, for they all are carnivorous, and they are as perfectly adapted\nto crawl upon the ground as other animals to different modes of\nprogression; and though _cursed above all cattle_, they are apparently as\nhappy as other animals. Hence the probability is, that an evil spirit is\ndescribed in Genesis under the name and figure of a serpent. This\nconclusion is supported by other parts of Scripture, where the tempter is\nin several places declared to be _the devil_, _the old serpent_, and _the\ngreat dragon_.\n\nA part of the sentence passed upon man seems, also, at first view, to\nimply an important change in the vegetable productions of the earth; for\nthe ground is cursed for man's sake: it would henceforth produce to him\nthorns and thistles, and in the sweat of his brow must he eat of the\nfruits of it, all the days of his life. Now, will not the condition and\ncharacter of Adam show how this curse might be fulfilled, without any\nchange in the productions of the soil? The garden of Eden, where man had\nlived in his innocence, was doubtless some sunny and balmy spot, where the\nair was delicious, and the earth poured forth her abundant fruits\nspontaneously; and although he was called to keep and dress that garden,\nyet, with a contented and holy heart, and with no factitious wants, the\nwork was neither labor nor sorrow. But now he is driven from that garden\ninto regions far less fertile, where the sterile soil can be made to\nyield its fruits only by the sweat of the brow, and where the thorn and\nthe thistle dispute their right of soil with salutary plants; and in his\nheart, too, unholy and unsubdued passions have place, which will infuse\nsorrow into all his labors.\n\nAs I have remarked in another place, I cannot see why the functions of\nanimal and vegetable organization might not have gone on forever without\ndecay and death, if such had been the Creator's will. In other words, I do\nnot see why the operation of the organs should at length be impeded and\ncease, as we know they do universally. Hence I can conceive that it might\nhave been otherwise originally; and in the case of man it is possible, as\nwe shall see farther on, that a change of this sort may have taken place\nat the time of his apostasy. But, after all, it strikes me that the Bible\nfurnishes very clear evidence that the same system of decay and death\nprevailed before the apostasy which now prevails. The command given, both\nto animals and to man, to be fruitful and multiply, implies the removal of\nsuccessive races by death; otherwise the world would ere long be\noverstocked. A system of death is certainly a necessary counterpart to a\nsystem of reproduction; and hence, where we know the one to exist, the\npresumption is very strong that the other exists also. There is no escape\nfrom this inference, except to call in the aid of miraculous power to\npreserve the proper balance among different races of animals, by\npreventing their multiplication. Such an interference I am always ready to\nadmit, where the Scriptures assert it. But to imagine a miracle without\nproof, merely to escape a fair conclusion, is, to say the least, very\nwretched logic. God never introduces a miracle where he can employ the\nordinary agency of nature for accomplishing his purposes. Nor should we\nresort to one without the express testimony of the Bible, which, on this\nsubject, is our only source of evidence.\n\nWe have in Scripture the same kind of proof that plants were subject to\ndecay and death, before the fall, as we have in respect to animals. For in\nthe account of the creation of plants on the third day, we find them\ndescribed as bearing seeds; and does not this clearly imply the same\nsystem of reproduction which now exists throughout the vegetable kingdom?\nIn short, an unprejudiced mind, in reading the history of the world in\nGenesis, before and after the fall, can hardly fail of the conviction,\nthat animals and plants were originally created on the same plan, as to\nreproduction, decay, and death, which now prevails. Great, indeed, must\nhave been the change at the fall, if, previous to that time, their\nstructure excluded all the organs and means of reproduction; as must have\nbeen the case if decay and death were also excluded. And it is strange\nthat the sacred writer should take no notice of such a change. He states\nthe effect of sin upon the three parties directly concerned in it, viz.,\nthe tempter, Adam, and Eve; and if a transformation of all vegetable and\nanimal natures, great enough almost to constitute a new creation, did take\nplace, it could hardly have been passed in silence. Even in the case of\nman, we have no remarkable physical change. The effect seems to have been\nchiefly confined to his intellectual constitution, where we should expect\nthe effect of sin to be primarily felt. There, indeed, in man's noblest\npart, has the havoc been the most terrific, and powerfully has its\noperation there reacted upon the body, so as to make death, in the case of\nman, the king of terrors.\n\nWe find, then, insuperable objections to the prevalent notion that an\nentire revolution took place at the fall in the material world, and\nespecially in organic nature. Those passages of Scripture which,\nliterally interpreted, seem to imply some changes of this sort, are easily\nunderstood as vivid figurative representations of the effects of sin upon\nmen, while their literal interpretation would involve us in inextricable\ndifficulties. We rest, therefore, in the conclusion, that, whatever\nconnection there may be between death and the existing system of organic\nand inorganic nature, no important change took place at the time of man's\nfirst transgression; in other Words, the present system is that which was\noriginally determined upon in the divine mind, and not the original plan\naltered after man's transgression.\n\n_The fourth step in the investigation of this subject leads me to attempt\nto show that, in the present system of the world, death, to the inferior\nanimals, is a benevolent provision, and to man, also, when not aggravated\nor converted into a curse by his own sin._\n\nIn examining this point, as well as many others in natural theology, where\nthe existence of evil is concerned, we must assume that the present system\nof the world is the best which infinite wisdom and benevolence could\ndevise. And this we may consistently do. For the prominent design\nthroughout nature appears to be beneficial to animal natures, and\nsuffering is only incidental, and happiness, moreover, is superadded to\nthe functions of animals, where it is unnecessary to the perfect\nperformance of the function. We may be certain, therefore, that the Author\nof such a system can neither be malevolent nor indifferent to the\nhappiness of animals, but must be benevolent; and, therefore, the system\nmust be the best possible, since such a Being could constitute no other.\n\nNow, death being an essential feature of such a system, we should expect\nto find it, as a whole, a benevolent provision. But, in the case of man,\nthe Bible represents it as a penal infliction, and such is its general\naspect in the human family. So far as the mere extinction of life is\nconcerned, it is the same in man as in other animals; but sin arms it with\na deadly sting, by pointing the offender to a world of retribution, as he\nsees the menacing dart of the great destroyer aimed at his heart. And,\nindeed, through all his days, man's power of anticipation keeps death ever\nbefore him, as the end of all his present enjoyments, and the\ncommencement, it may be, of unmitigated suffering. But the inferior\nanimals, being incapable of sin, find none of these aggravations to give\nkeenness to their final sufferings. No anticipation of death keeps it ever\nin view, as a terrific enemy. No guilty conscience points them to a\nrighteous throne of judgment, where they must be arraigned. But when the\nstroke comes, it falls unexpectedly, and the mere physical suffering is\nall that gives severity to their dissolution.\n\nIn the case of man, too, there is the sundering of ties too strong for any\nthing but death to break;--ties which bind him to kindred, friends, and\ncountry; and often this separation constitutes the most painful part of\nthe closing scene. But in the case of animals, we have no reason to\nsuppose these attachments, so far as they exist, to be very strong; nay,\nin most cases they are certainly very weak. And even did they exist, the\nbrute would not be conscious that death would remove him from the society\nof his beloved companions.\n\nThe inferior animals, also, usually die either a violent and sudden death,\ninflicted by some carnivorous enemy, or in extreme old age, by mere decay\nof the natural powers, without disease. The violent death can usually have\nin it little of suffering; and the slow decay still less. But although\nsome men die violent deaths, how few survive to extreme old age, and sink\nat last almost unconsciously into the grave, because the vital energies\nare exhausted! Were this the case, the physical terrors of death would be\nalmost taken away, and we should pass as quietly into eternity as a lamp\ngoes out when the oil is exhausted. But in general we see a constitution\nyet unbroken, struggling with fierce disease, and yielding to its fate\nonly with terrific agonies; because sin has early implanted the seeds of\ndisease in the constitution.\n\nImagine, now, that death should come upon a man in the course of nature;\nthat is, without disease, and with little suffering, and with no painful\nforebodings of conscience. Suppose, moreover, that the dying individual\nshould feel that the change passing upon him would assuredly introduce him\nto a new and spiritual body, undecaying, and adapted to the operations of\nthe mind; that it would, in fact, be _the building of God, the house not\nmade with hands, eternal in the heavens_; and that the soul, after death,\nwould enter into free and full communion with all that is great and\nennobling in the universe; and that joys, inconceivable and eternal, would\nhenceforth be its portion: O, how different would such a death be from\nwhat we usually witness! Yet, were men all to accept of the offered ransom\nfrom sin and death, and, under the guidance of pure religious principle,\nwere to pay a strict regard to hygienic laws, such would be, for the most\npart, the character of the death they would experience. The excepted cases\nwould be those of violent and sudden death from accident, or of disease\nfrom unavoidable exposure, and they would be comparatively few. So that,\nin fact, an observance of the laws, physical and moral, which God has\nordained, would change almost the entire aspect of death, even in this\nfallen world.\n\nThese remarks seem necessary in order to obtain a correct idea of the\ncharacter of death, when not aggravated by the sins of men. For those\naggravations seem superadded, in the case of men, as penal inflictions for\ntheir sins; and we ought to leave them out of the account, when we are\nconsidering death as a benevolent provision. I do not contend that death,\neven in its mildest forms, is no evil; nor that the apostasy of man was\nnot the cause of its introduction into the world. These points I shall\nconsider in another place. But I contend that, in the present system of\nthe world, death, when not aggravated by the sins of men, is to be\nregarded as a benevolent provision, bringing with it more happiness than\nmisery; although, had sin never existed, a system productive of still\ngreater enjoyment might have been adopted in this world. But as the\narrangements of the world now are, death affords the following evidences\nof infinite benevolence and wisdom.\n\nIn the _first place_, it is a transfer from a lower to a higher state of\nexistence.\n\nLet me here be understood distinctly as speaking only of the death of\nthose accountable beings, who, by the transforming power of grace, have\nbecome prepared for a higher and perfectly holy state of being. For the\ndeath of all others can be looked on only in the light of a terrible penal\ninfliction. But the righteous, when they die,--and all may, if they will,\nbecome righteous,--have before them the certain prospect of immortal\nhappiness, such as _eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it\nentered the heart of man to conceive_. They enter upon _fulness of joy,\nand pleasures forevermore_; and therefore death to them is infinite gain.\n\nWhether the inferior animals will exist again after death is a more\ndoubtful point. There is certainly nothing in Scripture decisive against\ntheir future existence; for the passage in Psalms which says, that _man\nthat is in honor and abideth not is like the brutes that perish_, if\nunderstood to mean the annihilation of animals, would prove also the\nannihilation of wicked men. And while most men of learning and piety have\nsuspended their opinion on the existence of the inferior animals after\ndeath, for want of evidence, some have been decided advocates of the\nfuture happy existence of all beings, who exhibit a spark of intelligence.\nNot a few distinguished German theologians and philosophers regard the\nwhole visible creation, both animate and inanimate, as at present in a\nconfined and depressed state, and struggling for freedom. On this\nprinciple Tholuck explains that most difficult passage in Romans, which\ndeclares _that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth together in pain\nuntil now_. He supposes this \"bound or fettered state of nature,\" both\nanimate and inanimate, to have a casual connection with sin, and the death\naccompanying it among men; and, therefore, when men are freed from sin and\ndeath, _the creation itself, also, shall be delivered from the bondage of\ncorruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God_. The kingdom\nof God, according to Tholuck, Martin Luther, and many other distinguished\ntheologians, will not be transferred to heaven at the end of the world,\nbut be established on earth, where all these transformations of the\nanimate and inanimate creation will take place.\n\nThis exposition surely carries with it a great deal of naturalness and\nprobability; and if it be true, death to the inferior animals must surely\nbe an indication of great benevolence on the part of the Deity, since it\nintroduces them to a higher state of existence. But if it be rejected,\nstill the general principle is eminently applicable to the case of man.\n\nIn the _second place_, the system of a succession of races of animals on\nearth, which death alone would render possible, secures a much greater\ncollective amount of happiness than a single race of animals, endowed with\nearthly immortality. I sustain this position by three arguments. The first\nis, that young animals enjoy more, in the same period of time, than those\nmore advanced in age. This may result, in part, in the present\norganization of animals, from the superior health and vigor enjoyed by the\nyoung. But it is due, also, in part, and largely, to the novelty of the\nscenes presented in early life. And so far as it results from the latter\ncause, it proves that a succession of races would enjoy more than a single\nrace continued indefinitely, because the successive races would always be\ncomparatively young. A single continuous race might, indeed, be supposed\nalways possessed of the unabated vigor and health of youth; but, of\nnecessity, objects must soon lose the charm of novelty, and, therefore,\nproduce less of enjoyment. The second argument is, that a succession of\nraces admits of the contemporaneous existence of a greater number of\nspecies than could coexist were none removed by death. If only one undying\nrace occupied the globe, it must subsist exclusively on vegetable food.\nWhereas much the largest part of the species that now live are carnivorous\nor omnivorous. All the enjoyment of these flesh-eating animals is,\ntherefore, so much clear gain to the stock of happiness, with the\nexception of the suffering which death inflicts. Now, but few of the\ninferior animals perish by disease. Some die by old age, and these suffer\nalmost nothing. But the greater part are suddenly destroyed by the violent\nassault of the carnivorous races. And as the pangs of death are momentary,\nand there are no anticipations of its approach, nor sunderings of the ties\nof affection, nor dread of an hereafter, the suffering endured must be an\nexceedingly small drawback upon the enjoyment of the whole life. It is\nfar less than it would be, if animals were left to perish by famine, or by\nslow degrees, from deficient nourishment; so that the existence of the\ncarnivorous races, seeming at first view intended to convert the world\ninto a vast Golgotha, does in fact add greatly to the amount of enjoyment,\nbecause it so prodigiously multiplies the number of species of animals,\nand lessens the sufferings of death. In the third place, death exerts a\nsalutary moral influence upon man, and, as a consequence, swells the\namount of his happiness. And although this consideration affects only one\nspecies, yet man's position on the scale of being makes his happiness an\nobject of no small importance.\n\nThe final conclusions at which we arrive, then, are, first, that death is\na fixed and universal law of nature, essential to the existence of the\npresent system of the world; and secondly, that, like all other laws of\nnature, it exhibits marks of benevolence, and wise adaptation on the part\nof the Author of nature. The question will indeed arise in every\nreflecting mind, why a Being of infinite power and wisdom could not have\nsecured to his creatures the benefits resulting from a system of death,\nwithout the attendant suffering. But this question resolves itself into\nthe inquiry, why evil exists at all; and although, in my own view, it\nexists most probably as a means of greater happiness to the universe, yet\non this point the wisest minds have differed and been baffled, and equally\nperplexing is it to every form of religion. Hence it is no objection to\nany views we may adopt, that they leave this question where they found it.\n\n_The fifth and last step in our investigation of this subject is to show\nhow science, experience, and revelation may be reconciled on the subject\nof death._\n\nWe have seen that geology is not alone in proving death to be a law of\nnature, essential to the present system of the world, and, indeed,\nindicative of divine wisdom and benevolence. For anatomy and physiology,\nas well as experience, teach us the same truths. And natural theology\nshows that, if death is a law of organic nature, it must have entered into\nthe plan of the universe in the divine mind, and was not the result of any\nchange of organic nature subsequent to the fall of man. Can these views be\nreconciled with the declarations of Scripture, which certainly represent\ndeath among the human family, if not among the lower animals, to be the\nconsequence of sin?\n\nThere are three suppositions by which all apparent discrepancy between\nscience and revelation, on this subject, may be removed. I shall present\nthem, with the arguments in their favor, leaving to others to decide which\nis most reasonable. For they are independent of one another, though not\ninconsistent; and, therefore, even though different persons should prefer\ndifferent theories, they need not be regarded as in opposition to one\nanother.\n\nThe first theory proceeds on the supposition that death is a universal law\nof organic nature, from which man was exempted so long as he obeyed the\nlaw of God. But I will present it in the language of its distinguished\nauthor. \"In the state of pristine purity,\" says Dr. J. Pye Smith, \"the\nbodily constitution of man was exempted from the law of progress towards\ndissolution, which belonged to the inferior animals. It must have been\nmaintained in that distinguished peculiarity by means to us unknown; and\nit would seem probable that, had not man fallen by his transgression, he,\nand each of his posterity, would, after faithfully sustaining an\nindividual probation, have passed through a change without dying, and have\nbeen exalted to a more perfect state of existence.\"--_Scrip. and Geol._\n4th ed. p. 208.\n\nAccording to this theory of Dr. Smith, man saw all other organic beings\naround him subject to decay and death, while he, as a special favor,\nremained unaffected by the general law. The penalty of disobedience was,\nthat he would forfeit this enviable distinction, and be subjected to death\nmore revolting than the brutes. The reward of obedience was a continued\nimmunity from evil, and a final translation, without suffering, to a more\nexalted condition. And certainly the nature of the case furnishes a strong\npresumptive argument to show that man did thus stand exempted from the\ndecay and death which reigned all around him. If not, what weight or\nmeaning would there be in the penalty? If he had not seen death in other\nanimals, how could he have any idea of the nature of the threatening? And\nwe may be sure that God never promulgates a penalty without affording his\nsubjects the means of comprehending it.\n\nI have already intimated that I could hardly see why there exists in all\norganic natures a tendency to decay and death, except in the will of the\nCreator. May not that tendency result, like the varieties among men, from\nsome slightly modifying cause implanted by the Deity in the nature of the\nanimal or plant? And if so, might not an opposite tendency be imparted to\none or more species, so that the decay and death of the one, and the\ncontinued existence of the other, might be equally well explained on\nphysiological principles? If this suggestion be admitted, it would not be\nnecessary to resort to any supernatural or miraculous agency to show how\nsinless man in paradise might have stood unaffected by decay, the common\nlot of all other races. It must be confessed, however, that it is not as\neasy to see how, by any natural law, he could have been proof against\nmechanical violence and chemical agencies; there we must admit miraculous\nprotection, or a self-restoring power more wonderful than that possessed\nby the polypi.\n\nThese views receive strong confirmation from the history of the tree of\nlife, that grew in the garden of Eden. The very name implies that it was\nintended to give or preserve life. That it had in it a power to preserve\nlife is evident from the sentence pronounced on man. _And the Lord God\nsaith, Behold, the man hath become as one of us, to know good and evil;\nand now, lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of\nlife, and live forever, therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the\ngarden of Eden._ Now, it appears to me to be in perfect harmony with the\nprinciples of physiology to suppose that there might be a virtue in the\ntree of life--either in its fruit or some other part--to arrest that\ntendency to decay and dissolution which we now find in all animal bodies.\nIt does seem that it would require only some slight modification of the\npresent functions of the human frame to keep the wheels of life in motion\nindefinitely. When in Eden, man had access to this sure defence against\ndisease. But after he had sinned, he must forfeit this privilege, and,\nlike the plants and inferior animals, submit to the universal law of\ndissolution. Surely, of all the expositions that have been given of the\nmeaning of this passage, this is the most rational, and it does throw an\nair of great plausibility over Dr. Smith's views.\n\nIt will occur to every reflecting mind that we have in Scripture a few\ninteresting examples of that change, without dying, from the present to a\nhigher state of being, which the theory of Dr. Smith supposes would have\nbeen the happy lot of all mankind had they not sinned. _By faith Enoch was\ntranslated, that he should not see death. He walked with God, and he was\nnot; for God took him._ Gladly would philosophys here interpose a\nthousand questions as to the manner in which this wonderful change took\nplace; but the Scriptures are silent. It was enough for the heart of piety\nthat God was the author of the change. And so, in the case of Elijah, we\nhave the sublimely simple description only--_And it came to pass, as they\nstill went on and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire,\nand horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a\nwhirlwind into heaven._ Except the transfiguration of Christ, which\nappears to have been of an analogous character, these are all the actual\nexamples of translation on record. But the apostle declares that, in the\nclosing scene of this world's history, this same change shall pass upon\nmultitudes. _Behold, I show you a mystery. We shall not all sleep; but we\nshall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last\ntrump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised\nincorruptible, and we shall be changed._ Abundant evidence is, therefore,\nbefore us, that the great change which death now causes us to pass through\nwith fear and dread, might as easily have been, for the whole human\nfamily, a transition delightful in anticipation and joyful in experience.\n\nThe second theory which will reconcile science and revelation on the\nsubject of death, is one long since illustrated by Jeremy Taylor. And\nsince he could have had no reference to geology in proposing it, because\ngeology did not exist in his day, we may be sure, either that he learnt it\nfrom the Bible, or that other branches of knowledge teach the existence of\ndeath as a general law of nature, as well as geology.\n\n\"That death, therefore,\" says Taylor, \"which God threatened to Adam, and\nwhich passed upon his posterity, is not the going out of this world, but\nthe manner of going. If he had staid in innocence, he should have gone\nplacidly and fairly, without vexatious and afflictive circumstances; he\nshould not have died by sickness, defect, misfortune, or unwillingness.\nBut when he fell, then he began to die; the same day, (God said,) and that\nmust needs be true; and, therefore, it must mean upon that very day he\nfell into an evil and dangerous condition, a state of change and\naffliction; then death began; that is, man began to die by a natural\ndiminution, and aptness to disease and misery. Change or separation of\nsoul and body is but accidental to death; death may be with or without\neither; but the formality, the curse, and the sting,--that is, misery,\nsorrow, fear, diminution, defect, anguish, dishonor, and whatsoever is\nmiserable and afflictive in nature,--that is death. Death is not an\naction, but a whole state and condition; and this was first brought in\nupon us by the offence of one man.\"\n\nIn more recent times, the essential features of these views of Taylor have\nbeen adopted by the ablest commentators and theologians, and sustained by\nan appeal to Scripture.[9] The position which they take is, that the death\nthreatened as the penalty of disobedience has a more extended meaning than\nphysical death. It is a generic term, including all penal evils; so that\nwhen death is spoken of as the penalty of sin, we may substitute the word\n_curse_, _wrath_, _destruction_, and the like. Thus, in Gen. ii. 17, we\nmight read, _In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely be cursed_:\nand in Rom. v. 12, _By one man sin entered into the world, and the curse\nby sin_, &c. In his commentary on this passage, Professor Stuart says, \"I\nsee no _philological_ escape from the conclusion that death, in the sense\nof _penalty for sin in its full measure_, must be regarded as the meaning\nof the writer here.\" The same may be said of many other passages of\nScripture, where the term _death_ is used.\n\nAccording to this exposition, the death threatened as the penalty of\ntransgression embraces all the evils we suffer in this life and in\neternity; among which the dissolution of the body is not one of the worst.\nIndeed, some writers will not admit that this was included at all in the\npenalty. Such, of course, find no difficulty in the geological statement\nthat literal death preceded man's existence. But from the declaration in 1\nCor. xv. 22, _As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made\nalive_, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion, that the death of the\nbody was brought in upon the race by Adam's transgression. According to\nTaylor's view, however, we might reasonably suppose that what constituted\nthe death threatened to Adam was not the going out of the world, but the\nmanner of going, and that, had he continued holy, a change of worlds might\nhave taken place, but it would not have been death.\n\nNow, there are some facts, both in experience and revelation, that give to\nthese views an air of probability. One is, the mild character of death in\nmany cases, when attended by only a few of the circumstances above\nenumerated, as constituting its essence. I believe that experience\nsustains the conclusion already drawn as to the inferior animals, when not\naggravated by human cruelty. Pain is about the only circumstance that\ngives it the character of severity; and this is usually short, and not\nanticipated. Nor can it be doubted, as a general fact, that, as we descend\nalong the scale of animals, we find the sensibility to suffering diminish.\nBut in the human family we find examples still more to the point. In all\nthose cases in which there is little or no disease, and a man in\nvenerable old age feels the powers of life gradually give way, and the\nfunctions are feebly performed, until the heart at length ceases to beat,\nand the lungs to heave, death is merely the quiet and unconscious\ntermination of the scene, so far as the physical nature is concerned. The\nbrain partakes of the gradual decay, and thus the man is scarcely\nconscious of the failure of his powers, because his sensibilities are so\nblunted; and therefore, apart from sin, his mind feels little of the\nanguish of dissolution, and he quietly resigns himself into the arms of\ndeath,--\n\n                  \"As sweetly as a child,\n  Whom neither thought disturbs, nor care encumbers,\n  Tired with long play, at close of summer's day,\n  Lies down and slumbers.\"\n\nIf now, in addition to this physical preparation for his departure, the\nman possesses a deep consciousness of forgiven sin, and a firm hope of\nfuture and eternal joy, this change, which we call death, becomes only a\njoyful translation from earth to heaven; and though the man passes from\nour view,--\n\n                              \"He sets,\n  As sets the morning star, which goes not down\n  Behind the darkened west, nor hides obscured\n  Among the tempests of the sky, but melts away\n  Into the light of heaven.\"\n\nNay, when such faith and hope form an anchor to the soul, it is not\nnecessary that the physical preparation, which I have described, should\nexist. The poor body may be torn by fierce disease, nay, by the infernal\ncruelties of martyrdom, and yet faith can rise--often has risen--over the\npains of nature, in joyful triumph; and in the midst of the tempest, with\nher anchor fastened to the eternal Rock, she can exclaim, _O death, where\nis thy sting! O grave, where is thy victory! Thanks be to God, which\ngiveth me the victory through my Lord Jesus Christ._ Surely such a\ndissolution as this cannot mean the death mentioned in the primeval curse.\n\nLook now at the contrast. Behold a man writhing in the fangs of\nunrelenting disease, and feeling at the same time the scorpion sting of a\nguilty conscience. His present suffering is terrible, but that in prospect\nis more so; yet he cannot bribe the king of terrors to delay the fatal\nstroke.\n\n                                    \"The foe,\n  Like a stanch murderer, steady to his purpose,\n  Urges the soul through every nook and lane of life.\"\n\nIt were enough for an unruffled mind to bear the bodily anguish of that\ndying hour. But the unpardoned sins of a whole life, and the awful\nretributions of a whole eternity, come crowding into that point of time;\nand no human fortitude can stand under the crushing load. This, this is\nemphatically death; the genuine fruit of sin, and therefore in\ncorrespondence with the original threatening.\n\nIf we turn now to the Scriptures, we shall find some passages in striking\nagreement with the opinion that the death threatened to man was not the\nmere dissolution of the body and soul; not a mere going out of the world,\nbut the manner of going.\n\nThis is, indeed, made exceedingly probable by the facts already stated\nrespecting the translation of Enoch and Elijah, and those alive at the\ncoming of Christ. For the sacred writers do not call this death, although\nit be a removal out of the world, and a transformation of the natural into\nthe spiritual body. Hence, upon the material part of men, the same effects\nwere produced as result from ordinary death, and the subsequent\nresurrection.\n\nIf we recur to the original threatening of death as the consequence of\nsin, we shall find a peculiarity in the form of expression, which our\nEnglish translators have rendered by the phrase _thou shalt surely die_;\nbut literally it should be, _dying thou shalt die_.\n\nThis mode of expression is indeed very common in the Hebrew language; but\nit certainly was meant to indicate an intensity in the meaning, as in the\nphrase _blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee_;\nthat is, I will greatly multiply thee. Must it not imply, in the case\nunder consideration, at least that the death which would be the\nconsequence of transgression, would possess an aggravated character? May\nit not imply as much as Taylor's theory supposes? Might it not be intended\nto teach Adam that, when he died, his death should not be simply the\ndissolution of the animal fabric, and the loss of animal life, as he\nwitnessed it in the inferior creatures around him; but a change far more\nagonizing, in which the mental suffering should so much outweigh the\ncorporeal as to constitute, in fact, its essence? I do not assert that\nthis passage has such an extended meaning, but I suggest it. And I confess\nthat I do not see why its peculiarity of form is understood in our common\ntranslation to imply certainty rather than intensity.\n\nThere is another part of the threatening that deserves consideration. It\nsays, that man should not only die, but die the very day of the offence.\nNow, if by death we understood merely a removal out of the world, or a\nseparation of soul and body, the threatening was not executed after the\nforbidden fruit was tasted. But if it meant also, and chiefly, a state of\nsorrow, pain, and suffering, a liability to disease and fatal accident,\nthe goadings of a guilty conscience, and the consequent fear of punishment\nbeyond the grave, then death began on the very day when man sinned, and\nthe dissolution of the soul and body was but the closing scene of the\ntragedy.\n\nThe beautiful passage in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, already\nquoted, where the Christian, in view of death, exultingly exclaims, _O\ndeath, where is thy sting! O grave, where is thy victory!_ will doubtless\noccur to all who hear me, in this connection. Here the sting of death is\nexpressly declared to be sin, and that the pardoned Christian obtains the\nvictory over it. To him all that renders this king of terrors formidable\nis gone. Its physical sufferings may indeed be left, but these are hardly\nworth naming, when that which constitutes the sting of this great\nenemy--unpardoned guilt--is taken away. Little more than his harmless\nshadow is left. Worlds, indeed, are to be exchanged, and so they must have\nbeen if Adam had never been driven from paradise. The eyes, too, must\nclose on beloved friends; but how soon to open them upon the bright\nglories of heaven! In short, the strong impression of this passage upon\nthe mind is, that the essential thing in death is unpardoned sin; and\ntherefore the death threatened to Adam may have been only the terrible\naggravations of a departure out of this world, which have followed in the\ntrain of transgression.\n\nAnother striking passage, bearing upon the same point, is the declaration\nof Paul, that _Jesus Christ hath abolished death, and brought life and\nimmortality to light through the gospel_.\n\nThe apostle does not surely mean that Christians are freed from what is\ncommonly called death, since universal experience shows that animal life\nin them is as sure to be extinguished, and the soul to be separated from\nthe body, as in others. But so different is death now, since Christ has\nbrought to light a future and an immortal life, and by the sacrifice of\nhimself shown how the heart may be reconciled to God, and sin forgiven,\nand faith inspired, that, in fact, while the shadow of death still\noccupies the passage to eternity, its substance is gone.\n\nThat death, which sin introduced, Christ has abolished, because, by his\nsacrifice and his grace, he has conquered sin.\n\nUpon the whole, though we may not be convinced that either of the theories\nthat have been explained is directly taught in the Scriptures, or can be\nshown to be infallibly true, yet they are sustained by probable evidence\nenough to remove the apprehension that there is any real discrepancy\nbetween geology and revelation on the subject of death. Between these\ntheories there is but a slight difference. They are in fact but\nmodifications of the same general principles; and I say it would be more\nphilosophical to admit the truth of either of them, than a disagreement\nbetween science and Scripture, since the truth of both geology and\nrevelation is sustained by such a mass of independent evidence.\n\nAn objection, however, may be stated against both of these theories, on\nthe ground that they seem to imply that death would have existed in the\nworld, irrespective of the sin of man, and therefore they lessen our sense\nof the evil of sin.\n\nIt may be doubted, I think, whether these theories do necessarily imply\nthat there was no connection between the sin of man and the introduction\nof death into the world. But, admitting that they do, is it certain that\ninadequate views of sin are the result? For poetic effect, we admire the\nsublime sentimentalism of Milton:--\n\n  \"Earth felt the wound; and Nature, from her seat,\n  Sighing through all her works, gave signs of woe\n  That all was lost.\"\n\nBut, after all, the deepest impression we get of the evil of sin is\nderived from contemplating its effects upon man, and especially the\nimmortal mind. Witness its lofty powers bowed down in ignominious\nservitude to base corporeal appetites and furious and debasing passions.\nSee how the understanding is darkened, the will perverted, and the heart\nalienated from all that is holy. See reason and conscience dethroned, and\nselfishness reigning in gloomy and undisputed tyranny over the immortal\nmind, while appetite and passion have become its obsequious panders. See\nhow the affections turn away with loathing from God, and what a wall of\nseparation has sprung up between man and his Maker; how deeply and\nuniversally he has revolted from his rightful sovereign, and has chosen\nother gods to rule over him. Consider, too, what havoc has been made in\nthe body, that curious and wonderful workmanship of the Almighty; how the\nunbridled appetites have sown the seeds of disease therein, and how pain,\nlanguor, and decay assail the constitution as soon as we begin to live,\nand cease not their attacks till they triumph over the citadel of life.\nConsult the history of the world, and what a lazar-house and a Golgotha\nhas it been! What land has not been drenched in human blood, poured out in\nferocious war! What oceans of tears has the thirsty soil drank up! What\nbreeze has ever blown over the land which has not been loaded with sighs,\nand groans, and the story of wrong and oppression, of treachery and\nmurder, of suicide and assassination, of blasted hopes and despairing\nhearts! These, therefore, are the genuine fruits of sin. This, this is\ndeath. And, need I add that these are but the precursors of the second\ndeath?\n\nThe third theory respecting death takes a more comprehensive view of the\nsubject, and traces its origin to the divine plan of the creation.\n\nIn creating this world, God did not act without a plan previously\ndetermined upon in all its details. Of course, man's character and\ncondition formed prominent items in that plan. His apostasy, too, however\nsome would hesitate to regard it as predetermined, all will allow to have\nbeen foreknown. Now, I maintain that God, in the beginning, adapted every\nother being and event in the world to man's character and condition, so\nthat there should be entire harmony in its system. And since, either in\nthe divine appointment, or in the nature of things, there is an\ninseparable connection between sin and death, the latter must constitute a\nfeature of the system of the world, because a free agent would introduce\nthe former. Death would ultimately exist in the world, and, therefore, all\ncreatures placed in such a world must be made mortal, at whatever period\ncreated. For mortal and immortal natures could not exist in the same\nnatural constitution, nor could a condition adapted to undying creatures\nbe changed into a state of decay and death without an entirely new\ncreation. Death, therefore, entered into the original plan of the world in\nthe divine mind, and was endured by the animals and plants that lived\nanterior to man. Yet, as the constitution of the world is, doubtless, very\ndifferent from what it would have been if sin had not existed in it, and\nas man alone was capable of sin, it is proper to regard man's\ntransgression as the occasion of all the suffering and death that existed\non the globe since its creation.\n\nIt will probably be objected to this theory, that it is unjust to make\nanimals suffer for man's apostasy, especially before it took place.\n\nI do not see why such suffering is any more unjust before than after man's\ntransgression; and we know that they do now suffer in consequence of his\nsin. But this suffering is not to be regarded in the light of punishment;\nand if it can only be proved that benevolence predominates in the\ncondition of animals, notwithstanding their sufferings, divine justice and\nbenevolence are vindicated; and can there be any doubt that such is the\nfact? Death is not necessarily an evil to any animals. It may be a great\nblessing, by removing them to a higher state of existence. In the case of\nthe inferior animals, it is but a small drawback upon the pleasure of\nlife, even though they do not exist hereafter. We have endeavored to show\nthat even the existence of carnivorous races is a benevolent provision.\nThat animals are placed in an inferior condition, in consequence of man's\napostasy, is no more cause of complaint than that man is made a little\nlower than the angels.\n\nAnother objection to these views is, that it makes the effect precede the\ncause; for it-represents the pre-Adamic animals as dying in consequence of\nman's transgression.\n\nI do not maintain that the death of animals, before or after Adam, was the\ndirect and natural consequence of his transgression. Nay, I am endeavoring\nto show directly the contrary. But, then, the certainty of man's apostasy\nmight have been the grand reason in the divine mind for giving to the\nworld its present constitution, and subjecting animals to death. Not that\nGod altered his plan upon a prospective knowledge that man would sin; but\nhe made this plan originally, that is from eternity, with that event in\nview, and he made it different from what it would have been, if such an\nevent had not been certain. If this be true, then was there a connection\nbetween man's sin and the death that reigned before his existence; though,\nin strict accuracy of speech, one can hardly be called the cause of the\nother. And yet it was, as I maintain, occasioned by man's sin, and shows\nthe wide-spread influence of that occurrence, even more strikingly than\nthe ordinary theory of death.\n\nA third objection to this theory is, that it represents God as putting man\nin a place of punishment before he had sinned; or, at least, in a state\nwhere death was the universal law, and where he must die, though he should\nkeep the law of God.\n\nThere are three suppositions, either of which will meet this difficulty.\n\nWe may suppose, with Jeremy Taylor, that the death threatened to Adam\nconsisted, not in going out of the world, but in the manner of going. If\nhe had not sinned, the exchange of worlds would have been without fear or\nsuffering, and an object of desire rather than aversion. Christ has not\nsecured to the believer the privilege of an earthly immortality, but has\ntaken away from a removal out of the world all that constitutes death.\n\nOr we may suppose, with Dr. J. Pye Smith, that, while man should continue\nto keep the divine law, he would be secured from that tendency to decay\nand dissolution, which was the common lot of all other creatures, until\nthe time should come for his removal, without suffering or dread, to a\nhigher state of existence. And that a means of immunity from death existed\nin the garden of Eden we learn from the Scriptures. For there stood the\ntree of life, whose fruit had the power to make man live forever, and,\ntherefore, he must be banished from the spot where it grew.\n\nOr, finally, we may suppose that God fitted up for man some balmy spot,\nwhere neither decay nor death could enter, and where every thing was\nadapted for a being of perfect holiness and happiness. His privilege was\nto dwell there, so long as he could preserve his innocence, but no longer.\nAnd surely this supposition seems to accord with the description of the\ngarden of Eden, man's first dwelling-place. There every thing seems to\nhave been adapted to his happiness; but sin drove him out among the thorns\nand thistles, and a cherubim and a flaming sword forbade his return to\nthe tree of life.\n\nEither of these suppositions will meet the difficulty suggested by the\nobjection; or they may all be combined consistently. Let us now look at\nsome of the advantages of the third theory above advanced.\n\nIn the first place, it satisfactorily harmonizes revelation with geology,\nphysiology, and experience, on the subject of death. It agrees with\nphysiology and experience in representing death to be a law of organic\nbeing on the globe. Yet it accords with revelation, in showing how this\nlaw may be a result of man's apostasy; and with geology, also, in showing\nhow death might have reigned over animals and plants before man's\nexistence. To remove so many apparent discrepancies is surely a\npresumption in favor of any theory.\n\nIn the second place, the fundamental principle of this theory is also a\nfundamental principle of natural and revealed theology, viz., that all\nevents in this world entered originally into the plan or purpose of the\nDeity. To suppose that God made the world without a plan previously\ndetermined upon, is to make him less wise than a human architect, who\nwould be charged with great folly to attempt building even a house without\na plan. And to suppose that plan not to extend to every event, is to rob\nGod of his infinite attributes.\n\nIn the third place, this theory falls in with the common interpretation of\nScripture, which refers the whole system of suffering, decay, and death in\nthis world to man's apostasy. And although the general reception of any\nexegesis of Scripture does not prove it to be correct, it is certainly\ngratifying when a thorough examination proves the obvious sense of a\npassage to be the true one. For to disturb the popular interpretation is,\nwith many, equivalent to a denial of Scripture.\n\nIn the fourth place, this theory shows us the infinite skill and\nbenevolence of Jehovah in educing good from evil.\n\nThe free agency of man was an object in the highest degree desirable. Yet\nsuch a character made him liable to fall; and God knew that he would fall.\nTo human sagacity that act would seem to seal up his fate forever. But\ninfinite wisdom saw that the case was not hopeless. It placed him in a\nstate of temporal suffering and temporal death, that he might still have a\nchance of escaping eternal suffering and eternal death. The discipline of\nsuch a world was eminently adapted to restore his lost purity, and death\nwas probably the only means by which a fallen being could pass to a higher\nstate of existence. That discipline, indeed, if rightly improved, would\nprobably fit him for a higher degree of holiness and happiness than if he\nhad never sinned; so as to make true the paradoxical sentiment of the\npoet,--\n\n  \"Death gives us more than was in Eden lost.\"\n\nMisimproved, this discipline would result in an infinite loss, far greater\nthan if man never passed through it. But this is all the fault of man;\nwhile all the benefit of a state of probation is the result of God's\ninfinite wisdom and benevolence.\n\nIn the fifth place, this theory relieves us from the absurdity of\nsupposing that God was compelled to alter the plan of creation after man's\napostasy.\n\nThe common theory does convey an idea not much different from this. It\nmakes the impression that God was disappointed when man sinned, and being\nthereby thwarted in his original purpose, he did the best he could by\nchanging his plan, just as men do when some unexpected occurrence\ninterferes with their short-sighted contrivances. Now, such an\nanthropomorphic view of God is inexcusable in the nineteenth century. It\nwas necessary to use such representations in the early ages of the world,\nwhen pure spiritual ideas were unknown; and hence the Bible describes God\nas repenting and grieved that he had made man. But with the light of the\nNew Testament and of modern science, we ought to be able to enucleate the\ntrue spiritual idea from such descriptions. The theory under consideration\ndoes not reduce God to any after-thought expedients, but makes provision\nfor every occurrence in his original plan; and, of course, shows that\nevery event takes place as he would have it, when viewed in its relations\nto the great system of the universe.\n\nIn the sixth place, this theory sheds some light upon the important\nquestion, why God permitted the introduction of death into the world.\n\nIt is difficult for some persons to conceive why God, when he foresaw\nAdam's apostasy, did not change his plan of creation, and exclude so\nterrible an evil as death. But according to this theory, he permitted it,\nbecause it was a necessary part of a great system of restoration, by which\nthe human race might, if not recreant to their true interests, be restored\nto more than their primeval blessedness. It was not introduced as a mere\npunishment, but as a necessary means of raising a fallen being into a\nhigher state of life and blessedness; or, if he perversely spurned the\noffered boon, of sinking him down to the deeper wretchedness which is the\njust consequence of unrepented sin, without even the sympathy of any part\nof the created universe.\n\nFinally. This subject throws some light upon that strange mixture of good\nand evil, which exists in the present world. We have seen, indeed, that\nbenevolence decidedly predominates in all the arrangements of nature; and\nwe are called upon continually to admire the adaptation of external nature\nto the human constitution. A large portion of our sufferings here may\nalso be imputed to our own sins, or the sins of others; and these we\ncannot charge upon God. But, after all, it seems difficult to conceive how\neven a sinless man could escape a large amount of suffering here; enough,\nindeed, to make him often sigh for deliverance and for a better state. How\nmany sources of sufferings there are in unhealthy climates, mechanical\nviolence, and chemical agents; in a sterile soil, in the excessive heats\nof the tropical regions, and extreme cold of high latitudes; in the\nencroachments and ferocity of the inferior animals; in poisons, mineral,\nvegetable, and animal; in food unfitted to the digestive and assimilating\norgans; in the damps and miasms of night; and in the frequent necessity\nfor over-exertion of body and mind! And then, how many hinderances to the\nexercise of the mental powers, in all the causes that have been mentioned!\nand how does the soul feel that she is imprisoned in flesh and blood, and\nher energies cramped, and her vision clouded, by a gross corporeal medium!\nAnd thus it is, to a great extent, with all nature, especially animal\nnature; and I cannot but believe, as already intimated, that Paul had\nthese very things in mind when he said, _The whole creation groaneth and\ntravaileth together in pain until now, and waiteth for the manifestation\nof the sons of God_; that is, for emancipation from its present depressed\nand fettered condition. In short, while there is so much in this world to\ncall forth our admiration and gratitude to God, there is enough to make us\nfeel, also, that it is a fallen condition. It is not such a world as\ninfinite benevolence would provide for perfectly holy beings, whom he\ndesired to make perfectly happy, but rather such a world as is adapted for\na condition of trial and preparation for a higher state, when both mind\nand body would be delivered from the fetters that now cramp their\nexercise.\n\nNow, the theory which I advocate asserts that this peculiar condition of\nthe world resulted from the divine determination, upon a prospective view\nof man's transgression. It may, therefore, be properly regarded as\noccasioned by man's transgression, but not in the common meaning attached\nto that phrase, which is, that, before man's apostasy, the constitution of\nthe world was different from what it now is, and death did not exist. This\ntheory supposes God to have devised the present peculiar mixed condition\nof the world, as to good and evil, in eternity, in order to give man an\nopportunity to rescue himself from the penalty and misery of sin; and in\norder to introduce those who should do this into a higher state of\nexistence. The plan, therefore, is founded in infinite wisdom and\nbenevolence, while it brings out man's guilt, and the evil of sin, in\nappalling distinctness and magnitude.\n\nBut, after all, how little idea would a man have of the entire plot of a\nplay, who had heard only a part of the first act! How little could he\njudge of the bearing of the first scene upon the final development! Yet we\nare now only in the first act of the great drama of human existence. Death\nshows us that we shall ere long be introduced into a second act, and\naffords a presumption that other acts--it may be in an endless\nseries--will succeed, before the whole plot shall have passed before us;\nand not till then can we be certain what are all the objects to be\naccomplished by the introduction of sin and death into our world. And if\nthus early we can catch glimpses of great benefit to result from these\nevils, what full conviction, that infinite benevolence has planned and\nconsummated the whole, will be forced upon the mind, when the vast\npanorama of God's dispensations shall lie spread out in the memory! For\nthat time shall Faith wait, in confident hope that all her doubts and\ndarkness shall be converted into noonday brightness.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IV.\n\nTHE NOACHIAN DELUGE COMPARED WITH THE GEOLOGICAL DELUGES.\n\n\nThe history of opinions respecting the deluge of Noah is one of the most\ncurious and instructive in the annals of man. In this field, Christians\nhave often broken lances with infidels, and also with one another. The\nunbeliever has confidently maintained that the Bible history of the deluge\nis at war with the facts and reasonings of science. Equally confident has\nbeen the believer that nature bears strong testimony to its occurrence.\nSome Christians, however, have asserted, with the infidel, that no trace\nremains on the face of nature of such an event. And as this is a subject\nwhich men are apt to suppose themselves masters of, when they have only\nskimmed the surface, the contest between these different parties has been\nsevere and protracted. Almost every geological change which the earth has\nundergone, from its centre to its circumference, has, at one time or\nanother, been ascribed to this deluge. And so plain has this seemed to\nthose who had only a partial view of the facts, that those who doubted it\nwere often denounced as enemies of revelation. But most of these opinions\nand this dogmatism are now abandoned, because both Nature and Scripture\nare better understood. And among well-informed geologists, at least, the\nopinion is almost universal, that there are no facts in their science\nwhich can be clearly referred to the Noachian deluge; that is, no traces\nin nature of that event; and on the other hand, that there is nothing in\nthe Mosaic account of the deluge which would necessarily lead is to expect\npermanent marks of such a catastrophe within or upon the earth.\n\nIf such be the case, you will doubtless inquire, what connection there is\nbetween geology and the revealed history of the deluge, and why the\nsubject should be introduced into this series of lectures. I reply, that\nso recently have correct views been entertained on this subject, and so\nlittle understood are they; that they need to be defined and explained.\nAnd if the distribution of animals and plants on the globe come within the\nprovince of geology, then this science has a very important point of\nconnection with the history of the deluge, as will appear in the sequel.\nAnd finally, the history of opinions on this subject is full of\ninstruction to those who undertake to reason on the connection between\nscience and religion. Obviously, then, my first object should be to give a\nbrief history of the views that have been entertained respecting the\ndeluge of Noah, so far as they have been supposed to have any connection\nwith geology.\n\nIt is well known, that in the written and unwritten traditions of almost\nevery nation and tribe under heaven, the story of a general deluge has\nbeen prominent; and probably, in all these cases, some attempt has been\nmade to explain the manner in which the waters were brought over the land.\nBut most of these reasonings, especially in ancient times, are too absurd\nto deserve even to be recited. Indeed, it is not till the beginning of the\nsixteenth century, that we find any discussions on the subject worthy of\nnotice. At that time, some excavations at Verona, in Italy, brought to\nlight many fossil shells, and awakened a question as to their origin. Some\nmaintained that they were only _simulacra_, or resemblances to animals,\nbut never had a real existence. They were supposed to have been produced\nby a certain \"_materia pinguis_,\" or \"fatty matter,\" existing in the\nearth. Others maintained that they were deposited by the deluge of Noah.\nSuch, indeed, was the general opinion; but Fracastoro and a few others\nmaintained that they were once real animals, and could not have been\nbrought into their present condition by the last deluge. For more than\nthree hundred years have these questions been more or less discussed; and\nthough decided many years ago by all geologists, not a few intelligent men\nstill maintain, that petrified shells are mere abortive resemblances of\nreal beings, or that they were deposited by the deluge.\n\nThe advocates of the diluvial origin of petrifactions soon found\nthemselves hard pressed with the question, how these relics could be\nscattered through strata many thousand feet thick, by one transient flood.\nThey, therefore, came to the conclusion, in the words of Woodward, a\ndistinguished cosmogonist of the eighteenth century, that the \"whole\nterrestrial globe was taken to pieces and dissolved at the flood, and the\nstrata settled down from this promiscuous mass, as any earthy sediment\nfrom a fluid.\" During that century, many works appeared upon cosmogony,\ndefending similar views, by such men as Burnet, Scheuchzer, and Catcott.\nSome of these works exhibited no little ability, mixed, however, with\nhypotheses so extravagant that they have ever since been the butt of\nridicule. The very title of Burnet's work cannot but provoke a smile. It\nis called \"The Sacred Theory of the Earth, containing an Account of the\nOriginal of the Earth, and of all the general Changes it bath already\nundergone, or is to undergo, till the Consummation of all Things.\" He\nmaintained that the primitive earth was only \"an orbicular crust, smooth,\nregular, and uniform, without mountains and without a sea.\" This crust\nrested on the surface of a watery abyss, and, being heated by the sun,\nbecame chinky; and in consequence of the rarefaction of the included\nvapors, it burst asunder, and fell down into the waters, and so was\ncomminuted and dissolved, while the inhabitants perished. Catcott's work\nwas confined exclusively to the deluge, and exhibited a good deal of\nability. He endeavored to show, that this dissolution of the earth by the\ndeluge was taught in the Scriptures, and his reasoning on that point is a\nfine example of the state of biblical interpretation in his day. \"As there\nare other texts,\" says he, \"which mention the dissolution of the earth, it\nmay be proper to cite them. Ps. xlvi. 2. _God is our refuge; therefore\nwill we not fear though the earth be removed_, [be changed, be quite\naltered, as it was at the deluge.] _God uttered his voice, the earth\nmelted_, [flowed, dissolved to atoms.] Again, Job xxviii. 9. _He sent his\nhand_ [the expansion, his instrument, or the agent by which he worked]\n_against the rock, he overturned the mountains by the roots, he caused the\nrivers to burst forth from between the rocks_, [or broke open the\nfountains of the abyss.] _His eye_ [symbolically placed for light] _saw_\n[passed through, or between] _every minute thing_, [every-atom, and so\ndissolved the whole.] _He_ [at last] _bound up the waters from weeping_,\n[i. e. from pressing through the shell of the earth, as tears make their\nway through the orb of the eye; or, as it is related, (Gen. viii. 2,) _He\nstopped the fountains of the abyss and the windows of heaven_,] _and\nbrought out the light from its hiding-place_, [i. e., from the inward\nparts of the earth, from between every atom where it lay hid, and kept\neach atom separate from the other, and so the whole in a state of\ndissolution; his bringing out those parts of the light which caused the\ndissolution would of course permit the agents to act in their usual way,\nand so reform the earth.\"]--_Treatise on the Deluge_, p. 43, (London,\n1761.)\n\nWe can hardly believe at the present day, that a logical and scientific\nmind, like that of Catcott, could satisfy itself, by such a dreamy\nexegesis, that the Scriptures teach the earth's dissolution at the deluge;\nespecially when they so distinctly describe the waters of the deluge, as\nfirst rising over the land, and then sinking back to their original\nposition. Still more strange is it how Burnet could have thought it\nconsistent with Scripture to suppose the earth, before the flood, \"to have\nbeen covered with an orbicular crust, smooth, regular, and uniform,\nwithout mountains and without a sea,\" when the Bible so distinctly states,\nas the work of the third day, that _the waters under the heavens were\ngathered together unto one place, and the dry land appeared_; and that\n_God called the dry land earth, and the gathering together of the waters\nhe called seas_; and further, that, by the deluge, _all the high hills\nwere covered_. Yet these men doubtless supposed that, by the views which\nthey advocated, they were defending the Holy Scriptures. Nay, their views\nwere long regarded as exclusively the orthodox views, and opposition to\nthem was considered, for one or two centuries, as virtual opposition to\nthe Bible. Truly, this, in biblical interpretation, was straining at a\ngnat and swallowing a camel.\n\nIt is quite convenient to explain such anomalies in human belief, by\nreferring them to the spirit of the age, or to the want of the light of\nmodern science. But in the present case, we cannot thus easily dispose of\nthe difficulty. For in our own day, we have seen these same absurdities of\nopinion maintained by a really scientific man, selected to write one of\nthe Bridgewater Treatises, as one of the most learned men in Great\nBritain. I refer to Rev. William Kirby, evidently a thorough entomologist\nand a sincere Christian. But he adopts the opinion, not only that there\nexists a subterranean abyss of waters, but a subterranean metropolis of\nanimals, where the huge leviathians, the gigantic saurians, dug out of the\nrocks by the geologist, still survive; and this he endeavors to prove from\nthe Bible. For this purpose he quotes the passage in Psalms, _though thou\nhast sore broken us in the place of dragons, and covered us with the\nshadow of death_. His exposition of this text is much in the style of that\nalready given from Catcott. Following that writer and Hutchinson, he\nendeavors to show, by a still more fanciful interpretation, that the\nphrase \"windows of heaven,\" in Genesis, means cracks and volcanic rents in\nthe earth, through which air and water rushed inwardly and outwardly with\nsuch violence as to tear the crust to pieces. This was the effect of the\nincreasing waters of the deluge; the bringing together of these comminuted\nparticles, so as to form the present strata, was the work of the subsiding\nwaters.\n\nThese views will seem very strange to those not familiar with the history\nof geology. But we shall find their origin, if a few facts be stated\nrespecting what has been called the physico-theological school of writers,\nthat originated with one Hutchinson, in the beginning of the eighteenth\ncentury. He was a disciple of the distinguished cosmogonist Woodward. But\nhe attacked the views of his master, as well as those of Sir Isaac Newton\non gravitation, in a work which he published in twelve octavo volumes,\nentitled \"_Moses's Principia_.\" He there maintains that the Scriptures,\nwhen rightly understood, contain a complete system of natural philosophy.\n\nThis dogma, advocated by Hutchinson with the most intolerant spirit,\nconstitutes the leading peculiarity of the physico-theological school, and\nhas been very widely adopted, and has exerted a most pernicious influence\nboth upon religion and upon science. It is painful, therefore, to find so\nlearned and excellent a man as Mr. Kirby so deeply imbued with it, so\nlong after its absurdity has been shown again and again. It is devoutly to\nbe wished that the cabalistic dreams of Hutchinsonianism are not to be\nextensively revived in our day. And, indeed, such is the advanced state of\nhermeneutical knowledge, that we have little reason to fear it.\nNevertheless, its leaven is yet by no means thoroughly purged out from the\nliterary community.\n\nIt was one of the settled principles of the physico-theological school,\nthat, since the creation, the earth has undergone no important change\nbeneath the surface, except at the deluge, because it was supposed that\nthe Bible mentions no other event that could produce any important change.\nHence all marks of changes in the rocks since their original creation must\nbe referred to the deluge. And especially when it was found that most of\nthe petrifactions in the rocks were of marine origin, not only were they\nsupposed to be the result of the deluge, but a most conclusive proof of\nthat event. And this opinion is even yet very widely received by the\nChristian world. The argument in its favor, when stated in a popular\nmanner to those not familiar with geology, is indeed quite imposing. For\nif the land, almost every where, even to the tops of some of its highest\nmountains, abounds in sea shells, this is just what we should expect, if\nthe sea flowed over those mountains at the deluge. But the moment we come\nto examine the details respecting marine petrifactions, we see that\nnothing can be more absurd than to suppose them the result of a transient\ndeluge. Yet this view is maintained in nearly all the popular commentaries\nof the present day upon Genesis, and in many respectable periodicals. It\nis taught, therefore, in the Sabbath school and in the family; and the\nchild, as he grows up, is shocked to find the geologist assailing it; and\nwhen he finds it false, he is in danger of becoming jealous of the other\nevidences of Christianity which he has been taught.\n\nAnother branch of the modern physico-theological school, embracing men who\nhave read too much on the subject of geology to be able to believe in the\ndissolution of the globe by the deluge, have adopted a more plausible\nhypothesis. They suppose that between the creation and the deluge, or in\nsixteen hundred and fifty-six years, according to the received chronology,\nall the present fossiliferous rocks of our continents, more than six miles\nin thickness, were deposited at the bottom of the ocean. By that event,\nthey were raised from beneath the waters, and the continents previously\nexisting sunk down and disappeared; so that the land now inhabited was\nformerly the ocean's bed. To prove that such a change took place at the\ndeluge, Granville Penn and Fairholme quote the declaration of God, in\nGenesis, respecting the flood--_I will destroy them_, (i. e., men,) _and\nthe earth, or with the earth_; also the statement of Peter--_The world\nthat then was, being overflowed with water, perished_. The terms _earth_\nand _world_ may mean either the solid globe, or the animals and plants\nupon it. If in these passages they have the latter meaning, then they\nsimply teach that the deluge destroyed the natural life of organic beings.\nIf they have the former meaning, then the inquiry arises, What are we to\nunderstand by the destruction here described? It may mean annihilation, or\nit may imply ruin in some respects. That annihilation did not result from\nthe deluge is evident from the case of men, who suffered only temporal\ndeath, and even this was not universal; and we know, also, that the matter\nof the earth did not perish. We must resort, therefore, to the sacred\nhistory to learn how far the destruction extended That history seems very\nplain. There was a rain of forty days, and the fountains of the great deep\nwere broken up; that is, as Professor Stuart happily expresses it, \"The\nocean overflowed while the rain descended in vast quantities.\" The waters\ngradually rose over the dry land, and after a hundred and fifty days,\nbegan to subside, and at the end of a year and a few days they were gone.\nSuch an overflowing could not take place without producing the almost\nentire destruction of organic life, and making extensive havoc with the\nsoil, especially as a wind assisted in driving these waters from the land.\nBut there is nothing in the narrative that would lead us to suppose either\na comminution or dissolution of the earth, or the elevation of the ocean's\nbed. The same land which was overflowed is described as again emerging.\nIndeed, a part of the rivers proceeding out of the garden of Eden are the\nsame as those now existing on the globe. We must then admit that our\npresent continents--certainly the Asiatic,--are the same as the\nantediluvian, or deny that the account of Eden, in Genesis, is a part of\nthe Bible. The latter alternative is preferred by Penn and Fairholme.\nSurely such men ought to be cautious how they censure geologists for\nmodifying the meaning of some verses in Genesis, when they thus, without\nany evidence of its spuriousness, unceremoniously erase so important a\npassage.\n\nI might add to all this that the facts of geology forbid the idea that our\npresent continents formed the bed of the ocean at so recent a date as that\nof Noah's deluge, and that the supposition that all organic remains were\ndeposited during the two thousand years between the six days' work and the\ndeluge is totally irreconcilable with all correct philosophy. Why, during\nthe time when the fossiliferous rocks were in a course of formation, four\nor five entirely distinct races of animals and plants successively\noccupied the land and the waters, and passed away in regular order; and\nthese races were so unlike, that they could not have been contemporaneous.\nWho will maintain that all this took place in the short period of two\nthousand years? I am sure that no geologist will.\n\nBut modern geologists have, until recently, supposed that the traces of\nNoah's deluge might still be seen upon the earth's surface. I say its\nsurface; for none of them imagined those effects could have reached to a\ngreat depth. Over a large part of the northern hemisphere they found\nextensive accumulations of gravel and bowlders, which had been removed\noften a great distance from their parent rocks, while the ledges beneath\nwere smoothed and striated, obviously by the grating over them of these\npiles of detritus. How very natural to refer these effects to the agency\nof currents of water; just such currents as might have resulted from a\nuniversal deluge. But the inference was a hasty one For when geologists\ncame to study the phenomena of drift or diluvium, as these accumulations\nof travelled matter are called, they found that currents of water alone\nwould not explain them all. Some other agency must have been concerned;\nand the general opinion now is, that drift has been the result of the\njoint action of water and ice; and nearly all geologists suppose that this\naction took place before man's existence on the globe. Some suppose it to\nhave been the result of oceanic currents, while yet our continents were\nbeneath the waters; others think that the northern ocean may have been\nthrown southerly over the dry land by the elevation of its bed; and others\nmaintain that vast masses of ice may formerly have encircled high\nlatitudes, whose glaciers, melting away, may have driven towards the\nequator the great quantities of drift and bowlders which have been\ncarried in that direction. In short, it is now found that this is one of\nthe most difficult problems in geology; and while most geologists agree\nthat both ice and water have been concerned in producing the phenomena,\nthe time and manner of their action are not yet very satisfactorily\ndetermined. They may have acted at different periods and in divers\nmanners; but all the phenomena could not have been the result of one\ntransient deluge.\n\nFrom the facts that have now been detailed, it appears that on no subject\nof science connected with religion have men been more positive and\ndogmatical than in respect to Noah's deluge, and that on no subject has\nthere been greater change of opinion. From a belief in the complete\ndestruction and dissolution of the globe by that event, those best\nqualified to judge now doubt whether it be possible to identify one mark\nof that event in nature.\n\nI shall now proceed to state, in a more definite form, the views of this\nsubject entertained by the most enlightened judges of its merits at the\npresent day.\n\n_In the first place, most of the cases of accumulations of drift, the\ndispersion of bowlders, and the polish and striae upon rocks in place,\noccurred previous to man's existence upon the globe, and cannot have been\nthe result of Noah's deluge._\n\nFrom the arguments for sustaining this position I shall select only a\npart.\n\nThe first is, that the organic remains found in the alluvium considerably\nabove the drift, which always lies below the alluvium, are many of them of\nextinct species. Whether the genuine drift--a heterogeneous mass of\nfragments, driven pellmell together--contains any organic relics, is to me\nvery doubtful. But if the stratified deposits subsequent to the drift\npresent us with beings no longer alive on the globe, much more would the\ndrift. Now, the presumption is, that extinct animals and plants belong to\na creation anterior to man, especially if they exhibit a tropical\ncharacter,--as those do which are usually assigned to the drift,--since we\nhave no evidence of a tropical climate in northern latitudes till we get\nback to a period far anterior to man.\n\nSecondly. No remains of man or his works have been found in drift, nor\nindeed till we rise almost to the top of the alluvial deposit. Even\nancient Armenia has now been examined geologically, with sufficient care\nto make it almost certain that human remains do not exist there in drift,\nif drift is found there at all; of which there may be a question.\n\nThirdly. The agency producing drift must have operated during a vastly\nlonger period than the three hundred and eighty days of Noah's deluge. It\nwould be easy to show to a geologist that the extensive erosions which are\nreferrible to that agency, and the huge masses of detritus which have been\nthe result, must have demanded centuries, and even decades of years. Nor\nwill any supposed increase of power in the agency explain the results,\nwithout admitting a long period for their action.\n\nFourthly. Water appears to have been the principal agent in the Noachian\ndeluge; but in the production of drift, ice was at least equally\nconcerned.\n\nFinally. The phenomena of deltas, terraces, and ancient sea-beaches, make\nthe period of the drift immensely more remote than the deluge of Noah,\nsince these phenomena are all posterior to the drift period. I need not go\ninto the details of this argument here, since I have drawn them out in my\nsecond lecture. But of all the arguments ever adduced to prove the great\nlength of time occupied in geological changes, this--which, so far as the\nterraces are concerned, has never before, I believe, been adduced--seems\nto me the most convincing to those who carefully examine the subject.\n\nWe may be sure, then, that the commencement of the drift period, and the\ndeluge of Noah, cannot have been synchronous. But the drift agency,\nconnected, as nearly all geologists seem now to be ready to admit, with\nthe vertical movements of continents, may have operated, and undoubtedly\nhas, at various periods, and very possibly, in some parts of the world,\nlong posterior to the period usually called the drift period. I agree,\ntherefore, in opinion with one of the most eminent and judicious of the\nEuropean geologists, Professor Sedgwick of Cambridge, when he says, \"If we\nhave the clearest proofs of great oscillations of sea level, and have a\nright to make use of them, while we seek to explain some of the latest\nphenomena of geology, may we not reasonably suppose, that, within the\nperiod of human history, similar oscillations have taken place in those\nparts of Asia which were the cradle of our race, and may have produced\nthat destruction among the early families of men, which is described in\nour sacred books, and of which so many traditions have been brought down\nto us through all the streams of authentic history?\"--_Geology of the Lake\nDistrict_, p. 14.\n\n_Secondly. Admitting the deluge to have been universal over the globe, it\ncould not have deposited the fossil remains in the rocks._\n\nThis position is too plain to the practical geologist to need a formal\nargument to sustain it. But there are many intelligent men, who do not see\nclearly why the remains of marine animals and plants may not be referred\nto the deluge. And if they could be, then all the demands of the geologist\nfor long periods anterior to man are without foundation. But they cannot\nbe, for the following reasons:--\n\nFirst. On this supposition the organic remains ought to be confusedly\nmingled together, since they must have been brought over the land\npromiscuously by the waters of the deluge; but they are in fact arranged\nin as much order as the specimens of a well-regulated cabinet. The\ndifferent rocks that lie above one another do, indeed, contain some\nspecies that are common; but the most are peculiar. It is impossible to\nexplain such a fact if they were deposited by the deluge.\n\nSecondly. On this theory, at least, a part of the organic remains ought to\ncorrespond with living animals and plants, since the deluge took place so\nlong after the six days of creation. But with the exception of a few\nspecies near the top of the series, the fossil species are wholly unlike\nthose now alive.\n\nThirdly. How, by this theory, can we explain the fact, that there are\nfound in the rocks at least five distinct races of animals and plants, so\nunlike that they could not have been contemporaries? or for the fact, that\nmost of them are of a highly tropical character? or for the fact, that as\nwe rise higher in the rocks, there is a nearer and nearer approach to\nexisting species?\n\nFourthly. This theory requires us to admit, that in three hundred and\neighty days the waters of the deluge deposited rocks at least six miles in\nthickness, over half or two thirds of our existing continents; and these\nrocks made up of hundreds of thick beds, exceedingly unlike one another in\ncomposition and organic contents. Will any reasonable man believe this\npossible without a miracle?\n\nBut I need not multiply arguments on this point. It is a theory which no\nreasonable man can long maintain after studying the subject. And if it be\nindeed true, that neither in the drift, nor in the fossiliferous rocks,\ncan we discover any traces of the deluge, then we shall find them nowhere\non the globe. But\n\n_Thirdly. There are no facts in geology that afford any presumption\nagainst the occurrence of the Noachian deluge, but rather the contrary._\n\nThe geologist says only, that if any traces of it exist, he cannot\ndistinguish them from the effects of other analogous agencies that have\noperated on the globe at various periods. Some parts of the globe do not\nexhibit marks of any powerful aqueous action, such as high northern and\nsouthern latitudes do exhibit. But the sacred record, in its account of\nthe access and subsidence of diluvial waters, does not require us to\nsuppose any great degree of violence in their action on the surface; and\nalthough currents somewhat powerful must have been the result, yet they\nmay not have existed every where, nor have always left traces of their\npassage where they did exist. On the other hand, the geologist will admit,\nas we have already seen, that in the elevation and subsidence of mountains\nand continents, and in volcanic agency generally, of which geology\ncontains so many examples, we have an adequate cause for extensive, if not\nuniversal, deluges; nor can he say how recently this cause may have\noperated beneath certain oceans, sufficiently to produce the deluge of the\nScriptures. So that, in fact, we have in geology a presumption in favor\nof, rather than against, such a deluge. Nay, some, who have examined\nArmenia, have thought they found there a deposit which could be referred\nto the deluge of Noah; but I have no access to any facts on this point.\n\n_Fourthly. There are reasons, both in natural history and in the\nScriptures, for supposing that the deluge may not have been universal over\nthe globe, but only over the region inhabited by man._\n\nThis is a position of no small importance, and will, therefore, require\nour careful examination. And in the beginning, I wish to premise, that I\nassume the deluge to have been brought about by natural operations, or in\nconformity with the laws of nature. I feel no reluctance in admitting it\nto have been strictly miraculous, provided the narrative will allow of\nsuch a conclusion. But if it was miraculous, then we must give up the idea\nof philosophizing about it, and believe the facts simply on the divine\ntestimony. For how can we philosophize upon an event that is brought about\nby the direct efficiency of God, and without reference to existing natural\nlaws, and, it may be, in contravention of them, unless, indeed, the\nhistory contains such contradictions as even infinite power and wisdom\ncould not make harmonious? Some writers endeavor to show the conformity of\nthe sacred history of the deluge to established natural laws, until they\nmeet with some objection too strong to be answered, when they turn round\nand declare the whole occurrence to have been miraculous. This I conceive\nto be absurd, and I shall accordingly proceed on the supposition that the\nwhole event was a penal infliction, brought about by natural laws; or, at\nleast, if there was any thing miraculous, it consisted in giving greater\npower to natural operations, without interfering with the regular sequence\nof cause and effect. And does not the narrative leave the impression on\nthe mind of the reader, that it was brought about by natural means? The\nsacred writer distinctly assigns two natural causes of the increase of the\nwaters, viz., a rain of forty days and the breaking up of the fountains of\nthe great deep, which doubtless means an overflow of the ocean; and, to\nhasten the subsidence of the waters, it is said that God made a wind to\nblow over the surface. It is no proof of miraculous agency, that the whole\nwork is referred to the immediate power of God, for it is well known that\nthis is the usual mode in which the sacred writers speak of natural\nevents.\n\nThe first difficulty in the way of supposing the flood to have been\nliterally universal, is the great quantity of water that would have been\nrequisite.\n\nThe amount necessary to cover the earth to the tops of the highest\nmountains, or about five miles above the present oceans, would be eight\ntimes greater than that existing on the globe at this time. From whence\ncould this immense volume of water have been derived? A great deal of\ningenuity has been devoted to give an answer to this inquiry. By some it\nhas been supposed, that most of the earth's interior is occupied by water,\nand the theorist had only to devise means for forcing it to the surface.\nOne does this by the forcible compression of the crust; another, by the\nexpansive power of internal heat; another, by the generation of various\ngases through galvanic action. Others have maintained that the\nantediluvian continents were sunk beneath the ocean at that time, though\nsuch find it hard to tell us why there was a rain of forty days upon land\nthat was ready to subside beneath the ocean. Others have resort to a\ncomet's impinging against the earth, and throwing the waters of the ocean\nover the land. But they were not aware that comets are mere vapor. Others\nsuppose (and surely theirs is the most plausible theory) that the\nelevation of the bed of some ocean, by volcanic agency, threw its waters\nover the adjoining continents, and the mighty wave thus produced would not\nstop till it had swept over all other continents and islands. But in this\ncase, it is evident that the continent first overflowed must have been\nleft dry before the wave had reached other continents, so that, in fact,\nall parts of the earth would not have been enveloped simultaneously; and\nbesides, how unlike such a violent rushing of the waters over the land is\nthe scriptural account! In short, so unsatisfactory have been most of the\ntheories to account for the water requisite to produce a universal deluge,\nthat most writers have resorted, in the end, to miraculous agency to\nobtain it. And that, in fact, is the most satisfactory mode of getting\nover this difficulty, if the Scriptures unequivocally teach the\nuniversality of the deluge.\n\nA second objection to such a universality is, the difficulty of providing\nfor the animals in the ark.\n\nCalculations have indeed been made, which seemed to show that the ark was\ncapacious enough to hold the pairs and septuples of all the species. But,\nunfortunately, the number of species assumed to exist by the calculators\nwas vastly below the truth. It amounted only to three or four hundred;\nwhereas the actual number already described by zoologists is not less than\none hundred and fifty thousand; and the probable number existing on the\nglobe is not less than half a million. And for the greater part of these\nmust provision have been made, since most of them inhabit either the air\nor the dry land. A thousand species of mammalia, six thousand species of\nbirds, two thousand species of reptiles, and one hundred and twenty\nthousand species of insects are already described, and must have been\nprovided with space and food. Will any one believe this possible, in a\nvessel not more than four hundred and fifty feet long, seventy-five feet\nbroad, and forty-five feet high?\n\nThe third and most important objection to this universality of the deluge\nis derived from the facts brought to light by modern science, respecting\nthe distribution of animals and plants on the globe.\n\nIt was the opinion of Linnaeus that all animals and plants had their\ncommencement in a particular region of the earth, from whence they\nmigrated into all other parts of its surface. And had no new facts come to\nlight since his day, to change the aspect of the subject, one would\nhesitate long before adopting views opposed to so distinguished a\nnaturalist. But new facts, in vast numbers, have been multiplying ever\nsince his day, and zoologists and botanists now almost universally adopt\nthe opinion, early promulgated by Dr. Prichard, in his admirable work on\nthe Physical History of Man, that there must have been several centres of\ncreation, from which the animals and plants radiated only so far as the\nclimate and food were adapted to their natures, except a few species\nendowed with the power of accommodating themselves to all climates.\nCertain it is that they are now thus distributed; and it is inevitable\ndeath for most species to venture beyond certain limits. If tropical\nanimals and plants, for instance, were to migrate to the temperate zones,\nand especially to the frigid regions, they could not long survive; and\nalmost equally fatal would it be for the animals and plants of high\nlatitudes to take up their abode near the equator. But even within the\ntropics we find distinct species of animals and plants on opposite\ncontinents. Indeed, naturalists reckon a large number of botanical and\nzoological districts, or provinces, as they are called, within which they\nfind certain peculiar groups of animals and plants, with natures exactly\nadapted to that particular district, but incapable of enduring the\ndifferent climate of adjoining districts. They differ considerably as to\nthe number of these districts, because the plants and animals of our globe\nare by no means yet fully described, and because the districts assigned to\nthe different classes do not fully coincide; but as to the existence of\nsuch a distribution, they are of one opinion. The most reliable divisions\nof this kind make twenty-five botanical provinces, and five kingdoms and\nfourteen provinces among animals.[10]\n\nThe fact that man, and some of the domesticated animals, and a few plants,\nare found in almost every climate, has, until recently, blinded the eyes\nof naturalists to the manner in which the great mass of animals and plants\nare confined within certain prescribed limits. But so soon as the general\nfact is stated, we immediately recur to abundant proof of its truth. We\nshould be disposed to question the veracity of that traveller who should\nvisit a new and remote country, and describe its vegetable and animal\nproductions as essentially the same as in our own; and all because the\nanalogy of other portions of the globe leads us to expect that a new\ngeographical province shall present us with a peculiar _fauna_ and\n_flora_; that is, with peculiar groups of animals and plants.\n\nIt is obvious that the facts which have been stated have an important\nbearing upon the mode in which the animals were brought together to enter\nthe ark, and were afterwards distributed through the earth, if the deluge\nwere universal. Certain it is that, without miraculous preservation, they\ncould never have been brought together, nor again dispersed. We have\nreason to suppose that the ark was constructed in some part of the\ntemperate zone. Now, suppose the animals of the torrid zone at the present\nday to attempt, by natural means, to reach the temperate zone; who does\nnot know that nearly all of them must perish? Nor is it any easier to\nconceive how, after the flood, they could have migrated into all\ncontinents, and islands, and climates, and how each species should have\nfound the place exactly fitted to its constitution, as we now find them.\nIndeed, the idea of their collection and dispersion in a natural way is\naltogether too absurd to be believed. And we must, therefore, resort to a\nmiracle, or suppose a new creation to have taken place after the deluge,\nor admit the flood to have been limited. If the latter supposition be not\ninconsistent with the Bible, it completely relieves the difficulty. If we\nsuppose the limited region of Central Asia, where man existed, to have\nbeen deluged, and pairs and septuples of the most common animals in that\nregion only to have been kept alive in the ark, the entire account will\nharmonize with natural history. The question, then, whether such a view is\nconsistent with the Bible, becomes of great interest; and to this point I\nbeg leave next to direct your attention.\n\nIf we understand the scriptural account to denote a literal universality,\nit is certainly very natural to inquire why such universality was\nnecessary, since the deluge is represented as a penal infliction upon man.\nFor it seems difficult to believe as some writers have attempted to prove,\nthat the human family had become very numerous, or had extended far beyond\nthe spot where they were first planted, in less than two thousand years;\nespecially when we recollect how few were the children of patriarchs whose\nage amounted to many centuries, and how very probable it is that the\nextreme wickedness of most of the antediluvians tended to their extinction\nrather than their multiplication. Why, then, for the sake of destroying\nman, occupying probably only a limited portion of one continent, was it\nnecessary to depopulate all other continents and islands, inhabited only\nby irresponsible animals, who had no connection with man? If the\nScriptures unequivocally declare that such was the fact, we are bound to\nbelieve it on divine testimony. But if their language admits of a\ndifferent interpretation, it seems reasonable to adopt it.\n\nAnd here I am willing to acknowledge that the language of the Bible on\nthis subject seems, at first view, to teach the universality of the flood,\nunequivocally. _The waters_, say they, _prevailed exceedingly upon the\nearth, and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were\ncovered._ Again: _Behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the\nearth to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under\nheaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die._ If such language\nbe interpreted by the same rules which we should apply to a modern\ncomposition, it could in no way be understood to teach a limited deluge or\na partial destruction. But in respect to this ancient record, two\nconsiderations are to be carefully weighed.\n\nIn the first place, the terms employed are not to be judged of by the\nstate of knowledge in the nineteenth century, but by its state among the\npeople to whom this revelation was first addressed. When the earth was\nspoken of to that people, (the ancient Jews,) they could not have\nunderstood it to embrace a much wider region than that inhabited by man,\nbecause they could not have had any idea of what lay beyond those limits.\nAnd so of the phrase _heaven_; it must have been coextensive with the\ninhabited earth only. And when it was said that all animals would die by\nthe deluge, they could not have supposed the declaration to embrace\ncreatures far beyond the dwellings of men, because they knew nothing of\nsuch regions. Why, then, may we not attach the same limited meaning to\nthese declarations? Why should we suppose that the Holy Spirit used terms,\nadapted, indeed, to the astronomy and geography of the nineteenth century,\nbut conveying only a false idea to those to whom they were addressed?\n\nIn the second place, in all ages and nations, and especially among\nancient ones, \"universal terms are often used to signify only a very large\namount in number or quantity.\"--Dr. Smith, _Scrip. and Geol._ p. 212, 4th\ned.--The Hebrew [Hebrew], (_kol_,) the [Greek: pas], and the English\n_all_, are alike employed in this manner, to signify _many_. There are\nsome very striking cases of this sort in the Bible. Thus in Genesis it is\nsaid that _all countries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy corn, because\nthe famine was sore in all lands_. This certainly could apply only to the\nwell-known countries around Egypt; for transportation would have been\nimpossible to the remotest parts of the habitable globe. In the account of\nthe plagues that came upon Egypt, it is said that _the hail smote every\nherb of the field, and brake every tree of the field_; but, in a few days\nafterwards, it is said of the locusts that _they did eat every herb of the\nland and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left_. _This day_,\nsaid God to the Israelites, while yet in their journeyings, _will I begin\nto put the fear of thee and the dread of thee upon the face of the nations\nunder all the heavens_. But it is obvious that only the nations contiguous\nto the Israelites, chiefly the Canaanites, are here meant. In the New\nTestament, it is said that, at the time of the pentecost, there were\ndwelling at Jerusalem _Jews, devout men, out of every nation under\nheaven_. Yet, in the enumeration, which follows this passage, of the\ndifferent places from which those Jews had come, we find only a region\nextending from Italy to Persia, and from Egypt to the Black Sea. It could\nhave been a district of only about that size which Paul meant, when he\nsaid to the Colossians that the _gospel was preached to every creature\nwhich is under heaven_. In the First Book of Kings, it is said that _all\nthe earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom_;--a passage\nwhich requires as much limitation as the others above quoted. A similar\nmode of expression is employed by Christ, when he says of the queen of\nSheba that she came from _the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the\nwisdom of Solomon_; for her residence, being probably on the Arabian Gulf,\ncould not have been more than twelve or fourteen hundred miles from\nJerusalem. A like figurative mode of speech is employed in the description\nof Peter's vision, in which he saw a great sheet let down to the earth,\n_wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild\nbeasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air_. Who will suppose,\nsince it is wholly unnecessary for the object, which was to convince Peter\nthat the Mosaic distinction into clean and unclean beasts was abolished,\nthat he here had a vision of all the species of terrestrial vertebral\nanimals on the globe?\n\nIt would be easy to multiply similar passages. In many of them we should\nfind that the phrase _all the earth_ signifies the land of Palestine; in a\nfew, the Chaldean empire; and in one, that of Alexander of Macedon.\n\nNow, so similar is the phraseology of the passages just quoted to that\ndescriptive of the deluge, so universal are the terms, while we are sure\nthat their meaning must be limited, that we are abundantly justified in\nconsidering the deluge as limited, if other parts of the Bible, or the\nfacts of natural history, require such a limitation. Indeed, so obviously\nanalogous are the passages quoted to the Mosaic account of the deluge,\nthat distinguished writers have regarded the deluge as limited, long\nbefore geology existed, or natural history had learned the manner in which\norganic life is distributed on the globe; nay, at a period when\nnaturalists, with Linnaeus at their head, supposed animals and plants to\nhave proceeded from one centre:--an opinion that seemed to sustain the\nnotion of the universality of the flood. The inference, then, that it was\nlimited, must have been made chiefly on exegetical grounds.\n\n\"I cannot see,\" says Bishop Stillingfleet, more than a century ago, \"any\nurgent necessity from the Scripture to assert that the flood did spread\nover all the surface of the earth. That all mankind, those in the ark\nexcepted, were destroyed by it, is most certain, according to the\nScriptures. The flood was universal as to mankind; but from thence follows\nno necessity at all of asserting the universality of it as to the globe of\nthe earth, unless it be sufficiently proved that the whole earth was\npeopled before the flood, which I despair of ever seeing\nproved.\"--_Origines Sacrae_, B. III. chap. 4, p. 337, ed. 1709.\n\nMatthew Poole, well known for his valuable and extensive commentaries on\nthe Bible, thus expresses himself: \"It is not to be supposed that the\nentire globe of the earth was covered with water. Where was the need of\noverwhelming those regions in which there were no human beings? It would\nbe highly unreasonable to suppose that mankind had so increased before the\ndeluge as to have penetrated to all the corners of the earth. It is,\nindeed, not probable that they had extended themselves beyond the limits\nof Syria and Mesopotamia. Absurd it would be to affirm that the effects of\nthe punishment inflicted upon men alone applied to places in which there\nwere no men. If, then, we should entertain the belief that not so much as\nthe hundredth part of the globe was overspread with water, still the\ndeluge would be universal, because the extirpation took effect upon all\nthe part of the globe which was inhabited. If we take this ground, the\ndifficulties which some have raised about the deluge fall away as\ninapplicable, and mere cavils; and irreligious persons have no reason left\nthem for doubting the truth of the Holy Scriptures.\"--_Synopsis on Gen._\nvii. 19.\n\nPoole wrote nearly two centuries ago. In more recent times, we find\nauthorities equally eminent for learning and candor adopting the same\nviews. \"Interpreters,\" says Dathe, \"do not agree whether the deluge\ninundated the whole earth, or only those regions then inhabited. I adopt\nthe latter opinion. The phrase _all_ does not prove the inundation to have\nbeen universal. It appears that in many places [Hebrew] (_kol_) is to be\nunderstood as limited to the thing or place spoken of. Hence all the\nanimals said to have been introduced into the ark were only those of the\nregion inundated. So, also, only those mountains are to be understood,\nwhich were surmounted by the waters.\"--_Pentateuchus a Dathio_, p. 63.\n\nBut no modern writer has treated this subject with so much candor and\nability--and the same may be said of his whole work on the \"Relation of\nthe Holy Scriptures to some Parts of Geological Science\"--as Dr. John Pye\nSmith. We can say of him, what we can say of very few men, that he is\naccurately acquainted with all the branches of the subject. Eminent as a\ntheologian and a philologist, and fully possessed of all the facts in\ngeology and natural history, he gives us his opinion, not as a young man,\nfond of novelties, but in the full maturity of judgment and of years.\n\"From these instances,\" says he, \"of the scriptural idiom in the\napplication of phraseology similar to that in the narrative concerning the\nflood, I humbly think that those terms do not oblige us to understand a\nliteral universality; so that we are exonerated from some otherwise\ninsuperable difficulties in natural history and geology. If so much of the\nearth was overflowed as was occupied by the human race, both the physical\nand the moral ends of that awful visitation were answered.\"--_Scrip. and\nGeol._ p. 214, 4th ed.\n\n\"Let us now take the seat of the antediluvian population,\" continues Dr.\nSmith, \"to have been in Western Asia, in which a large district, even at\nthe present day, lies considerably below the level of the sea. It must not\nbe forgotten that six weeks of continued rain would not give an amount of\nwater forty times that which fell on the first, or a subsequent day, for\nevaporation would be continually carrying up the water to be condensed,\nand to fall again; so that the same mass of water would return many times.\nIf, then, in addition to the tremendous rain, we suppose an elevation of\nthe bed of the Persian and Indian Seas, or a subsidence of the inhabited\nland towards the south, we shall have sufficient cause in the hands of\nalmighty justice for submerging the district, covering its hills, and\ndestroying all living beings within its limits, except those whom divine\nmercy preserved in the ark. The drawing off of the waters would be\neffected by a return of the bed of the sea to a lower level, or by the\nelevation of some tracts of land, which would leave channels and slopes\nfor the larger part of the water to flow back into the Indian Ocean, while\nthe lower part remained a great lake, or an inland sea, the Caspian.\"--p.\n217.\n\nIt is a circumstance favoring the above suggestions of Dr. Smith, that\nthere is a tract of country ten degrees of latitude in breadth, embracing\nmost of Asia Minor, ancient Armenia and Georgia, and part of Persia,\nextending at least as far east as the Caspian Sea, and probably much\nfarther, in which volcanic agency has been in operation at a comparatively\nrecent period. I am not aware that we have evidence of any eruption of\nlava in those regions, within historic times, except, perhaps, some mud\nvolcanoes in the Caucasian range. The Katekekaumene, or Burnt District, of\nAsia Minor, and Mount Ararat, probably experienced eruptions at a date\nsomewhat earlier, though at a comparatively recent date. Yet important\nchanges of level may have been the result of volcanic agency in Central\nAsia, as recently as the Noachian deluge, without leaving any traces which\nwould be obvious, without more careful observation than has yet been made\nin those regions. Especially might a subsidence of the surface have taken\nplace, and not have left any striking evidence of its occurrence. Still\nmore difficult would it now be to discover the marks of vertical movements\nin the bed of the Indian Ocean at the time of the deluge.\n\nI will venture to add another suggestion. If the bed of the Indian Ocean\nwas uplifted by volcanic matter, struggling to get vent, vapor enough\nmight have been liberated to account, on natural principles, for the forty\ndays' rain of the deluge. For it is well known that in volcanic eruptions\ndrenching rains are often the result of the sudden condensation of the\naqueous vapor.\n\nWe are here met, however, by a serious objection to the hypothesis, which\ngives only a limited extent to the deluge. If the present Mount Ararat, in\nArmenia, is the mountain on which the ark first rested, a deluge which\ncovered its top must, by its flux and reflux, have overspread nearly all\nother portions of the globe, for that mountain rises seventeen thousand\nseven hundred feet above the ocean. But we are informed by Jerome, that\nthe name Ararat was given generally to the mountains of Armenia; (indeed,\nthat is the meaning of the name;) and long before geology existed,\nShuckford suggested that some spot farther east corresponds better with\nthe scriptural account of the place where the ark rested. For it is said\nof the families of the sons of Noah, that, as they journeyed from the\neast, they found a plain in the land of Shinar. Now, Shinar, or Babylonia,\nlies nearly south of the Armenian Ararat, and the probability, therefore,\nis, that the true Ararat, from whose vicinity the descendants of Noah\nprobably emigrated, lay much farther to the south. Again, if the ark\nrested upon the present Ararat, it is impossible, except by a miracle,\nthat those who came out of it could have reached the plain below; for so\nexceedingly difficult of access is it, that it is doubtful whether, since\nthe deluge, any one ever succeeded in reaching its summit, till the year\n1829. Indeed, it is an article in the creed of the Armenian church that\nits ascent is impossible. That the almost universal tradition of Eastern\nnations should have fixed upon that mountain as the resting-place of the\nark is not strange, considering that there is no mountain in all Asia so\nstriking to behold.\n\nBut upon the whole, the probability is strong that some other elevation,\nless lofty and steep, was the radiating point of the postdiluvian races of\nman and other animals. The fact of Noah's sending forth a dove from the\nark, which came back in the evening with an olive leaf in her mouth,\nstrengthens the preceding view. For neither upon the present Ararat, nor\naround it, does the olive grow, because it is too cold. Indeed, all its\nupper part is covered with perpetual ice. But if the Ararat of Scripture\nlay nearer the tropics, the olive might find upon it a congenial spot. A\ndistinguished botanist adduced the fact about the olive as evidence\nagainst the Bible. But how easily refuted, if the theory now under\nexamination be true!\n\nIn favor of this supposition, I might have urged another consideration,\nwhich, in my mind, has no little weight. It is impossible that the waters\nof the deluge should have covered the earth for a year, without destroying\nnearly all the existing vegetation. Yet nothing is said of the\npreservation of seeds in the ark; and if they had been preserved,\ncertainly nothing but miraculous power, and that of the most remarkable\nkind, could have scattered them through the remotest continents and\nislands, so as to form distinct botanical districts, such as have been\ndescribed. The olive, from which a leaf was plucked by the dove sent out\nof the ark, was probably situated upon elevated ground, and where it\nremained but a short time beneath the waters, and therefore did not lose\nits vitality.\n\nIt is probable that the theory which makes the deluge limited in extent\nwill meet with more favor than any other, with candid and intelligent men,\nto meet the suggested difficulties of the case. But some, who are\nunwilling to abandon the idea of the universality of the deluge, avoid\nthese difficulties by supposing a new creation to have taken place at that\nepoch. That such a new creation occurred at the commencement of several\ngeological periods can hardly admit a doubt. And a presumption is hence\nderived in favor of a similar act at the beginning of the postdiluvian\nperiod, preceded as it was, like the other geological periods, by an\nalmost entire destruction of organic life.\n\nThe principal objection to this view is, that no notice is taken of such a\nnew creation in the Bible. And it would seem that an event of so much\nimportance would hardly be passed in silence; and yet the bringing into\nexistence new races of the inferior animals and plants could have but\nlittle bearing upon the object of revelation, which respects almost\nexclusively the spiritual condition of man. One, however, can hardly see\nwhy pairs and septuples of the animals, even in a limited district, need\nto have been preserved in the ark, if a new creation were to follow the\ncoming catastrophe; nor why the creation of the antediluvian animals, so\nsoon to perish, should have been so particularly described, while no\nnotice was taken of the postdiluvian races, which were to occupy the earth\nso much longer time.\n\nA third theory has been suggested by some, embracing both those which have\nbeen described. They admit the deluge to have been of limited extent, but\nsuppose this limitation not to be sufficient to explain all the facts of\nrevelation and of science, without a new creation also, at the\ncommencement of the postdiluvian period. They suppose, indeed, that\ngeology and natural history teach the occasional extinction of species,\nand the creation of others, even in our own times. And in regard to this\nlatter view, it may at least be said that it is not contradicted by the\nBible. Nay, one would almost suppose that the Psalmist were describing\nsuch a state of things when he says, _Thou hidest thy face; they_\n[animals] _are troubled. Thou takest away their breath; they die and\nreturn to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit; they are created; and\nthou renewest the face of the earth._ The resemblance between this\nlanguage and that employed to describe the original creation is striking.\nIndeed, the same word (_bawraw_) is used.\n\nWithout attempting to decide which of these theories has the highest claim\nupon our belief, it is sufficient to remark, that either of them\nreconciles the facts of geology and natural history with the inspired\nrecord; nor does the adoption of either of them require us to put a forced\nand unnatural construction upon the language of the Bible. Even then, if\nwe should admit that a construction agreeing with these theories is not\nthe most natural meaning, yet if the facts of natural history\nunequivocally require such an interpretation to harmonize the Bible with\nnature, it is assuredly one of those cases where science must be allowed\nto modify our exegesis of Scripture. In the view of sound philosophy, such\nmodification at once disarms scepticism of its cavils.\n\nWith two remarks of a practical character, I close the discussion of this\nsubject.\n\nFirst. The history of opinions respecting the Noachian deluge furnishes a\nsalutary lesson to those employed in the examination of analogous\nsubjects. We have seen these opinions assume almost every possible shape;\nyet, until recently they have all been maintained with the most positive\nand dogmatic assurance; and each particular theory has been regarded as\ninvolving the essence of the Bible, as being the _articulus stantis vel\ncadentis ecclesiae_, and whoever denied it virtually denied the Bible. But\nall reasonable and truly scientific men are fast coming to the conclusion,\nthat the deluge has had very little to do with the present configuration\nof the globe, and that it is doubtful whether any trace of its occurrence\nwill ever be found in nature; so that, on the one hand, all the alarms and\ndenunciations of misguided Christians on this subject might have been\nspared; and, on the other hand, if the hasty exultation of the infidel, in\nhis supposed discovery of discrepancy between nature and Moses, had been\nsuppressed until the subject was understood, he would not have experienced\nthe mortification of entire defeat.\n\nIt is, indeed, very humiliating to human nature to find so many of the\nwise, the talented, and the religious so confident and zealous, yet so\nerroneous. But it is a salutary lesson. It shows us the vast importance of\nbeing thoroughly acquainted with a subject before we dogmatize upon it. It\nshould not, indeed, discourage us, and produce a universal scepticism on\nall subjects not admitting a mathematical demonstration; but it should\nmake us cautious in examining the grounds of our conclusions, and modest\nin maintaining them.\n\nSecondly. It is interesting to observe how, amid all the diversities and\nfluctuations of opinion on this subject, the Bible has remained\nunaffected.\n\nThe infidel felt confident that the arrows which he drew from this quiver\nwould certainly pierce Christianity to the heart. But they rebounded from\nher adamantine breastplate, blunted and broken; and no one will have the\ncourage to pick them up and hurl them again. The physico-theological\nschool at one time felt certain, that no other theory but an entire\ndissolution of the crust of the globe at the deluge, could possibly be\nmade consistent with the Bible. More recently, it has been supposed\nequally necessary, to reconcile geology and revelation, that we should\nadmit the antediluvian continents to have sunk beneath the ocean at that\ntime. Still later, it has been thought quite certain that the surface of\nthe earth bore the most striking marks of a universal deluge, probably\nidentical with that of Scripture. At length, the extreme opinion is now\ngenerally reached, that no trace of the deluge of Noah remains. And\nequally wide and well established is the belief that, amid all these\nfluctuations of theory, the Bible has stood as an immovable rock amid the\nconflicting waves. The final result is, that we have only slightly to\nmodify the interpretation of the Mosaic account, in conformity with the\nlaws of language, to make it entirely consistent with the notion that all\ntraces of the deluge have disappeared. Thus, in the midst of human\nopinions, veering to every point of the compass, the Bible has ever\nremained fixed to one point. Not so with false systems of religion. The\nHindoo religion contains a false astronomy, as well as anatomy and\nphysiology; and the Mohammedan Koran distinctly advances the Ptolemaic\nhypothesis of the universe; so that you have only to prove these religions\nfalse in science in order to destroy their claim to infallibility. But the\nBible, stating only facts, does not interfere with, neither is affected\nby, the hypotheses of philosophy. Often, indeed, in past ages, have men\nset up their hypotheses as oracles in the temple of nature, to be\nconsulted rather than the Bible. But, like Dagon before the ark, they have\nfallen to the earth, and been broken in pieces before the Word of God;\nwhile this has ever stood and ever shall stand, in sublime simplicity and\nundecaying strength, amid the wrecks of every false system of philosophy\nand religion.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE V.\n\nTHE WORLD'S SUPPOSED ETERNITY.\n\n\nIn our attempts thus far to elucidate the religion of geology, our\nattention has been directed to those points where this science has been\nsupposed to conflict with revelation; and I trust it has been made\nmanifest that the collision was rather with the interpretation than with\nthe meaning of Scripture; and that, in fact, geology, instead of coming\ninto collision with the Bible, affords us important aid in understanding\nit aright. We now advance to a part of the subject which has a more direct\nbearing upon natural religion. And here, if I mistake not, we shall find\nthe illustration of religious truth from this science, as we might expect,\nmore direct and palpable.\n\nThe subject to which I wish first to call your attention is the world's\neternity, or the eternal existence of matter. This was the universal\nbelief of the philosophers of antiquity, and, indeed, of most reasoning\nminds where the Bible has not been known. The grand argument by which this\nopinion was sustained is the well-known _ex nihilo nihil fit_, (nothing\nproduces nothing.) Hence men inferred that not even the Deity could create\nmatter out of nothing; and, therefore, it must be eternal. Most of the\nancient philosophers, however, did not hence infer the non-existence of\nthe Deity. But they endeavored to reconcile the existence of eternal\nmatter with an eternal Spirit. They supposed both to be self-existent and\ncoexistent. From this rational thinking principle they supposed all good\nto be derived; while from the material irrational principle all evil\nsprung. Plato taught that God, of his own will, united himself with\nmatter, although he did not create it, and out of it produced the present\nworld; so that it was proper to speak of the world as created, although\nthe matter was from eternity. Aristotle and Zeno taught that God's union\nwith matter was necessary; and hence they considered the world eternal. In\nthe opinion of Epicurus, God was entirely separated from matter, which\nconsisted of innumerable atoms, floating about from eternity, like dust in\nthe air, until at last they assumed the present form of the world.\n\nIn modern times, the belief in the eternity of matter has usually been\nconnected with, or made the basis of, a refined and popular system of\natheism. I refer to the pantheism of Spinoza. He maintains that there\nexists in the universe but one substance, variously modified, whose two\nprincipal attributes are infinite extension and infinite intelligence.\nThis substance, the [Greek: to pan] of Spinoza, he regarded as God; and\nhence his system is called _Pantheism_. Under various modifications, it\nhas been adopted by many sceptical minds, and is, undoubtedly, the most\ncommon and plausible system of atheism extant. Other modern writers, among\nwhom may be mentioned that anomalous philosopher Bayle, have advocated the\nviews of the ancients respecting the eternity of matter.\n\nIt may seem strange, but it is true, that some Christian philosophers and\ndivines have been, in ancient and modern times, the advocates of the\neternity of matter. The ancient Christians adopted it from Plato. Thus we\nfind Justin Martyr maintaining that God formed the world from an eternal,\nunorganized material. And the schoolmen, who followed Aristotle, taught\nthat \"God had created the world from eternity.\" On this ground, even some\nProtestant theologians have asserted that it was absurd to speak of an\neternal God who is not an eternal Creator.\n\nA principle which has thus been adopted by so many acute minds\nunenlightened by revelation, and by some who possessed that divine\ntestimony, must be sustained by some plausible arguments. The principal\none relied on is, that the changes which are going on in the material\nworld are proved to be only transmutations, which follow one another in\nseries that return into themselves, and which may, therefore, have been\ngoing on from eternity; and if this be admitted, it is as easy to suppose\nmatter to be self-sustained, and to have fallen into its present order of\nitself, as to suppose the interference of an infinite Spirit. \"How do we\nknow,\" says Dr. Chalmers, in stating the atheistic argument, \"that the\nworld is a consequent at all? Is there any greater absurdity in supposing\nit to have existed, as it now is, at any specified point of time,\nthroughout the millions of ages that are past, than that it should so\nexist at this moment? Does what we suppose might have been then, imply any\ngreater absurdity, than what we actually see to be at present? Now, might\nnot the same question be carried back to any point or period of duration,\nhowever remote? or, in other words, might we not dispense with a beginning\nfor the world altogether?\" \"For aught we can know _a priori_,\" says Hume,\n\"matter may contain the source or spring of order originally within itself\nas well as mind does; and there is no more difficulty in conceiving that\nthe several elements, from an internal, unknown cause, may fall into the\nmost exquisite arrangement, than to conceive that their ideas, in the\ngreat universal mind, from a like internal cause, fall into that\narrangement. If this material world rests upon a similar ideal world,\nthis ideal world must rest upon some other, and so on without end. It\nwere better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world.\nBy supposing it to contain the principle of its order within itself, we\nreally assert it to be God; and the sooner we arrive at that divine Being,\nso much the better.\"\n\nNow, in what manner have these ingenious arguments been met? Until quite\nrecently, no one has supposed that any light on this subject could be\nderived from geology. Indeed, even now, by many, that science is regarded\nas favoring the idea of the world's eternity. Neither has it been thought\nthat, on a question of natural theology, like this, it was proper to\nappeal to the Bible. Philosophers and divines, however, have attempted to\nreply to these arguments, irrespective of geology and revelation; and they\nhave generally convinced themselves that they have been successful. But to\nmy mind, I must confess, this has always appeared the weakest spot in\nnatural religion. Some of the arguments to prove the world not eternal do,\nindeed, appear, at first statement, very profound; but they rather silence\nthan convince; and the longer we reflect upon them, the more apt are we to\ndoubt their force.\n\nAnd here I am constrained to bear testimony to the masterly manner in\nwhich this subject has been treated by Dr. Chalmers. Perceiving that the\ndefences of natural religion on this subject were weak, in spite of much\nshow of strength, he has laid out his giant force of intellect in clearing\naway the rubbish and building a rampart of rock. His remarkable skill in\nseizing upon and bringing out prominently the great principles of a\ndifficult subject, and turning them round and round till they fill every\neye, is here most happily exerted.\n\nLet us now proceed, in the first place, to examine the arguments that have\nbeen adduced to prove the non-eternity of the world, independent of\ngeology and revelation; and in the second place, to derive from these two\nsources of evidence the true ground on which that proposition rests.\n\nThe first supposed proof that the world has not eternally existed is\nderived from what is called the _a priori_ argument for the existence of\nthe Deity, originally proposed by the monk Anselmus, and afterwards more\nfully illustrated in England by Dr. Samuel Clarke. Take the following\nbrief summary of this argument, as applied to the eternity of matter, in\nthe words of Dr. Crombie.\n\n\"Whatever has existed from eternity, independent and without any external\ncause, must be self-existent. Whatever is self-existent must exist\nnecessarily, by an absolute necessity in the nature of the thing. This is\nalso self-evident. It follows, therefore, that unless the material world\nexist necessarily, by an absolute necessity in its own nature, so that it\nmust be a contradiction to suppose it not to exist, it cannot be\nindependent and eternal. In order to disprove this absolute necessity, he\n[Dr. Clarke] reasoned thus: If matter be supposed to exist necessarily,\nthen in that necessary existence is included the power of gravitation, or\nit is not. If not, then in a world merely material, and in which no\nintelligent being presides, there never could have been any motion. But if\nthe power of gravitation be included in the pretended necessary existence\nof matter, then it follows necessarily, that there must be a vacuum; it\nfollows, likewise, that matter is not a necessary being. For if a vacuum\nactually be, then it is plainly more than possible for matter not to be.\"\n\nIs it not passing strange that such a dreamy argumentation as this--and it\nis a fair sample of Dr. Clarke's extended work on the existence of the\nDeity--should have been regarded as sound logic by many of the acutest\nminds, and that a majority even of the ablest metaphysicians, up almost\nto the present day, should have felt satisfied with it? A few minds,\nindeed, long ago perceived its fallacy, among whom was Alexander Pope, who\nthus sarcastically describes it:--\n\n  \"Be that my task, replies a gloomy Clarke,\n  Sworn foe to mystery, yet divinely dark.\n  Let others creep by timid steps and slow,\n  On plain experience lay foundation low,\n  By common sense to common notions bred,\n  And last to nature's cause through nature led,\n  All-seeing in thy mists, we need no guide,\n  Mother of arrogance, and source of pride!\n  We nobly take the high _priori_ road,\n  And reason downward till we doubt of God.\"\n                                          _Dunciad_, Book IV.\n\nIt is impossible, on this occasion, to go into a formal refutation of this\nfamous argument. But this is unnecessary; since, as Dr. Chalmers says, it\n\"has fallen into utter disesteem and desuetude.\" Indeed, the language of\nDr. Thomas Brown on this subject is not too severe, when he says, that he\n\"conceives the abstract arguments that have been adduced to show that it\nis impossible for matter to have existed from eternity, by reasoning on\nwhat has been termed necessary existence, and the incompatibility of this\nnecessary existence with the qualities of matter, to be relics of the mere\nverbal logic of the schools, as little capable of producing conviction as\nany of the wildest and most absurd of the technical scholastic reasonings\non the properties, or supposed properties, of entity and nonentity.\"\n\nIn the second place, it has been argued with much apparent plausibility,\nby Dr. Paley, that wherever we find a complicated organic structure,\nadapted to produce beneficial results, its origin must be sought beyond\nitself; and since the world abounds with such organisms, it cannot be\neternal; that is, the mere existence of animals and plants proves their\nnon-eternity.\n\nNow, without asserting that there is no force in this argument, I have two\nremarks to make upon it. The first is, to quote the reply to it, which\nsuch a writer as David Hume has given, in language which I have just\nrepeated. \"For aught we can know _a priori_,\" says he, \"matter may\ncontain the source or spring of order originally within itself, as well as\nmind does; and there is no more difficulty in conceiving that the several\nelements, from an internal unknown cause, may fall into the most exquisite\narrangement, than to conceive that their ideas in the great universal\nmind, from a like internal unknown cause, fall into that arrangement. To\nsay that the different ideas, which compose the reason of the Supreme,\nfall into order of themselves, and by their own nature, is really to talk\nwithout any precise meaning. If it has a meaning, I would fain know why it\nis not as good sense to say, that the parts of the material world fall\ninto order of themselves and by their own nature. Can the one opinion be\nintelligible while the other is not so?\"\n\nFairly to meet this reasoning of the prince of sceptics is not an\nachievement of dulness or ignorance. In order to do it triumphantly, we\nwant, what Dr. Paley could not find, a distinct example of the creation of\nnumerous organic beings by some cause independent of themselves. I say, he\ncould not find such an example; for on a question of natural theology, he\ndid not think it proper to appeal to the Bible; nor had geology, when he\nwrote, revealed her astonishing record on this subject. But as it is now\ndeveloped, it puts an end to all controversy as to the origin of the\norganic world.\n\nMy second remark, however, on this argument is, that even admitting its\ncorrectness, it only proves the commencement of organic natures, but does\nnot show that the matter of which they are composed may not have been\neternal.\n\nIn the third place, an argument against the eternal existence of matter\nhas been derived by Sir John Herschel, one of the most distinguished\nnatural philosophers of the day, from the atomic constitution of bodies,\nas made known to us by chemistry. This science makes it certainly\nprobable, that even the infinitesimal particles of matter have a definite\nand peculiar shape, and size, and weight, in each of the elements. \"Now,\"\nsays this writer, \"when we see a great number of things precisely alike,\nwe do not believe this similarity to have originated, except from a common\nprinciple independent of them.\" \"The discoveries alluded to effectually\ndestroy the idea of an external self-existent matter, by giving to each of\nits atoms the essential characters at once of a manufactured article and a\nsubordinate agent.\"\n\nTo this argument the atheist's reply would be essentially the same as that\nlast considered; and in one respect it would even be more forcible,\nbecause the atomic constitution of bodies, being less complex, is less\nobviously the result of foreign agency, and may more easily be regarded as\nthe necessary property of eternal matter. On the other hand, however, it\nis more obviously an attribute of the original constitution of matter than\norganic structure; and if it does require an independent agency for its\nproduction, it seems difficult to conceive of the existence of matter in a\nprevious state. So that, in this point of view, this argument is more\nforcible than the last; and it is no small evidence that it has real\nstrength, that it comes to us from one of the most acute and impartial\nminds in Europe.\n\nIn the fourth place, it is maintained that the idea of an eternal\nsuccession, or chain of being, which the atheistic advocates of the\nworld's eternity defend, is highly absurd, and even mathematically false.\n\nThe atheist mainly relies upon this notion of an eternal series of things;\nfor if he can defend that opinion, he will overturn the main argument of\nthe Theist for the divine existence, viz., that from design in the works\nof creation. On this ground, therefore, he should be fairly met. Has he\nbeen so met by the reasoning that has usually been employed to refute his\nopinion? As a fair sample of it, I will here quote the leading points of\nthe argument, as given by one of the most popular and able theologians of\nour country. \"It is asserted by atheists,\" says Dr. Dwight, \"that there\nhas been an eternal series of things. The absurdity of this assertion may\nbe shown in many ways.\"\n\n\"First. Each individual in a series is a unit. But every collection of\nunits, however great, is with intuitive certainty numerable, and,\ntherefore, cannot be infinite.\"\n\n\"Secondly. Every individual in the series (take for example a series of\nmen) had a beginning. But a collection of beings must, however long the\nseries, have had a beginning. This, likewise, is intuitively evident.\"\n\n\"Thirdly. It is justly observed by the learned and acute Dr. Bentley, that\nin the supposed infinite series, as the number of individual men is\nalleged to be infinite, the number of their eyes must have been twice, the\nnumber of their fingers ten times, and the number of the hairs on their\nheads many thousand times, as great as the number of men.\"\n\n\"Fourthly. It is also observed by the same excellent writer, that all\nthese generations of men were once present.\"--_Dwight's Theology_, vol.\nii. p. 24.\n\nHow is it possible that such reasoning should have satisfied logical and\nphilosophical minds? Would it not be equally good to disprove the\ndemonstrated principles of mathematics which relate to infinite\nquantities? For in mathematics an infinite series of units is a familiar\nphrase; and it is also common to speak of one infinite quantity as twice,\nor ten times, or many thousand times, greater than another, and that, too,\nin just such cases as the one referred to above.\n\nTrue, mathematical infinites are in some respects different from\nmetaphysical infinites; but it is the former that belong to this argument,\nsince the supposed infinite succession of organic beings forms a\nmathematical series.\n\nAn acute writer in our own country, however, has recently attempted to\nshow that \"there can be no number actually infinite, and therefore no\ninfinite number of generations.\"[11] That the mathematician cannot\nactually present before us the whole of an infinite series, is indeed most\ncertain; for such, power belongs only to an Infinite Being. But does the\nfact that man's faculties are limited, prove that an arithmetical process\ncannot be carried on from eternity to eternity? Because man cannot put\nupon paper the series of numbers representing the miles in infinite space,\nor the hours in infinite duration, is there, therefore, no such thing as\ninfinite space, or infinite duration? Certainly not, if this reasoning be\ncorrect.\n\nIn spite, however, of such mathematical metaphysics, is it not an\nintelligible statement of the atheist, when he says of any generation of\nmen and animals in past time, that there was another that preceded it and\nunless you have matter-of-fact proof to the contrary, how will you\ndisprove this assertion? You may show him that practically he can never\nexhibit a series, even of numbers, extending eternally backward; but he\nmay, in return, challenge you to put your finger upon the first link of\nthe chain of organic nature. If you attempt it, he will reply that other\nlinks preceded the one you have named, and that, as far as you choose to\nrun backward, he can go farther; in other words, by the very supposition\nwhich he makes, he excludes a beginning to organic nature, and, therefore,\nall reasoning which assumes such a beginning is of no force against his\nconclusions. If a series which may thus be extended indefinitely backward\nbe not infinite in a metaphysical sense, it is to common sense.\n\nLet me not be thought to be an advocate in any sense for the unsupported\nnotion of an infinite series of organic beings. But the question is,\nwhether those who, in spite of common sense, have maintained this opinion,\nhave been fairly refuted by such metaphysical evasions as I have quoted.\nThe truth is, that, in order to end this dispute, the Theist needs to\nbring forward at least one example in which the commencement of some race\nof animals can be fairly pointed out; and I know not where such an example\ncan be found, save in the Bible and geology.\n\nIn the fifth place, the changing state of the world has been regarded as\nincompatible with the world's eternity. This argument is thus stated by\nBishop Sumner: \"If the universe itself is the first eternal being, its\nexistence is necessary, as metaphysicians speak; and it must be possessed\nof all those qualities which are inseparable from necessary existence. Of\nthis nature are immutability and perfection. For change is the attribute\nof imperfection, and imperfection is incompatible with that Being, which\nis, as the hypothesis affirms, independent, and, therefore, can have no\nsource of imperfection. To suppose, therefore, of the first independent\nBeing, that it could have existed otherwise than it is, is no less\ncontrary to the idea of necessity, with which we set out, than to suppose\nit not to exist at all.\"\n\nThis reasoning is not destitute of plausibility. For there is scarcely any\nlesson more forcibly impressed on short-lived man than the mutability of\nthe world. And it is indeed true that change is its most striking\nattribute. But when we look at the subject philosophically, we find that\nall this mutability is consistent with the most perfect ultimate\nstability; nay, that the change is essential to secure the stability.\nApart from what revelation and geology teach, these changes in nature form\ncycles, which, like those in astronomy, are perfectly consistent with the\neternal permanence of the general system to which they belong. In the\nmotions of the heavenly bodies, a considerable amount of irregularity and\noscillation about a mean state does not tend to the ruin, but rather to\nthe preservation, of the system, provided the anomalies do not extend\nbeyond certain limits. It is just so with other changes that are going on\naround us. All of them are, in fact, as much regulated by mathematical\nlaws as the perturbations of the heavenly bodies; although those laws are\nmore complicated and difficult to bring out in distinct formulae in the\nformer case than in the latter. Yet even in astronomy, it is not many\nyears since the mutual disturbances among the heavenly bodies were\nsupposed to be the certain precursors of ruin to the system. It was not\ntill the famous problem of the three bodies was solved, by the use of the\nmost refined mathematical analysis, that astronomers learnt the true\noperation of those causes of disturbance among the heavenly bodies which\nexist in their mutual attractions. It was then found that, so balanced are\nthey in their action, and so narrow their limits, that they can never\naffect the stability of the system; or, rather, they secure that\nstability. It is, indeed, true, that when changes in nature go on\nincreasing or decreasing in magnitude indefinitely, they clearly indicate\na beginning and an end to the system to which they belong. And it was on\nthis principle that the earlier astronomers predicted that the celestial\nperturbations would ultimately bring the universe to a state of chaos.\nThey found, for instance, that the moon's orbit was decreasing in size,\nand they inferred that, ultimately, that luminary must come to the earth.\nBut they now know it to be mathematically certain that, after a long\nperiod, the diminution of the orbit will cease; it will begin to expand,\nand go on expanding,-until the opposite point of oscillation is reached,\nwhen it will again diminish; and in this manner, if God's will permit,\nperform its eternal round. Just so it is with all the irregularities of\nthe solar system.\n\n              \"Yonder starry sphere\n  Of planets, and of fixed, in all her wheels,\n  Resembles nearest mazes intricate,\n  Eccentric, intervolved, yet regular;\n  Then most, when most irregular they seem.\"\n\nAnd so it is with all the natural changes which we witness around us, and\nwith all which science shows us to have taken place on the globe,\nexcepting some which geology discloses, and perhaps one which astronomy\nrenders probable. Let us look at some of those changes which the argument\nunder consideration regards as inconsistent with the world's eternity.\n\nNearly all the changes in nature with which we are acquainted belong to\nthree classes,--the mechanical, the chemical, and the organic.\nAstronomical changes are purely mechanical; and hence the ease with which\nthey may be calculated by mathematics. The universal system of death,\nwhich reigns over all animals and plants, is the result of organic laws;\nand it is this which probably gives to man the strongest impression of the\ntransient nature of sublunary things. But just consider the antagonist\nagencies to this universal destroyer. I refer to the equally universal\nsystem of reproduction, and to the law by which permanence of species is\nsecured. The consequence is, that, while every individual animal and plant\ndies, the species survives. In the whole history of the animals and plants\nnow existing on the globe, only eight or ten certain examples are on\nrecord in which a species has become extinct, and those are some large\nbirds, such as the dinornis and dodo, once inhabitants of the Isle of\nBourbon and New Zealand. Every one of the human family, every elephant,\nevery ox, every lion, &c., die, but man, as a species, still lives; and so\ndoes the elephant, the ox, and the lion; and most obviously this is a law\nof nature. How easy, then, for the atheist to evade the force of your\nargument against the world's eternity, drawn from the ravages of death! He\nhas only to suppose the havoc of individuals by death always to have been\nrepaired by the equivalent operation of reproduction, and that these two\nagencies have been balanced against each other from eternity; and how will\nyou prove this impossible, except by the absurd metaphysical arguments\nalready considered?\n\nAtmospheric and aqueous changes often, and, indeed, generally, appear more\nchaotic and destitute of a controlling force than any others in nature.\nWhen the winds are let loose from their prison-house; when the heavens\nbecome dark, and the clouds, rent by the lightnings, pour down their\ncontents, and the swollen torrents carry desolation down the mountain's\nside and over the wide plain; when the ocean rolls in upon the land its\ngiant waves; when the tornado sweeps all before it, in rich tropical\nregions; or when the sirocco sends its hot blast, loaded with sand, over\nthe devoted surface,--in all these cases, how difficult for us to conceive\nthat all this uproar among the elements is limited and controlled by laws\nas fixed and unalterable as those which regulate the heavenly bodies!\nNevertheless, it must be so; and although the winds and the waters seem to\nbe rioting at their pleasure, there are, in fact, at work antagonist\nagencies; which will confine their wild war to a narrow field, and soon\nbring them again into peaceful submission. For such has always been the\ncase, and the limits of their irregularities are no wider now than six\nthousand years ago. In other words, the repressing agency has always been\nsuperior to the destroying force, when the latter has risen to a certain\nlimit; and I doubt not but the profounder mathematics of angelic minds\nmight as easily calculate the anomalies and perturbations of winds and\nwaves as the formulas of La Place can determine those of the solar system.\nAnd if such constancy has existed for six thousand years in meteorological\nchanges,--of all others in nature apparently the most irregular,--why, the\natheist will ask, may not that constancy have been eternal? And with equal\nreason may he ask the same in respect to all changes resulting from\nmechanical, chemical, and organic laws, which we witness in nature, except\nthose which come within the province of geology, and even concerning some\nof those; and what changes in the material world do not result, directly\nor remotely, from one or two, or all of these laws? Yet, in regard to all\nthese changes, there is no inconsistency in supposing them to have gone on\nin an eternal series; and hence they furnish no proof of the non-eternity\nof the world.\n\nIn the seventh and last place, the recent origin of society, as shown by\nhistorical monuments, is regarded as evidence of the recent origin of the\nworld. This argument was well understood as long ago as the days of\nLucretius, who states it very clearly in the oft-quoted lines,--\n\n  \"Si nulla fuit genitalis origo,\n  Terrarum et coeli, semperque eterna fuit,\n  Cur, supra bellum Thebanum et funera Trojae,\n  Non alias alii quoque res cecinere poetae?\"\n\nThis argument, though it has been met by a plausible reply, is certainly\nof great importance in its bearing upon the recent origin of the human\nrace, which, as we shall shortly see, is a point of much interest. But it\nis obvious that it proves nothing respecting the origin of matter, since\nthis might have had an eternal existence before man was placed upon it. We\nneed not, therefore, be delayed by its discussion.\n\nSuch is a fair summary, as I believe, of the arguments usually adduced,\naside from the Bible and geology, to prove the non-eternity of the world.\nI am not prepared to say that they amount to nothing; but I do believe\nthat they perplex, rather than convince, and that some of them are mere\nmetaphysical quibbles.\n\nThey do not produce that instantaneous conviction which most of the\narguments of natural theology force upon the mind; and it is easy to see\nhow a man of a sceptical turn should rise from their examination entirely\nunaffected, or affected unfavorably. Let us now, therefore, turn to\ngeology, and inquire whether its archives will afford us any clearer light\nupon the subject.\n\nAnd here we must confess, at the outset, that geology furnishes us no more\nevidence than the other sciences of the creation of the matter of the\nuniverse out of nothing. But it does furnish us with examples of such\nmodifications of matter as could be effected only by a Deity. Suppose,\nthen, we should be obliged to acknowledge to the atheist, that we yield to\nhim the point of matter's eternal existence, if he pleases, because we can\nfind nowhere in nature decisive evidence of its creation, and then take\nour stand upon the arrangements and metamorphoses of matter. Or, rather,\nsuppose we say to him, that we shall not contend with him as to the origin\nof matter, but challenge him to explain, if he can, without a Deity, its\nmodifications, as taught by geology. If that science does disclose to us\nsuch changes on the globe as no power and wisdom but those of an infinite\nGod could produce, then of what consequence is it, so far as religion is\nconcerned, whether we can, or cannot, demonstrate the first creation of\nmatter? I can conceive of no religious truth that would be unfavorably\naffected, though we should admit that this point cannot be settled. Let\nus, then, at least for the sake of argument, admit that it cannot be, and\nproceed to inquire whether, aside from this point, geology does not teach\nus all that is necessary to establish the most perfect system of Theism. I\nshall select four examples from that science, each of which is independent\nof the others in its bearing upon the subject, since in this way the\nargument will become cumulative; and if some are not satisfied with one\nexample, the others may produce conviction.\n\nIn the first place, geology teaches that the time has been when the earth\nexisted as a molten mass of matter, and, therefore, all the animals and\nplants now existing upon its surface, and all those buried in its rocky\nstrata, must have had a beginning, or have been created. I should be\nsustained by many probabilities, were I to go farther, and maintain that\nthe time was when the globe existed in a gaseous state--an opinion very\nwidely adopted by able philosophers of the present day. But as this view\nis more hypothetical than my first position, which makes the earth a\nliquid mass, and as nothing would be gained to the argument by supposing\nit in a gaseous state, I shall not press that point. That it was once in a\nstate of fusion is probable from the very great heat still remaining in\nits interior. But more direct proof of this results from the facts, now\nadmitted by almost all geologists, that the unstratified rocks have all\nbeen melted, and that the stratified class have all, or nearly all, been\nthe result of disintegration and abrasion of the unstratified masses. A\nstriking confirmation of this opinion is the spheroidal figure of the\nearth,--a figure precisely such as the globe would have assumed in\nconsequence of rotation, had it been in a fluid state. In fine, so many\nand so decisive are the facts which point to the original igneous fluidity\nof the globe, that no competent judge thinks of doubting that all the\nmatter of which it is composed, certainly its crust, has some time or\nother been in that state. It is, however, the opinion of some geologists\nof distinction, that the whole of it was not in fusion at the same time,\nand that its different portions have passed successively through the\nfurnace. But this view of the subject scarcely affects my argument, since\nat whatever period the fusion of any part took place, the destruction of\norganic life, if it existed, must have been the consequence. The essential\nthing is, to show that such was once the state of the earth that animals\nand plants could not have existed on it. For if such was the case, their\ncreation must have been a subsequent operation; and if this did not\nrequire an infinite Being to accomplish it, no result in nature would\ndemand his agency.\n\nTo prove the original igneous fluidity of the globe, we might have adopted\nanother course of argument. All will admit that the present temperature of\nthe interior of the earth is far more elevated than that of the\nsurrounding planetary spaces. The inevitable result is, from the known\nlaws of heat, that its radiation into the celestial spaces is constantly\ngoing on, and consequently the earth's temperature is being constantly\nlowered. Who can tell us now when this process of refrigeration commenced?\nIf no one, then there must have been a time when the heat was great enough\nto fuse the whole globe. And the facts already stated confirm such an\ninference. For all the efforts hitherto made to show that the earth may be\npassing through regions of various temperatures, in its march around the\ncentre of centres, amount to nothing more than dreamy conjecture.\n\nIn order to feel the force of the argument, sustained by so many facts in\ngeology, just picture to yourselves this vast globe as a mass of liquid\nfire. From such a world every thing organic must have been excluded, and\nevery thing combustible consumed, and only such combinations of matter\nhave existed as incandescent heat could not decompose. Compare such a\nworld with that now teeming with life, and beauty, and glory, which we\ninhabit; and say, must not the transition to its present condition have\ndemanded the exercise of infinite power, infinite wisdom, and infinite\nbenevolence? You can, indeed, conceive how a solid crust might have formed\nover the vast fiery ocean, by the simple radiation of heat; and then, too,\nby natural laws, might the vapors have been condensed into oceans and\nclouds, while volcanic force within might have lifted up our continents\nand mountains above the flood. But what a picture of desolation and ruin\nwould such a world present, while unadorned with vegetation, and with no\nvoice of life to break the stillness of universal death! Here is, then,\nthe precise point where we need the interference of a Deity. Admit, if you\nplease, that atheism, with its eternal matter and the laws of nature at\ncommand, might form a world without inhabitants. Who does not see, that to\nbestow organization, and life, and instinct, to say nothing of intellect,\nupon brute matter, is the loftiest prerogative of Jehovah? especially to\nfill so vast a world as ours with its teeming millions, exhibiting ten\nthousand diversities of size, form, and structure.\n\nLet the atheist then exult in the belief of an eternal world. Geology\nshows him that it must have been without inhabitants; and that, therefore,\nthe most wonderful part of the creation still remains to be accounted for;\nwhile physiology teaches that the interference of an infinite Deity can\nalone solve the enigma.\n\nMy second example from geology to disprove the notion of an eternal series\nof animals and plants on the globe, is derived from the history of organic\nremains. That history shows us clearly, that the earth, since its\ncreation, has been the seat of several distinct economies of life, each\noccupying long periods, and successively passing away. During each of\nthese periods, distinct groups of animals and plants have occupied the\nearth, the air, and the waters. Each successive group has been entirely\ndistinct from that which preceded it, though each group was exactly\nadapted to the existing state of the climate and the food provided; so\nthat, had the different groups changed places with one another, they must\nhave perished, because their constitutions were adapted only to the state\nof things during the period in which they actually lived. A distinguished\nnaturalist has recently declared that \"he has discovered, in surveying the\nentire series of fossil animal remains, five great groups, so completely\nindependent that no species whatever is found in more than one of\nthem.\"--_Deshayes._\n\nIncluding the existing races, this would give us six entirely distinct\ngroups of organic beings that have lived in succession upon this globe\nsince it became a habitable world. But even if it should be found that a\nfew species are common to adjoining groups, the great truth would still\nremain, that the different groups were too much unlike to be\ncontemporaries, and that consequently a new creation must have taken place\nwhenever each new group commenced its course.\n\nIt is probable the earth has changed its inhabitants more than the six\ntimes that have been mentioned; some think as many as twelve times. But a\nlarger number cannot yet be proved so clearly; and could they be, they\nwould add nothing to this argument; for it rests mainly on the fact that\nthis change of organic life has even once been complete. We may, however,\nvery safely assume that the present animals and plants are the sixth group\nthat have occupied the globe.[12]\n\nThese facts being admitted, and who does not see the necessity of divine\ninterference, whenever one race of animals and plants passed from the\nearth in order to repeople it? It is not difficult to conceive how\nvolcanic fires, or aqueous inundations, may have carried universal\ndestruction over the globe, and bereft it of inhabitants. But where, save\nin the fiat of an infinite Deity, is the power that can make this universe\nof death teem again with life and beauty? In the powerful language of Dr.\nChalmers, we may inquire, \"Is there aught in the rude and boisterous play\nof a great physical catastrophe that can germinate those exquisite\nstructures, which, during our yet undisturbed economy, have been\ntransmitted in pacific succession to the present day? What is there in the\nrush, and turbulence, and mighty clamor of such great elements, of ocean\nheaved from its old resting-place, and lifting its billows above the Alps\nand the Andes of a former continent,--what is there in this to charm into\nbeing the embryo of an infant family, wherewith to stock and to repeople a\nnow desolate world? We see in the sweeping energy and uproar of this\nelemental war enough to account for the disappearance of all the old\ngenerations, but nothing that might cradle any new generations into\nexistence, so as to have effloresced on ocean's deserted bed the life and\nloveliness which are now before our eyes. At no juncture, we apprehend, in\nthe history of the world, is the interposition of the Deity more manifest\nthan at this; nor can we better account for so goodly a creation emerging\nagain into new forms of animation and beauty from the wreck of the old\none, than that the spirit of God moved on the face of chaos, and that\nnature, turned by the last catastrophe into a wilderness, was again\nrepeopled at the utterance of his word.\"\n\nSir Isaac Newton has said, that \"the growth of new systems out of old\nones, without the mediation of a divine power, seems to me apparently\nabsurd.\" He seems in this passage to have referred only to the\narrangements of matter, \"with respect to size, figure, proportions, and\nproperties,\" and not to the principle of life, of instinct, or of\nintellect. But when the latter are taken into the account, it must be\nsuperlatively absurd to suppose new systems can grow out of old ones by\nmerely natural operations. He, indeed, who can bring himself to believe,\nwith a certain writer, that \"the instincts of animals are nothing more\nthan inert and passive attractions, derived from the power of sensation,\nand the instinctive operations of animals nothing more than\ncrystallizations produced through the agency of that power,\"--such a man\ncould probably easily persuade himself that, by the help of galvanism,\nanimals and plants might be the result of natural operations. Such\ndoctrines, however, we shall examine in another lecture.\n\nMy third example from geology, showing the non-eternity of the present\ncondition of the globe, is the fact of the disappearance of several large\nspecies of animals since the commencement of the most recent or alluvial\ngeological period. Certain large pachydermatous and other animals, such as\nthe fossil elephant, the mastodon, the megatherium, the mylodon, the\nmegalonyx, the glyptodon, the fossil horse, ox, deer, &c., also nine or\nten species of huge birds--the dinornis, the palapteryx, aptornis,\nnotornis, and nestor of New Zealand, the dodo of Mauritius and Bourbon,\nand the pezohaps or solitaire of Rodriguez,--have ceased to exist since\nthe tertiary period; some of them--the birds, for instance--since man's\ncreation. Now, if any important species of animals from time to time\ndisappear from any system of organic life, it shows a tendency to ruin in\nthat system; for such is the intimate dependence of different beings upon\none another, that you cannot blot out one, certainly not a large number,\nwithout disturbing the healthy balance between the whole, and probably\nbringing the whole to ultimate ruin. At any rate, if several species die\nout by natural processes, no reason can be given why others should not, in\nlike manner, disappear. And to prove that any organic system shows a\ntendency to ruin is to show that it had a beginning.\n\nMy third example from geology, demonstrating the special interference of\nthe Deity in the affairs of this world, is the fact of the comparatively\nrecent commencement of the human race. That man was among the very last of\nthe animals created is made certain by the fact that his remains are found\nonly in the highest part of alluvium. This is rarely more than one hundred\nfeet in thickness, while the other fossiliferous strata, lying beneath the\nalluvium, are six miles thick.\n\nHence man was not in existence during all the period in which these six\nmiles of strata were in a course of deposition, and he has existed only\nduring the comparatively short period in which the one hundred feet of\nalluvium have been formed; nay, during only a small part of the alluvial\nperiod. His bones, having the same chemical composition as the bones of\nother animals, are no more liable to decay; and, therefore, had he lived\nand died in any of the periods preceding the alluvial, his bones must have\nbeen mixed with those of other animals belonging to those periods. But\nthey are not thus found in a single well-authenticated instance, and,\ntherefore, his existence has been limited to the alluvial period. Hence he\nmust have been created and placed upon the globe--such is the testimony of\ngeology--during the latter part of the alluvial period.\n\nI might include in this example nearly all the other species of existing\nanimals and plants, since it is only a very few of these that are found\nfossil, and such species are limited to the tertiary strata. But since\nthis might make some confusion in the argument, and since man is\nconfessedly at the head of the existing creation, I prefer to let his case\nstand out alone, and to regard it _instar omnium_.\n\nHere, then, we have a case in which geology can lay her finger upon the\nprecise epoch, in the revolutions of our globe, in which the most\ncomplicated, perfect, and exalted being that ever dwelt upon its surface\nfirst began to be. It was not the commencement of a mere zoophyte, or\ncryptogamean plant, in which we see but little superiority to unorganized\nmatter, except in their possession of a low degree of vitality. But we\nhave a being complicated enough to contain a million of parts, endowed\nwith the two great attributes of life, sensibility and contractility, in\nthe highest degree, and, above all, possessing intellect and moral powers\nfar more wonderful than organization and animal life.\n\nAs to the period when the creation of such a being, by the most\nastonishing of all miracles, took place, I believe there is no diversity\nof opinion. At least, all agree that it was very recent; nay, although\ngeology can rarely give chronological dates, but only a succession of\nevents, she is able to say, from the monuments she deciphers, that man\ncannot have occupied the globe more than six thousand years.\n\nNow, if it was difficult to conceive how successive races of the inferior\nanimals and plants could have originated in the laws of nature, without\nthe special interference of the Deity, that difficulty increases in a\nrapid ratio as we ascend on the scale of organization and intellect, and\nattempt in the same manner to account for the origin of man without the\nmiraculous agency of Deity. The thorough-going materialist, however, does\nnot shrink from the effort. \"Thought,\" says Bory de St. Vincent, \"being\nthe necessary result of a certain kind of organization, wherever this\norder is established, thought is necessarily derived from it; and it is no\nmore possible for the molecules of matter, arranged in a certain manner,\nnot to produce thought, than for brass, when smitten, not to return a\nsound, or for creatures formed by this matter, after such and such laws,\nnot to walk, not to breathe, not to reproduce; in a word, not to exercise\nany of the faculties which result from their peculiar mechanism of\norganization.\"--Dict. Clas. _D. Hist. Nat._ art. _Matiere_.\n\nThis may seem, upon a superficial view, to be settling this matter at\nonce. But it merely shifts the difficulty from one part of the subject to\nanother. Admitting the premises of the materialist to be correct, it does\nindeed show us the proximate cause of thought. But the mind immediately\ninquires how a certain organization became possessed of such wonderful\npower. Is it inherent in matter, or is it a power communicated to\norganization by a supreme Being? If the latter, it is just what the\nTheist contends for; if the former, then there is just as much necessity\nfor the original interposition of the Deity, in order to give matter such\nan astonishing power, as there is, on the theory of the immaterialist, to\nimpart a spiritual and immortal principle to matter. The materialist will,\nindeed, say that matter has possessed this power from eternity. But this\nsupposition, evidently absurd, does in fact invest matter with the\nattributes of Deity; since those attributes, and those alone, are\nsufficient to account for the phenomena. And besides, how is the fact to\nbe explained that this power was not exerted till six thousand years ago?\n\nBut with the exception of the materialist, I am sure that most reasoning\nminds will feel as if the creation of the human family was one of the most\nstupendous, perhaps the most stupendous, exercise of infinite power and\nwisdom which the universe exhibits. If any change whatever demands a Deity\nfor its accomplishment, it must be this; and, therefore, geology presents,\nin the case of man, the most striking example which nature could furnish\nof a beginning of organic and intellectual life on the globe. It shows us\nthat there was a time, and that not remote, when the first link of the\ncurious chain of the human family, now constantly lengthening by\ninflexible laws, was created.\n\nI might now refer to certain recent discoveries in astronomy, which have\nthe same bearing upon the general argument as the examples that have been\nquoted from geology, although less decisive. After the famous\ndemonstration of the eternity of the universe by La Grange, provided the\npresent laws of gravity alone control it, we could hardly expect that, so\nsoon, even astronomy would furnish proof of a disturbing cause, which must\nultimately and inevitably bring ruin among the heavenly bodies, if some\ncounteracting agency be not exerted. Yet such a source of derangement\nexists in the supposed medium extending through all space, which has\nalready shown its retarding influence upon Enke's, Biela's, and Halley's\ncomets. And who can say that some of the vast periods which geology\ndiscloses may not have been commensurate with those intervening between\ncatastrophes among the heavenly bodies as the result of the universal\nresisting ether? At present, however, we can say only that we know such\nlong periods have existed in geology, and probably in astronomy. And their\nmere existence is fatal to the idea of the eternity of the world in its\npresent state.\n\nIf, then, geology can clearly demonstrate the present state of the globe\nto have had a beginning; if she can show us the period, by fair induction,\nwhen one liquid, fiery ocean enveloped the whole earth; if she can show us\nfive or six economies of organic life successively flourishing and passing\naway; if she can trace man back to his origin at a comparatively recent\ndate; if, in fact, she can show us that the most important operations on\nthe globe, and the most complicated and exalted organic races, had a\nbeginning; and if astronomy affords glimpses of similar changes,--then why\nmay we not safely leave the subject of the world's eternity an undecided\nquestion, consistently with the most perfect Theism? If we can prove that\nthe power, the wisdom, and the benevolence of the Deity have again and\nagain interfered with the regular sequence of nature's operations, and\nintroduced new conditions and new and more perfect beings, by using the\nmatter already in existence, what though we cannot, by the light of\nscience, run back to the first production of matter itself? What though\nthe atheist should here be allowed to maintain his favorite theory that\nmatter never had a beginning? What doctrine of natural religion is\nthereby unfavorably affected, if we can only show the interposition of the\nDeity in all of matter's important modifications? Such an admission would\nnot prove matter to be eternal, but only that science has not yet placed\nwithin the reach of man the means of proving its non-eternity. And really,\nsuch an admission would be far more favorable to the cause of truth than\nto rely, as theologians have done, on metaphysical subtilties to prove\nthat matter had a beginning. For the sceptical mind will not merely remain\nunconvinced by such arguments, but be very apt to draw the sweeping\ninference that all the doctrines of natural and revealed religion rest on\nsimilar dreamy abstractions.\n\nBut is natural theology in fact destitute of all satisfactory proof that\nthe matter of the universe had a beginning? Such proof, it seems to me,\nshe will seek in vain in the wide fields of physical and mathematical\nscience; and the solution of the question which metaphysics offers, as we\nhave seen, does not satisfy. But there are sources of evidence on this\npoint which seem to me of the most satisfactory kind.\n\nIn the first place, we may derive from science some presumptive proof of a\ncommencement of the matter of the universe. The fact that the organic\nraces on the globe had a beginning affords such proof. For matter could\nnot have originated itself; nor is there any proof of its eternal\nexistence; and to assume that it did eternally exist, without proof, is\nfar more unphilosophical than to admit its origination in the divine will.\nFor since God has complete control over matter, it is probable that he\ncreated it with such properties as he wished it to possess. And\nfurthermore, to the power and wisdom that could set in motion the heavenly\nbodies, and create and adapt existing organisms out of preexistent matter,\nwe can assign no limits, and hence conclude them to be infinite.\nTherefore they are sufficient to the production of matter, which could not\nhave demanded more than infinite wisdom and power.\n\nNow, in confirmation of these presumptions, we may appeal to the Bible. It\nis true that writers have been accustomed to consider it contrary to sound\nlogic to draw from revelation any support or illustrations of natural\nreligion. But why should an historical fact possess less value, if\ntransmitted to us through the channel of sacred, rather than profane,\nwriters? Now, it would be regarded as perfectly good reasoning to seize\nupon any facts stated by heathen philosophers and historians, illustrative\nof natural religion. But the Scriptures carry with them, to say the least,\nquite as strong evidence of their authenticity and claims to be credited,\nas any ancient uninspired writer. We place them on the same ground as any\nother history, and demand for them only that they should be believed so\nfar as we have testimony to their authenticity. If a man, after careful\nexamination of their evidences, comes to the conclusion that they are mere\nfables, then to him their testimony is of no value to prove or illustrate\nany truth of natural religion. But if he is convinced that they are worthy\nof credence, then their statements may decide a point about which the\nlight of nature leaves him in uncertainty. In this way the Bible is used\nby the natural theologian, just as he would employ any curious object in\nnature--say, the human hand, or the eye. These organs exist, and their\nmechanism is to be accounted for either with or without a God. And so the\nBible exists, and its contents are to be accounted for; and if they\nclearly evince the agency of a Deity, then we may use them, just as we\nwould use the eye or the hand, to prove or illustrate important truths in\nnatural theology.\n\nBut the testimony of the Bible, as to the origin of the world, is most\nexplicit and decided. It declares that _in the beginning God created the\nheavens and the earth; and that the worlds were formed by the word of God,\nso that the things which are seen were not made of things which do\nappear_. The obvious meaning of this latter passage is, that the material\nuniverse was created out of nothing. ([Greek: ta me phainomena].) How much\nmore satisfactory this simple and consistent statement, than a volume of\nabstract argument to prove the non-eternity of the world!\n\nNow, if the testimony of the Scriptures on all other points has been found\ncorrect, why should we not receive with unhesitating credence, and even\nwith joy, the sublime announcement with which that volume opens? True, we\nare not compelled to admit this statement, in order to save Theism from\nrefutation, because geology shows us the commencement of several economies\non the globe, which point us to a divine Author. But the doctrine of\nmatter's creation out of nothing gives a desirable completeness to the\nsystem.\n\nIn looking back upon the subject, which has thus been discussed, too\nbriefly for its merits, but too prolixly for your patience, several\nimportant inferences force themselves upon our attention.\n\nAnd first, it furnishes a satisfactory reply to a well-known objection,\notherwise unanswerable, against the argument from design in nature to\nprove the existence of a Deity. We present ten thousand examples of\nexquisite design and adaptation in nature to the atheist. He admits them\nall; but says, it was always so, and therefore requires no other Deity but\nthe power eternally inherent in nature. At your metaphysical replies to\nhis objections he laughs; but when you take him back on geological wings,\nand bid him gaze on man, just springing, with his lofty powers, from the\nplastic hands of his Creator, and then, still earlier, you point him to\nsystem after system of organic life starting up in glorious variety and\nbeauty on the changing earth, and even still nearer the birth of time, you\nshow him the globe, a glowing ocean of fire, swept of all organic life, he\nis forced to exclaim, \"A God! a personal God! an infinitely wise and\npowerful God!\" What though he still clings to the notion of matter's\neternity? you have forced him to see the hand of Deity in its wonderful\narrangements and metamorphoses; the hand of such a Deity as might have\nbrought it into existence in a moment, by the word of his power.[13]\n\nSecondly. The subject presents us with a new argument for the existence of\na God, or rather a satisfactory modification of the argument from design.\nIn that argument, as derived from other sciences, the Theist finds,\nindeed, multiplied and beautiful proofs of adaptation and apparent design;\nbut then he cannot, as already observed, from those sciences derive proof\nof the commencement either of matter or its arrangements; and then, too,\nthe sceptic, with plausible ingenuity, can take his stand upon law as the\nefficient agent in nature's movements and harmonies. But when geology\nshows us, not the commencement of matter, but of organism, and presents us\nwith full systems of animals and plants springing out of inorganic\nelements, where is the law that exhibits even a tendency to such results?\nNothing can explain them but the law of miracles; that is, creation by\ndivine interposition. Thus is the idea of a Deity forced nakedly upon us,\nas the only possible solution of the enigmas of creation. The\nmetaphysical Theist must waste half his strength in battling the\nquestions about the beginning of matter, and the laws of matter; nor can\nhe ever entirely dislodge the enemy from these strongholds of atheism. But\nthe geological Theist takes us at once into a field where work has been\ndone, which neither eternal law, nor eternal matter, but an infinite\npersonal Deity only, could accomplish.\n\nIn conclusion, I would merely refer to the interesting fact, that geology\nshould prove almost the only science that presents us with exigencies\ndemanding the interposition of creating power. And yet, up to the present\ntime, geology has been looked upon by many Christian writers with jealous\neye, because it was supposed to teach the world's eternity, and so to\naccount for natural changes by catastrophes and the gradual operation of\nexisting agencies, as to render a Deity unnecessary, either for the\ncreation or regulation of the world. One of these writers has even most\nuncharitably and unreasonably said, that \"the mineral geology, considered\nas a science, can do as well without God (though in a question concerning\nthe origin of the earth) as Lucretius did.\"--Granville Penn, _Comparative\nEstimate_, &c.--How much ground there is for such an allegation, let the\ndevelopments made in this lecture answer. Surely, in this case, geology\nhas followed the directions of the Oriental poet:--\n\n  \"Learn from yon Orient shell to love thy foe,\n  And strew with pearls the hand that brings thee woe;\n  Free, like yon rock, from base, vindictive pride,\n  Emblaze with gems the wrist that rends thy side.\n  Mark where yon tree rewards the stony shower\n  With fruit nectareous or the balmy flower.\n  All nature calls aloud,--'Shall man do less\n  Than heal the smiter, and the railer bless?'\"\n\nMisunderstood or misinterpreted though this science has been, she now\noffers her aid to fortify some of the weakest outposts of religion. And\nthus shall it ever be with all true science. Twin sister of natural and\nrevealed religion, and of heavenly birth, she will never belie her\ncelestial origin, nor cease to sympathize with all that emanates from the\nsame pure home. Human ignorance and prejudice may for a time seem to have\ndivorced what God has joined together. But human ignorance and prejudice\nshall at length pass away, and then science and religion shall be seen\nblending their parti-colored rays into one beautiful bow of light, linking\nheaven to earth and earth to heaven.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VI.\n\nGEOLOGICAL PROOFS OF THE DIVINE BENEVOLENCE.\n\n\nThe subject of the present lecture is the divine benevolence, as taught by\ngeology. But what connection, it will be asked, can there be between the\nhistory of rocks and the benevolence of God? Do not the leading points of\nthat history consist of terrible catastrophes, aqueous or igneous, by\nwhich the crust of the earth has been dislocated and upheaved, mountains\nlifted up and overturned, the dry land inundated, now by scorching lava,\nand now by the ocean, sweeping from its face all organic life, and\nentombing its inhabitants in a stony grave? Who can find the traces of\nbenevolence in the midst of such desolation and death? Is it not the very\nplace where the objector would find arguments to prove the malevolence,\ncertainly the vindictive justice, of the Deity?\n\nThis, I am aware, is a not unnatural _prima facie_ view of this subject.\nBut it is a false one. Geology does furnish some very striking evidence of\ndivine benevolence; and if I can show this, and from so unpromising a\nfield gather decisive arguments on this subject, they will be so much\nclear gain to the cause of Theism. This is what, therefore, I shall now\nattempt to do.\n\n_In the first place, I derive an argument for the divine benevolence from\nthe manner in which soils are formed by the disintegration and\ndecomposition of rocks._\n\nChemical analysis shows us that the mineral constituents of rocks are\nessentially the same as those of soils; and that the latter differ from\nthe former, in a pulverized state, only in containing animal and vegetable\nmatter. Hence we cannot doubt but the soils originated from the rocks.\nAnd, in fact, the process of their production is continually going on\nunder our eyes. Wherever the rocks are exposed to atmospheric agencies,\nthey are seen to crumble down; and, in fact, most of them, having been\nlong exposed, are now covered with a deposit of their own ruins, forming a\nsoil over them. This process is in part decomposition and in part\ndisintegration; and as we look upon rocks thus wasting away, we are apt to\nbe impressed with the idea that it is an instance of decay in nature's\nworks, which, instead of indicating benevolence, can hardly be reconciled\nwith divine wisdom. But when we learn that this is the principal mode in\nwhich soils are produced, that without it vegetation could not be\nsustained, and that a world like ours without plants must also be without\nanimals, this apparent ruin puts on the aspect of benevolence and wise\ndesign.\n\n_My second argument in proof of the divine benevolence is derived from the\ndisturbed, broken, and overturned condition of the earth's crust._\n\nTo the casual observer, the rocks have the appearance of being lifted up,\nshattered, and overturned. But it is only the geologist who knows the vast\nextent of this disturbance. He never finds crystalline, non-fossiliferous\nrocks, which have not been more or less removed from their original\nposition; and usually he finds them to have been thrown up by some\npowerful agency into almost every possible position. The older\nfossiliferous strata exhibit almost equal evidence of the operation of a\npowerful disturbing force, though sometimes found in their original\nhorizontal position. The newer rocks have experienced less of this\nagency, though but few of them have not been elevated or dislocated.\nMountainous countries exhibit this action most strikingly. There it is\nshown sometimes on a magnificent scale. Entire mountains in the Alps, for\ninstance, appear not only to have been lifted up from the ocean's depths,\nbut to have been actually thrown over, so as to bring the lowest and\noldest rocks at the top of the series. The extensive range of mountains in\nthis country, commencing in Canada, and embracing the Green Mountains of\nVermont, the Highlands of New York, and most of the Alleghany chain as far\nas Alabama, a distance of some twelve hundred miles, has also been lifted\nup, and some of the strata, by a lateral force, folded together, and then\nthrown over, so as now to occupy an inverted position. Let us now see\nwherein this agency exhibits benevolence.\n\nIf these strata had remained horizontal, as they were originally\ndeposited, it is obvious that all the valuable ores, minerals, and rocks,\nwhich man could not have discovered by direct excavation, must have\nremained forever unknown to him. Now, man has very seldom penetrated the\nrocks below the depth of half a mile, and rarely so deep as that; whereas,\nby the elevations, dislocations, and overturnings that have been\ndescribed, he obtains access to all deposits of useful substances that lie\nwithin fifteen or twenty miles of the surface; and many are thus probably\nbrought to light from a greater depth. He is indebted, then, to this\ndisturbing agency for nearly all the useful metals, coal, rock salt,\nmarble, gypsum, and other useful minerals; and when we consider how\nnecessary these substances are to civilized society, who will doubt that\nit was a striking act of benevolence which thus introduced disturbance,\ndislocation, and apparent ruin into the earth's crust?\n\nAnother decided advantage resulting from this disturbing agency is the\nformation of valleys.\n\nIf we suppose the strata spread uniformly over the earth's entire surface,\nthen the ocean must envelop the whole globe. But, admitting such\ninterruptions in the strata to exist as would leave cavities, where the\nwaters might be gathered together into one place, and the dry land appear,\nstill that dry land must form only an unbroken level. Streams of water\ncould not exist on such a continent, because they depend upon inequalities\nof surface; and whatever water existed must have formed only stagnant\nponds, and the morasses which would be the consequence would load the air\nwith miasms fatal to life; so that we may safely pronounce the world\nuninhabitable by natures adapted to the present earth. But such,\nessentially, must have been the state of things, had not internal forces\nelevated and fractured the earth's crust. For that was the origin of most\nof our valleys--of all the larger valleys, indeed, which checker the\nsurface of primary countries. Most of them have been modified by\nsubsequent agencies; but their leading features, their outlines, have been\nthe result of those internal disturbances which spread desolation over the\nsurface. We are apt to look upon such an agency as an exhibition of\nretributive justice, rather than of benevolence. And yet that admirable\nsystem for the circulation of water, whereby the rain that falls upon the\nsurface is conveyed to the ocean, whence it is returned by evaporation,\ndepends upon it. It imparts, to all organic nature, life, health, and\nactivity; and had it not thus ridged up the surface, stagnation and death\nmust have reigned over all the earth. In the unhealthiness of low, flat\ncountries, at present, we see the terrible condition of things in a world\nwithout valleys. Can we doubt, then, that it was the hand of benevolence\nthat drove the ploughshare of ruin through the earth's crust, and ridged\nup its surface into a thousand fantastic forms?\n\nIt will more deeply impress us with this benevolence to remember that most\nof the sublime and the beautiful in the scenery of a country depends upon\nthis disturbing agency. Beautiful as vegetable nature is, how tame is a\nlandscape where only a dead level is covered with it, and no swelling\nhills, or jutting rocks, or murmuring waters, relieve the monotonous\nscene! And how does the interest increase with the wildness and ruggedness\nof the surface, and reach its maximum only where the disturbance and\ndislocation have been most violent!\n\nSome may, perhaps, doubt whether it can have been one of the objects of\ndivine benevolence and wisdom, in arranging the surface of this world, so\nto construct and adorn it as to gratify a taste for fine scenery. But I\ncannot doubt it. I see not else why nature every where is fitted up in a\nlavish manner with all the elements of the sublime and beautiful, nor why\nthere are powers in the human soul so intensely gratified in contact with\nthose elements, unless they were expressly adapted for one another by the\nCreator. Surely natural scenery does afford to the unsophisticated soul\none of the richest and purest sources of enjoyment to be found on earth.\nIf this be doubted by any one, it must be because he has never been placed\nin circumstances to call into exercise his natural love of the beautiful\nand the sublime in creation. Let me persuade such a one, at least in\nimagination, to break away from the slavish routine of business or\npleasure, and in the height of balmy summer to accompany me to a few\nspots, where his soul will swell with new and strong emotions, if his\nnatural sensibilities to the grand and beautiful have not become\nthoroughly dead within him.\n\nWe might profitably pause for a moment at this enchanting season of the\nyear, (June,) and look abroad from that gentle elevation on which we\ndwell, now all mantled over with a flowery carpet, wafting its balmy odors\ninto our studies. Can any thing be more delightful than the waving\nforests, with their dense and deep green foliage, interspersed with grassy\nand sunny fields and murmuring streamlets, which spread all around us? How\nrich the graceful slopes of yonder distant mountains, which bound the\nConnecticut on either side! How imposing Mount Sugar Loaf on the north,\nwith its red-belted and green-tufted crown, and Mettawampe too, with its\nrocky terraces on the one side, and its broad slopes of unbroken forest on\nthe other! Especially, how beautifully and even majestically does the\nindented summit of Mount Holyoke repose against the summer sky! What\nsunrises and sunsets do we here witness, and what a multitude of\npermutations and combinations pass before us during the day, as we watch\nfrom hour to hour one of the loveliest landscapes of New England!\n\nLet us now turn our steps to that huge pile of mountains called the White\nHills of New Hampshire. We will approach them through the valley of the\nSaco River, and at the distance of thirty miles they will be seen looming\nup in the horizon, with the clouds reposing beneath their naked heads. As\nthe observer approaches them, the sides of the valley will gradually close\nin upon him, and rise higher and higher, until he will find their naked\ngranitic summits almost jutting over his path, to the height of several\nthousand feet, seeming to form the very battlements of heaven. Now and\nthen will he see the cataract leaping hundreds of feet down their sides,\nand the naked path of some recent landslip, which carried death and\ndesolation in its track. From this deep and wild chasm he will at length\nemerge, and climb the vast ridge, until he has seen the forest trees\ndwindle, and at length disappear; and standing upon the naked summit,\nimmensity seems stretched out before him. But he has not yet reached the\nhighest point; and far in the distance, and far above him, Mount\nWashington seems to repose in awful majesty against the heavens. Turning\nhis course thither, he follows the narrow and naked ridge over one peak\nafter another, first rising upon Mount Pleasant, then Mount Franklin, and\nthen Mount Monroe, each lifting him higher, and making the sea of\nmountains around him more wide and billowy, and the yawning gulfs on\neither side more profound and awful, so that every moment his interest\ndeepens, and reaches not its climax till he stands upon Mount Washington,\nwhen the vast panorama is completed, and the world seems spread out at his\nfeet. Yet it does not seem to be a peopled world, for no mighty city lies\nbeneath him. Indeed, were it there, he would pass it almost unnoticed. For\nwhy should he regard so small an object as a city, when the world is\nbefore him?--a world of mountains, bearing the impress of God's own hand,\nstanding in solitary grandeur, just as he piled them up in primeval ages,\nand stretching away on every side as far as the eye can reach. On that\npinnacle of the northern regions no sound of man or beast breaks in upon\nthe awful stillness which reigns there, and which seems to bring the soul\ninto near communion with the Deity. It is, indeed, the impressive Sabbath\nof nature; and the soul feels a delightful awe, which can never be\nforgotten. Gladly would it linger there for hours, and converse with the\nmighty and the holy thoughts which come crowding into it; and it is only\nwhen the man looks at the rapidly declining sun that he is roused from his\nrevery and commences his descending march.\n\nLet such a man next accompany me to Niagara. We will pass by all minor\ncataracts, and place ourselves at once on the margin of one that knows no\nrival. Let not the man take a hasty glance, and in disappointment conclude\nthat he shall find no interest and no sublimity there. Let him go to the\nedge of the precipice, and watch the deep waters as they roll over, and,\nchanging their sea-green brightness for a fleecy white, pour down upon the\nrocks beneath, and dash back again in spray high in the air. Let him go to\nthe foot of the sheet, and look upward till the cataract swells into its\nproper size. Let him, on the Canada shore, take in the whole breadth of\nthe cataract at once; and as he stands musing, let him listen to the deep\nthunderings of the falling sheet. Let him go to Table Rock, and creep\nforward to its jutting edge, and gaze steadily into the foaming and\neddying waters so far beneath him, until his nerves thrill and vibrate,\nand he involuntarily shrinks back, exclaiming,--\n\n                      \"How dreadful\n  And dizzy 'tis to cast one's eyes so low!\n                       I'll look no more,\n  Lest my brain turn.\"\n\nNext, let him stand upon that rock till the sun approaches so near the\nwestern horizon that a glorious bow, forming an almost entire circle on\nthe cataract and the spray, shall clothe the scene with unearthly beauty,\nand, in connection with the emerald green of the waters, give it a\nbrilliancy fully equal to its sublimity. And finally, if he would add the\nemotions of moral to natural sublimity, let him follow to Ontario, the\ndeep gulf through which all these waters flow, and, gathering up the\nevidence, which he will find too strong to resist, that they themselves\nhave worn that gulf backward seven miles, let him try the rules of\ngeological arithmetic to see if he can reach the period of its\ncommencement. Surely, when he reviews the emotions of that day, he will\nnever again doubt that the magnificent scenery of our world is the result\nof benevolent design on the part of the Creator.\n\nIf, now, we cross the Atlantic, we shall easily find scenes of natural\nbeauty and sublimity, that have long elicited the wonder and delight of\nthousands of genuine taste. Shall we turn our steps first to the valleys\nand mountains of Wales? To an American eye, indeed, they lack one\nimportant feature, in being so destitute of trees. But then their wild\naspect, their ragged and rocky outlines, present a picture of the\nsublimity of desolation rarely equalled. And as you ascend the\nmountains,--Snowdon, for instance, the highest of them all,--you find\ntheir summits, not rounded, as our American mountains, by former drift\nagency, nor forming continuous ridges, but shooting up in ragged peaks and\nedges, as if they formed the teeth of mother earth; although, in fact, it\nwas the tooth of time that has gnawed them into their present forms. As\nyou approach the summit, you feel animated in anticipation of the splendid\nprospect about to open upon you. But the clouds begin to gather, and soon\nenvelop the mountain top; and though you reach the pinnacle, the dense\nmist limits your vision to a circle of a few rods in diameter. But ere\nlong the vapor begins to break away, and the lofty cliffs and deep caverns\naround you are revealed. Now and then, the lake, so often found in the\nrecesses of these mountains, is half seen through the opening cloud, and,\nmagnified by the obscurity, it seems more distant and grand than if\ndistinctly visible. Gradually the clouds open in various directions,\ndisclosing gulf after gulf, lake after lake, mountain after mountain, and,\nfinally, the Irish Channel, dotted with sails; and the whole scene lies\nspread out before you in glories that cannot be described. You are\nstanding upon the pinnacle of England, and you feel as if almost the whole\nof it lay within the circle of vision. After enjoying so splendid a scene,\nyou are thankful that the cloud hid it at first from your sight, and so\nmuch enhanced your pleasure by opening vista after vista, till the whole\nbecame one magnificent circle of picturesque beauty and sublimity.[14]\n\nTo relieve the mind after gazing long on such scenes of rugged grandeur,\nlet us turn our course southerly, and follow down the romantic banks of\nthe Wye, where every turn presents some new beauties, occasionally\ndisclosing the ruins of some old castle, or magnificent abbey, (Tinton,)\nand at length Bristol, with its aristocratic adjunct, Clifton, turns your\nthoughts from the works of nature to those of man. And yet, even Clifton's\nelegant Crescent is but a meagre show by the side of the magnificent gorge\nwhich the Avon has cut in the rocks just before it enters Bristol Channel.\n\nPassing over to the Isle of Wight, and traversing its shores, we shall\nwitness many unique examples of natural beauty, swelling sometimes into\nsublimity,--such are the chalk cliffs near its western extremity, from two\nhundred to six hundred feet high,--sometimes hollowed out into magnificent\ndomes, and the pillars of chalk, called _Needles_, in the midst of the\nsea, alive with sea gulls and cormorants, and forming the remnants of the\nchalk bridge that once united the island to England. There, too, Alum Bay,\nwith its many-colored strata of clay, unites the interesting in geology\nwith the picturesque in scenery.\n\nAlong the southern coast, also, are the stupendous cliffs and the romantic\nunder-cliffs, as well as the ragged _chines_, where an almost tropical\nclimate attracts the invalid, while the cool sea breezes draw thither the\nwealthy and the fashionable.\n\nBut if sublime scenery pleases us more, we must traverse the Highlands of\nScotland,--\n\n  \"Land of brown heath and shaggy furze,\"\n\nland of lofty and naked mountains, embosoming lakes of great beauty, and\nfull of historic and poetic interest.\n\nPassing over Loch Lomond, the queen of Scottish lakes, you go through the\nlong shadow of Ben Lomond, propped by many lesser mountains. Rising into\nthe Highlands, the sterility and wildness increase, and reach their\nmaximum in Glencoe, whose wildness and sublimity are indeed indescribable;\nbut if seen, they can never be forgotten. Still farther north, Ben Nevis\nlifts its uncovered head above all other mountains in the British Isles;\nso high, indeed, that often, during the whole summer, it retains a portion\nof its snowy, wintry mantle.\n\nYet farther north, we come to the unique terraces, called the _Parallel\nRoads of Glen Roy_, formerly supposed to be the work of giants; but now,\nthat they are known to be the product of nature, proving not only objects\nof great scenographical interest, but a problem of special importance and\ndifficulty in geology.\n\nIf we should pass from Scotland to the north-east part of Ireland, taking\nStaffa in our way, we should find in the basaltic columns of Fingal's\nCave, and the Giant's Causeway, what seems, at first view, to be\nstupendous human structures, or rather the architecture of giants. But you\nsoon find it to be only an example--\n\n  \"Where nature works as if defying art,\n  And, in defiance of her rival powers,\n  By these fortuitous and random strokes,\n  Performing such inimitable feats,\n  As she, with all her rules, can never reach.\"\n\nLet any one sail along the coast for a few miles at the Giant's Causeway,\nenter some of the deep and echoing caverns, overhung by the basaltic mass,\nand see the columns rising tier above tier, sometimes four hundred feet in\nheight, and assuming every wild and fantastic shape; or let him walk over\nthe acres of columns, whose tops are as perfectly polygonal and as\naccurately fitted to one another as the most skilful architect could make\nthem, and he will confess how superior Nature is, when she would present a\nmodel for human imitation; and how with accurate system she can combine\nthe wildest disorder, and thus delight by symmetry, while she awes by\nsublimity.\n\nLet us next pass over to continental Europe. We have reached the Rhine at\nBonn, and the steamboat takes us at once into the midst of the romantic\nDrachenfels, or seven mountains, the result of volcanic agency, and still\npresenting more or less of the conical outline peculiar almost to modern\nvolcanoes. These are the commencement of the romantic scenery of the\nRhine. From thence to Bingen, some sixty or seventy miles, that river has\ncut its way through hills and mountains, sometimes rising one thousand\nfeet. Along their base, the inhabitants have planted many a well-known\ntown, while old castles, half crumbled down, recall continually the\nhistory of feudal ages; and here, too, springs up a multitude of\nremembrances of startling events in more recent times. The mind, indeed,\nfinds itself drawn at one moment to some historical monument, and the next\nto scenery of surpassing beauty or sublimity; now the bold, overhanging\nrock, now the deep recess, now the towering mountain, now the quiet dell\nwith its romantic villages; while every where on the north bank, the\nvine-clad terraces show us what wonders human industry can accomplish.\n\nNor does the Rhine lose its interest when we have emerged from its _Ghor_\ninto its more open valley, from Bingen to Basle, in Switzerland. On its\nright bank, the Vosges Mountains, and on its left, the Black Forest, with\nnot infrequent volcanic summits, afford a fine resting-place for the eye,\nas the rail car bears us rapidly over the rich intervening level. Or if we\nturn aside,--as to Heidelberg, on the Neckar,--what can be a more splendid\nsight than to stand by the old castle above the town, and look down the\nvalley as the sun is sinking in the west!\n\nBut after all, it is in Switzerland, and there only, that we meet with the\nclimax of scenographical wonders. Nowhere else can we find such lakes in\nthe midst of such mountains; such pleasant valleys bordered by such\nstupendous hills; such gorges, and precipices, and passes, and especially\nsuch glaciers; such avalanches, such snow-capped mountains, while\nvegetation at their base, and far up their sides, is fresh and luxuriant.\n\nEmbark, for instance, at Zurich, and, crossing its beautiful lake, direct\nyour course towards Mount Righi. As the heavy diligence lifts you above\nthe lake, you begin to catch glimpses of the grandeur of the Swiss\nmountains to the south, piercing the clouds far off. Passing the romantic\nZug, you come to the valley between the Rossberg and the Righi, and the\ndenuded face of the former tells you whence came the mass of ruins over\nwhich you clamber, and which buried the villages of Goldau, Bussingen, and\nRothen several hundred feet deep with blocks of stone and soil. Long and\nsteep is your ascent of Righi, nearly six thousand feet above the sea. But\nthe views you obtain by the way become wider and grander at every step.\nReaching the summit near sunset, you may be gratified by a panoramic view\nof a large part of Switzerland, embracing its wildest and grandest\nscenery. Yet, if the clouds prevent, you wait for the morning, in the hope\nof being more fortunate. With the earliest dawn you awake, and proceed to\nthe summit of the mountain, where hundreds, perhaps, from all civilized\nlands, are congregated, to witness the rising of the sun. But a dense\ncloud envelops the mountain, and hope almost dies within you. Wait,\nhowever, a few moments, and the rising sun will depress the clouds below\nthe mountain's summit, and a scene of glory shall open upon you, which can\nnever be erased from your memory. Look now, for the sun's first rays have\nshed a flood of glory over the clouds which now fill the valleys beneath\nyour feet. A fleecy white predominates; but the colors of the prism tinge\nthe edges of the clouds, and no part of the solid earth rises above them,\nsave the pinnacle on which you stand, and to the south the higher peaks of\nthe Bernese Alps,--the Jungfrau, the Eiger, the Shreckhorn, and the\nWetterhorn,--covered with snow and glaciers, and seeming too pure to\nbelong to earth. Indeed, the whole scene seemed to me to be unearthly; the\nfittest emblem that my eyes ever rested upon of celestial scenes; and one\ncannot repress the desire, when looking upon it, to be borne away on wings\nover the glorious scene, and to repose for a time upon the gorgeous bed,\nforgetful of the lower world. Yet when, at length, the clouds begin to\nbreak away, and disclose the deep valleys and blue lakes,--places made\nimmortal by the deeds of such patriots and reformers as Tell and\nZuinglius,--we feel again the attractions of earth; and as we descend to\nLake Lucerne, we have before us such scenery as scarcely any other part of\nthe world can furnish. And these scenes continue, in ever-changing\naspects, wherever we wander along this enchanting lake; and though the\nexhausted brain fails at length, the objects of interest do not.\n\nFrom this lake we might turn our course easterly, and soon find ourselves\namid the glacial regions of the Oberland Alps--scenes full of deep and\nthrilling interest. But let us rather turn southerly, and, following down\nthe great valley of Switzerland, find our way among the Alps of Savoy,\nwhere the same phenomena attain their maximum of interest and sublimity,\nand the great monarch of the Alps is seen, wearing his hoary crown. As we\npass along towards Lake Lehman, if the air be clear, the Bernese Alps loom\nup in unrivalled majesty; and as we sail over Lake Lehman, Mont Blanc,\nwith some of its nearly equal associates, shows its distant yet impressive\nform. Passing without notice the almost unrivalled beauties of Lehman, and\nfollowing up the Arve through its stupendous gorges, we catch views of\nMont Blanc, as we approach it, that possess overpowering sublimity. At\nlength, Chamouny is reached--a lovely vale in the midst of Alpine wonders.\nFrom thence we first ascend the Flegere, thirty-five hundred feet above\nthe valley, and sixty-five hundred above the ocean; and there we get a\nfine view of Mont Blanc and the Aiguilles, or Needles. Here distances are\nvastly diminished to the eye, and you seem in near proximity even with\nMont Blanc; and, in fact, should any adventurous visitors have reached\nthe top of that mountain, a good spy-glass will show them from this\nspot.[15]\n\nOn the opposite side of the valley from the Flegere, and at about the same\nheight, is Montanvert, the most convenient spot for traversing the glacier\ncalled the Mer de Glace. If, however, one would see the lower extremity of\nthat glacier, and the Arveron issuing from it, he must pass along the\nright hand side of the stream, and then he can follow up the glacier to\nMontanvert; and strange would it be if, in doing this, he should not hear\nand see the frequent avalanche.\n\nWe have now reached the field where everlasting war is carried on between\nheat and cold, summer and winter. Below us, verdure clothes the valleys,\nand climbs up the slopes of the hills; and there the shepherd watches his\nflocks. Above us there are fields of ice stretching many a league, save\nwhere some needle-shaped summit of naked rock, too steep for snow to rest\nupon, shoots up in lonely grandeur thousands of feet, and defies the\nraging elements. From these oceans of ice shoot forth down the valleys\nenormous glaciers, appearing like vast rivers of ice, winding among the\nhills, and pushing, at the rate of a few inches each day, far into\nregions of vegetation; one year encroaching upon the shepherd's pasture\nground, and anon, by the access of heat, driven back towards the summit;\nhurling down, from time to time, as they push forward, the thundering\navalanche.\n\nWithout difficulty at Montanvert we can enter upon the glacier, and in\nspite of the deep _crevasse_, and the elemental war, which always rages in\nthose lofty regions, we may make our way to their source. Nay, human feet,\nas already suggested, have pressed even the top of Mont Blanc; and should\nwe reach this summit of the Alps, we should stand upon the loftiest point\nof Europe, and behold a scene which but few eyes ever have, or ever will,\nrest upon. We should\n\n                                    \"breathe\n  The difficult air of the iced mountain's top,\n  Where the birds dare not build, nor insect's wing\n  Flit o'er the herbless granite.\"\n\nWe should, in fact, have reached the climax of the sublime in natural\nscenery.\n\nThus far I have described, almost without exception, only what I have\nseen. But let us now venture into regions where we have only the\ndescription of others to guide us. Let us enter the region of ancient\nArmenia, a country composed of wide plains, bounded and intersected by\nprecipitous mountains. As we journeyed south-easterly over one of these\nplains, a remarkable conical summit would arrest our attention, at the\ndistance of sixty miles. Day after day, as we approached, it would creep\nup higher and higher above the horizon, developing its commanding\nfeatures, and rivetting more intensely the attention upon it. As we came\nnear its base, we should see that its top rose far into the region of\neternal ice, whose glassy surface would reflect the light like a mirror,\nand whose lower edge had shot forth enormous glaciers as far as the heat\nwould allow them to descend. In the plain below, we should be sweltering\nin a tropical heat; but the same sun that melted us would make no\nimpression upon the wintry crown of the mountain. We could not keep our\neyes or thoughts turned away from an object so sublime. And it would\ndeepen the impression to learn that this gigantic cone, shooting up three\nand a half miles, was once a volcano; and still more would it deepen our\ninterest to learn that this is the mountain which universal tradition in\nthat region regards as the Mount Ararat, the resting-place of the ark. It\nwould strike us forcibly to realize that what seems to us now to be a\npillar of heaven, was the patriarch's stepping-stone from the antediluvian\ninto the postdiluvian world.\n\nOne more example may suffice. Go with me to the Sandwich Islands, and we\nshall get an impressive glimpse of the principal agency by which the\nearth's crust has been ridged, furrowed, and dislocated. As we land upon\nHawaii, we perceive it to be composed mainly of lava of no very ancient\ndate. We ascend a lofty _plateau_, and many a league in advance of us we\nsee a column of smoke rising from a vast plain. Directing our course\nthither, while yet some miles from it, we descend a steep slope to a broad\nterrace, and then another slope to a second terrace. These slopes and\nterraces extend circularly around the pillar of smoke like the seats of a\nvast amphitheatre.\n\nComing near to this column, our steps are arrested on the margin of a vast\ngulf, fifteen hundred feet deep, and from eight to ten miles in\ncircumference, whose bottom is the seat of the most remarkable volcano on\nthe globe;--I mean Kilauea. Wait here till night closes around us, and we\nshall witness a scene of awful sublimity. Over the immense area of that\ngulf will the volcanic agency beneath be exerted. Ever and anon, and\nmingling in strange discord, will hissings and groanings, mutterings and\nthunderings, be heard rolling from side to side, and making the earth\ntremble around. Then from one and another volcanic cone--perhaps from\nfifty--will the glowing lava burst forth; red-hot stones will be driven\nfuriously upward; vapor, and smoke, and flames will be poured out, and the\ndark and jagged sides of that vast furnace will glow with unearthly\nsplendor; and here and there will lakes of liquid lava appear, one or two\nmiles in extent, heaving up their billows, and dashing their fiery spray\nhigh into the air. O, there is not on earth a livelier emblem of the world\nof despair; and yet we know it is not the lake which burneth with fire and\nbrimstone, nor the abode of lost spirits. We know it to be only one of the\nsafety-valves of our globe, and an exhibition of that mighty agency within\nthe globe which has heaved and dislocated its crust; and, therefore, as we\ngaze upon the scene, and forget our fatigue and sleep, we experience only\nthe emotions of awful sublimity, which can hardly fail to rise into\nadoration of that infinite Being who can say, even to this agency, Thus\nfar shalt thou go, and no farther.\n\nThese are samples only of those delightful emotions which he experiences,\nwho possesses a taste for natural scenery. And kindred emotions will be\nawakened within him, wherever he wanders among the works of God. They form\nsome of the purest and most satisfying pleasures which this world affords.\nThey constitute pleasant oases along the dreary journey of life; and so\ndeeply does memory engrave them on her tablet, that no change of time or\ncircumstances can hide them from our view. Now, it is obvious that if the\nAuthor of nature and of the human soul had been malevolent, instead of\nmaking every thing which man meets in creation \"beauty to his eye, and\nmusic to his ear,\" he would have made all offensive and painful. Instead\nof the delightful emotions of beauty and sublimity which now rise within\nus as we open our eyes upon nature, feelings of aversion and fear would\nhaunt us. Every sound would have been discordant, and every sight\nterrific. He could not have been even indifferent to our happiness, when\nhe commissioned those desolating agencies of nature, fire and water, to\nridge up and furrow out the earth's surface as the groundwork of the\nfuture landscape. For he has taken care that the result should be a scene\nproductive of pleasure only to the soul that is in a healthy state.\nBenevolence only, infinite benevolence, could have done this.\n\n_My third argument in favor of the divine benevolence is founded on the\narrangements for the distribution of water on the globe._\n\nWe should expect on so uneven a surface as the earth presents, that this\nelement, which forms the liquid nourishment of all organic life, and which\nin many other ways seems indispensable, must be very unequally\ndistributed, and fail entirely in many places; and yet we find it in\nalmost every spot where man erects his habitation. And those places where\nthere is a deficiency are usually extended plains; not, as we should\nexpect, the mountainous regions. The latter are usually well watered; and\nthis is accomplished in three ways. In the first place, in most\nmountainous countries, the strata are so much tilted up, as to prevent the\nwater from running off. In the second place, the pervious strata are\nfrequently interrupted by faults sometimes filled by impervious matter. In\nthe third place, the comminuted materials that cover the rocks as soils,\nare often so fine, or of such a nature, as to prevent the passage of\nwater; and thus much of the water that falls upon elevated land remains\nthere, while enough percolates through the pervious materials to water the\nvalleys and supply the streams. These carry it to the lakes and the ocean,\nwhere it is returned by evaporation in the form of clouds, and thus an\nadmirable system of circulation is kept up, whereby this essential element\nis purified, and conveyed to every part of the surface where man or beast\nrequire it.\n\nThere is one recent discovery, which deserves notice here, because it\ndepends upon the geological structure of the earth. When pervious and\nimpervious strata alternate, and are considerably inclined, water may be\nbrought from great depths by hydrostatic pressure, if the impervious\nstratum be bored through and the water-bearing deposit be reached. A\nperpetual fountain may thus be produced, and water be obtained in a region\nnaturally deficient in it. An Artesian fountain of this description, in\nthe suburbs of Paris, has been brought from the enormous depth of eighteen\nhundred feet![16]\n\nNow, just consider that to deprive the earth of water is to deprive it of\ninhabitants, and you cannot but see in the means by which it is so widely,\nnay, almost universally, diffused, and made to circulate for\npurification,--the most decided marks of divine benevolence. Why is it not\nas striking as the curious means by which the blood and the sap of animals\nand plants are sent to every part of the system to supply its waste, and\ngive it greater development?\n\n_I derive a fourth geological argument for the benevolence of the Deity,\nfrom the manner in which the metallic ores are distributed through the\nearth's crust._\n\nIt can hardly be doubted, by the geologist, that nearly every part of the\nearth's crust, and its interior too, have been some time or other in a\nmelted state. Now, as the metals and their ores are usually heavier than\nother rocks, we should expect that they would have accumulated at the\ncentre of the globe, and have been enveloped by the rocks so as to have\nbeen forever inaccessible to man. And the very great weight of the central\nparts of the earth--almost twice that of granite--leads naturally to the\nconclusion that the heavier metals may be accumulated there, though this\nis by no means a certain conclusion; since at the depth of thirty-four\nmiles air would be so condensed by the pressure of the superincumbent mass\nas to be as heavy as water; water at the depth of three hundred and\nsixty-two miles would become as heavy as quick-silver; and at the centre\nsteel would be compressed into one fourth, and stone into one eighth, of\nits bulk at the surface. Still it is most probable that the materials\nnaturally the heaviest would first seek the centre. And yet, by means of\nsublimation, and expansion by internal heat, or the segregating power of\ngalvanic action, or of some other agents, enough of the metals is\nprotruded towards the surface, and diffused through the rocks in beds, or\nveins, so as to be accessible to human industry. Here, then, we find\ndivine benevolence, apparently in opposition to gravity, providing for\nhuman comfort.\n\nI have said that these metals were accessible to human industry. And it\ndoes require a great deal of labor, and calls into exercise man's highest\ningenuity to obtain them. They might have been spread in immense masses\nover the surface; they might all have been reduced to a metallic state in\nthe great furnace, which we have reason to suppose is always in blast,\nwithin the earth. But then there would have been no requisition upon the\nexertion and energy of man. And to have these called into exercise is an\nobject of greater importance to society than to supply it with the metals.\nGod, therefore, has so distributed the ores as to stimulate man to explore\nand reduce them, while he has placed so many difficulties in the way as to\ndemand much mental and physical effort for their removal. Man now,\ntherefore, receives a double benefit. While the metals themselves are of\nimmense service, the discipline of body and mind requisite for obtaining\nthem is of still greater value. This is the combined result of infinite\nwisdom and benevolence.\n\nIf I mistake not, there is such a relation between the amount of useful\nmetals and the wants of society as could have resulted only from divine\nbenevolence. The metal most widely diffused, and the only one occurring in\nall the rock formations, from the oldest to the newest, is iron;--the\nmetal by far the most important to civilized society. This is also by far\nthe most abundant, and easily obtained. It often forms extensive beds, or\neven mountain masses upon the surface. All the other metals are confined\nalmost exclusively to the older rocks. Among them, lead, copper, and zinc\nare probably most needed, and accordingly they are next in quantity and in\nthe facility with which they may be explored. Manganese, mercury, chrome,\nantimony, cobalt, arsenic, and bismuth are more difficult to obtain; but\nthe supply is always equal to the demand. In the case of tin, silver,\nplatinum, and gold, we find some interesting properties to compensate in a\ngreat measure for their scarcity. Gold and platinum possess a remarkable\npower of resisting those powerful agents of chemical change which destroy\nevery thing else. They are never oxidized in the earth, and with a very\nfew exceptions, the most powerful reagents leave them untouched, while\nplatinum will not yield in the most powerful heat of the furnace. Gold,\nsilver, and tin are capable of an astonishing extension, whereby they may\nbe spread over the surface of the more abundant metals to protect and\nadorn them; and since the discovery of the galvanic mode of accomplishing\nthis, so easily is it done, that I know not but a gold or silver surface\nis to become as common as metallic articles.\n\n_My fifth geological argument for the divine benevolence is derived from\nthe joint and desolating effects of ice and water upon the earth's\nsurface, both before and after man's creation._\n\nIn northern countries, and perhaps in high southern latitudes, it seems\nthat after the deposition of the tertiary rocks, and after the surface had\nassumed essentially its present shape, it was subjected for a long time to\na powerful agency, whereby the rough and salient parts were worn down and\nrounded, the rocks in place smoothed and furrowed, valleys scooped out,\nhuge blocks of stone transported far from the parent bed, piled up, and\nthick accumulations of bowlders, sand, and gravel, strewn promiscuously\nover the surface. At the commencement of this process, the ocean, probably\nloaded with ice, stood above a large part of the present continents. It\nsoon began to subside, or the land to rise, and a more quiet action\nsucceeded. The joint action of the ocean and the glaciers on the land\nground down into sand, clay, and loam, the coarser drift, and sorted it in\nthe form of beaches, terraces, and alluvial deposits. All this while, both\nthe land and the water seem to have been, for the most part, destitute of\ninhabitants. But these were the very processes needed for man and his\ncontemporary races, who were to appear during the latter part of the\npleistocene period. In other words, the soils were thus got ready for\nnourishing the vegetation necessary to sustain the new creation, which\nwould convert these desolate and deserted sea-beds into regions of\nfertility and happiness to teeming millions.\n\nNow, just consider what must have been the effect of these mighty aqueous\nand glacial agencies upon the earth's surface. Over the level regions they\nstrewed the finer materials; and where the rocks had been thrown up into\nridges and displaced by numerous fissures, or subsequently worn into\nbluffs and precipices by the ocean, it needed just such an agency to\nsmooth down those irregularities, to fill up those gulfs, to give to the\nhills and valleys a graceful outline, and to cover all the surface with\nthose comminuted materials that would need only cultivation to make them a\nfertile soil. Some rocks do, indeed, decompose and form soils; but this\nprocess would be too slow, unless in moist and warm regions, where it is\neasier to find a footing for plants than in climes more uncongenial to\ntheir growth. We cannot then hesitate to regard this tremendous agency of\nice and water in northern and high southern regions as decidedly\nbeneficial in its influence. It must, indeed, have spread terrible\ndestruction over those regions. But it seems that a time was chosen for\nits operation when the globe was almost destitute of organic life, and not\nlong before the time when a new and nobler creation than those previously\noccupying the earth was to be placed upon it. Desolating as this agency\nmust have appeared, and actually was, at the time, yet who can doubt, when\nwe see the ultimate fruits of it, that its origin was divine benevolence?\n\nIn the ultimate results of aqueous inundations at the present day, we can\ntrace the same benevolent design. Those floods do, indeed, produce partial\nevils; nay, life, as well as property, often falls a prey to them. But\nthey produce those alluvial soils which are more prolific of vegetation\nthan any other on the globe. Who has not heard of the fertility of the\nbanks of the Nile, the Niger, the Ganges, the Amazon, and the Mississippi?\nall of them the fruit of inundations. Truly, such floods as these may be\nsaid _to clap their hands_ in praise of the divine goodness.\n\n_My sixth geological argument for the divine benevolence is derived from\nthe existence of volcanoes._\n\nThe first impression made on the mind by the history of volcanic action\nis, that its effects are examples rather of vindictive justice than of\nbenevolence. And such is the light in which they are regarded by Mr.\nGisborne, an able English divine, in his \"Testimony of Natural to Revealed\nReligion.\" He looks, indeed, upon all the disturbances that have taken\nplace in the earth's crust as evidence of a fallen condition of the world,\nas mementoes of a former penal infliction upon a guilty race. And aside\nfrom the light which geology casts upon the subject, this would be a not\nimprobable conclusion. Take for an example the case of volcanoes and\nearthquakes.\n\nA volcano is an opening made in the earth's crust by internal heat, which\nhas forced melted or heated matter through the vent. An earthquake is the\neffect of the confined gases and vapors, produced by the heat upon the\ncrust. When the volcano, therefore, gets vent, the earthquake always\nceases. But the latter has generally been more destructive of life and\nproperty than the former. Where one city has been destroyed by lava, like\nHerculaneum, Pompeii, and Stabiae, twenty have been shaken down by the\nrocking and heaving of earthquakes. The records of ancient as well as\nmodern times abound with examples of these tremendous catastrophes.\nPreeminent on the list is the city of Antioch. Imagine the inhabitants of\nthat great city, crowded with strangers on a festival occasion, suddenly\narrested on a calm day, by the earth heaving and rocking beneath their\nfeet; and in a few moments two hundred and fifty thousand of them are\nburied by falling houses, or the earth opening and swallowing them up.\nSuch was the scene which that city presented in the year 526; and several\ntimes before and since that period has the like calamity fallen upon it;\nand twenty, forty, and sixty thousand of its inhabitants have been\ndestroyed at each time. In the year 17 after Christ, no less than thirteen\ncities of Asia Minor were in like manner overwhelmed in a single night.\nThink of the terrible destruction that came upon Lisbon in 1755. The sun\nhad just dissipated the fog in a warm, calm morning, when suddenly the\nsubterranean thundering and heaving began; and in six minutes the city was\na heap of ruins, and sixty thousand of the inhabitants were numbered among\nthe dead. Hundreds had crowded upon a new quay surrounded by vessels. In a\nmoment the earth opened beneath them, and the wharf, the vessels, and the\ncrowd went down into its bosom; the gulf closed, the sea rolled over the\nspot, and no vestige of wharf, vessels, or man ever floated to the\nsurface. How thrilling is the account left us by Kircher, who was near, of\nthe destruction of Euphemia, in Calabria, a city of about five thousand\ninhabitants, in the year 1638! \"After some time,\" says he, \"the violent\nparoxysm of the earthquake ceasing, I stood up, and, turning my eyes to\nlook for Euphemia, saw only a frightful black cloud. We waited till it had\npassed away, when nothing but a dismal and putrid lake was to be seen\nwhere the city once stood.\" In like manner did Port Royal, in the West\nIndies, sink beneath the waters, with nearly all its inhabitants, in less\nthan one minute, in the year 1692.\n\nStill more awful, though usually less destructive, is often the scene\npresented by a volcanic eruption. Imagine yourselves, for instance, upon\none of the wide, elevated plains of Mexico, far from the fear of\nvolcanoes. The earth begins to quake under your feet, and the most\nalarming subterranean noises admonish you of a mighty power within the\nearth that must soon have vent. You flee to the surrounding mountains in\ntime to look back and see ten square miles of the plain swell up, like a\nbladder, to the height of five hundred feet, while numerous smaller cones\nrise from the surface still higher, and emit smoke; and in their midst,\nsix mountains are thrown up to the height, some of them at least, of\nsixteen hundred feet, and pour forth melted lava, turning rivers out of\ntheir course, and spreading terrific desolation over a late fertile plain,\nand forever excluding its former inhabitants. Such was the eruption, by\nwhich Jorullo, in Mexico, was suddenly thrown up, in 1759.\n\nStill more terrific have been some of the eruptions in Iceland. In 1783,\nearthquakes of tremendous power shook the whole island, and flames burst\nforth from the ocean. In June these ceased, and Skaptar Jokul opened its\nmouth; nor did it close till it had poured forth two streams of lava, one\nsixty miles long, twelve miles broad, and the other forty miles long, and\nseven broad, and both with an average thickness of one hundred feet.\nDuring that summer the inhabitants saw the sun no more, and all Europe was\ncovered with a haze.\n\nAround the Papandayang, one of the loftiest mountains in Java, no less\nthan forty villages were reposing in peace. But in August, 1772, a\nremarkable luminous cloud enveloping its top aroused them from their\nsecurity. But it was too late. For at once the mountain began to sink into\nthe earth, and soon it had disappeared with the forty villages, and most\nof the inhabitants, over a space fifteen miles long and six broad.\n\nStill more extraordinary--the most remarkable on record--was an eruption\nin Sumbawa, one of the Molucca Islands, in 1815. It began on the fifth day\nof April, and did not cease till July. The explosions were heard in one\ndirection nine hundred and seventy miles, and in another seven hundred and\ntwenty miles. So heavy was the fall of ashes at the distance of forty\nmiles that houses were crushed and destroyed. The floating cinders in the\nocean, hundreds of miles distant, were two feet thick, and vessels were\nforced through them with difficulty. The darkness in Java, three hundred\nmiles distant, was deeper than the blackest night; and finally, out of the\ntwelve thousand inhabitants of the island, only twenty-six survived the\ncatastrophe.\n\nNow, if we confine our views to such facts as these, we can hardly avoid\nthe conclusion that earthquakes and volcanoes are terrific exhibitions of\nGod's displeasure towards a fallen and guilty world. But if it can be\nshown that the volcanic agency exerts a salutary influence in preserving\nthe globe from ruin, nay, is essential to such preservation, we must\nregard its incidental destruction of property and life as no evidence of a\nvindictive infliction, nor of the want of benevolence in its operation.\nAnd the remarkable proofs which modern geology has presented of vast\naccumulations of heated and melted matter beneath the earth's crust, do\nmake such an agent as volcanoes essential to the preservation of the\nglobe. In order to make out this position, I shall not contend that all\nthe earth's interior, beneath fifty or one hundred miles, is in a state of\nfusion. For even the most able and decided of those geologists who object\nto such an inference, admit that oceans of melted matter do exist beneath\nthe surface. And if so, how liable would vast accumulations of heat be, if\nthere were no safety-valves through the crust, to rend asunder even a\nwhole continent? Volcanoes are those safety-valves, and more than two\nhundred of them are scattered over the earth's surface, forming vent-holes\ninto the heated interior. Most of them, indeed, have the valves loaded,\nand the effort of the confined gases and vapors to lift the load produces\nthe terrific phenomena of earthquakes and volcanoes. But if no such\npassages into the interior existed, what could prevent the pent-up gases\nfrom accumulating till they had gained strength enough to rend a whole\ncontinent, and perhaps the whole globe, into fragments? Is it not, then,\nbenevolence by which this agency prevents so dreadful a catastrophe, even\nby means that bring some incidental evils along with them?\n\nSome able writers do, indeed, object to the idea that volcanoes are\nsafety-valves to the globe, deriving their objections from certain facts\nrespecting the position of volcanic craters in the Sandwich Islands, if I\ndo not misrecollect. Without going into the details of that case, for want\nof time and space, it seems to me that the facts respecting the connection\nbetween earthquakes and volcanoes, admitted by all, will justify such a\nview of the latter as is expressed by the term \"safety-valves.\" For\nearthquakes are but the incipient effects of the volcanic force within the\nglobe; and if these effects have been so terrible at the beginning, what\nmust be the full exhibition of that force, if not able to find a passage\nfor the struggling gases and lava through the strata above them? Who can\nsay that it might not rend a continent asunder, and, if deep enough\nseated, even the whole globe?\n\nThe question will undoubtedly be asked by every reflecting mind, why\ninfinite wisdom and benevolence could not have devised a plan for securing\nthe good resulting from volcanoes and earthquakes without the attendant\nevils. The same question meets us at almost every step of our examination\nof the present system of the world. For we every where meet with evil,\nincidentally connected with agencies whose predominant effects are\nbeneficial. I incline to the opinion, that the true answer to this\nquestion is, that the evil is permitted that thereby greater good may be\nsecured to the universe. Still the subject of the origin of evil is one\nwhose full solution can hardly be expected in the present world, because\nwe cannot here master all its elements. When it can be solved, we can tell\nwhy so much desolation and suffering are permitted to accompany the\nearthquake and the volcano. But if we can show that benefits far\noutweighing the evil are the result of this terrific agency, we gather\nfrom it decided evidence of the divine benevolence;--the same evidence\nwhich we gain from any other operations of nature; for in them all there\nis only a preponderance of good, not unmixed good. The desolation of this\nfair world by volcanic agency, and especially the destruction of life, do,\nindeed, teach us that this present system of nature is adapted to a state\nof probation and death, instead of a state of rewards and immortal life.\nIt is adapted to sinful and fallen beings, rather than to those who are\nperfect in holiness and in happiness. In short, it is earth, not heaven.\nIt is not such a world as heaven must be, to secure unalloyed and eternal\nhappiness. Nevertheless, benevolence decidedly predominates in the\narrangements of the present system, even in the desolating agency under\nconsideration. I do not deny that God may sometimes employ this agency, as\nhe may every other in nature, for the punishment of the guilty. But before\nwe infer that this is the general use and design of volcanoes and\nearthquakes, we should ponder well the questions put by our Savior _to\nsome that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with\ntheir sacrifices_. _Suppose ye_, answered the Savior, _that these\nGalileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such\nthings? I tell you nay. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower of Siloam\nfell and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that\ndwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you nay._ Let us follow the example of Jesus\nChrist, and take a more enlarged view of these startling and distressing\nevents. Let us inquire whether they are not the incidental effects of\nagencies essential to the permanence and happiness of the great system of\nthe universe. This is certainly the case in regard to volcanoes. We have\nstrong reason to believe that they are essential to the preservation of\nthe globe; and of how much higher consequence is this than the\ncomparatively small amount of property and life which they destroy! If we\ncan only rise to these higher views, and not suffer our judgment to be\nwarped by the immediate terrors of the earthquake and the volcano, we\nshall see the smile of infinite benevolence where most men see only the\nwrath of an offended Deity.\n\n_My seventh geological argument for the divine benevolence is derived from\nthe manner in which coal, rock salt, marble, gypsum, and other valuable\nmaterials were prepared for the use of man, long before his existence._\n\nIf a created and intelligent being from some other sphere had alighted on\nthis globe during that remote period when the vegetation now dug out of\nthe coal formation covered the surface with its gigantic growth, he might\nhave felt as if here was a waste of creative power. Vast forests of\nsigillaria, lepidodendra, coniferae, cycadeae, and tree ferns would have\nwaved over his head, with their imposing though sombre foliage, while the\nlesser tribes of calamites and equisetaceae would have filled the\nintervening spaces; but no vertebral animal would have been there to\nenjoy and enliven the almost universal solitude. Why, then, he must have\ninquired, is there such a profusion of vegetable forms, and such a\ncolossal development of individual plants? To what use can such vast\nforests be applied? But let ages roll by, and that same being revisit our\nworld at the present time. Let him traverse the little Island of Britain,\nand see there fifteen thousand steam engines moved by coal dug out of the\nearth, and produced by these same ancient forests. Let him see these\nengines performing the work of two millions of men, and moving machinery\nwhich accomplishes what would require the unaided labors of three or four\nhundred millions of men, and he could not doubt but such a result was one\nof the objects of that rank vegetation which covered the earth ere it was\nfit for the residence of such natures as now dwell upon it. Let him go to\nthe coal fields of other countries, and especially those of the United\nStates, stretching over one hundred and fifty thousand square miles,\ncontaining a quantity absolutely inexhaustible, and already imparting\ncomfort to millions of the inhabitants, and giving life and energy to\nevery variety of manufacture through the almost entire length of this\ncountry, and destined to pour out their wealth through all coming time,\nlong after the forests shall all have been levelled,--and irresistible\nmust be the conviction upon his mind, that here is a beautiful example of\nprospective benevolence on the part of the Deity. In those remote ages,\nwhile yet the earth was unfitted for the higher races of animals that now\ndwell upon it, it was eminently adapted to nourish that gigantic flora\nwhich would produce the future fuel of the human race, when that crown of\nall God's works should be placed upon the earth. Ere that time, those\nforests must sink beneath the ocean, be buried beneath deposits of rock\nthousands of feet thick. But during all that period, all those chemical\nchanges which are essential to convert them into coal would be\naccomplished, and, at last, man would find access, by his ingenuity and\nindustry, to the deep-seated beds whence his fuel might be drawn. Nor\nwould these vast repositories fail him till the consummation of all\nthings. Surely there was no waste, but there was a far-reaching plan of\nbenevolence in the profusion of vegetable life in the earlier periods of\nour planet.\n\nEssentially the same remark will apply to the limestone, gypsum, rock\nsalt, and several other mineral products of the earth, which are almost\nindispensable to man in a civilized state. For these, too, were produced\nby slow processes, during those vast periods of duration that preceded\nman's existence. Limestone has been chiefly elaborated by the organs of\nanimals, many of them of microscopic littleness. Yet lofty ranges of\nmountains and immense deposits in the intervening valleys have been the\nresult. Nearly one seventh part of the crust of the globe, it has been\nsaid, is thus constituted of the works or remains of animals. And can we\ndoubt but that these rocks are thus spread over the surface of the globe\nbecause they are needed by all mankind, like air and water? It must have\nbeen benevolence that so arranged the agencies by which they were\nproduced, during the revolution of primeval ages, that they have this wide\ndiffusion. Gypsum and fossil salt are more sparingly diffused; but still\nenough is always to be found to meet the demand. Nor is it reasonable to\ndoubt that the same prospective goodness which provided for coal and\nlimestone, commissioned other agencies to lay up a store of gypsum, salt,\nbitumen, clay, and other substances dug out of the earth for man's\nbenefit.\n\n_My eighth geological argument for the divine benevolence is based upon\nthe perfect adaptation of the natures of animals and plants to the varying\ncondition of the globe through all the periods of its past history._\n\nThe very slight changes in climate, situation, and food, that will destroy\nmost species of animals and plants, is hard to be realized by man, whose\nnature will sustain very great changes of this kind. So will most of the\nanimals and plants that have been domesticated by man, and which accompany\nhim into every soil and climate. But the great mass of animals and plants\nwould perish by such a transplantation. They are adapted to a particular\nregion, often of narrow limits; and to remove them from thence, even to\none slightly diverse, is to cause their deterioration and final\ndestruction. In other words, their natures are exactly adapted to the\nplace of habitation assigned them. And it must have required infinite\nwisdom thus to fit the delicate machinery of animal and vegetable\norganization to the great variety of circumstances on the globe in which\nit is placed. But we find that same wisdom to have been manifested in all\nthe vast periods of organic life. We have the most unequivocal evidence\nthat the condition of the earth has undergone important changes. We cannot\nexamine the remarkable flora and fauna of the older rocks, the gigantic\nsauroid fishes, the huge orthoceratites and ammonites, the heteroclitic\ntrilobites, and the strange sigillaria and lepidodendra, calamites and\nasterophyllites, the lofty coniferae, and the anomalous cycadeae,--we cannot\nexamine these without realizing that a state of the globe very different\nfrom the present must have existed when they had possession of it. And\nwhen we contemplate also the enormous saurians and batrachians of the\nmiddle secondary rocks, and the colossal quadrupeds of the tertiary\nstrata, we cannot doubt that a tropical or an ultra-tropical climate must\nhave prevailed in high northern latitudes during their existence. We\nperceive that there has been a gradual decrease of temperature on the\nsurface from the earliest times. In each successive race of organized\nbeings which have been placed on the globe, there must have been,\ntherefore, some change of constitution to adapt them to the altered state\nof the climate and productions of the earth. And we find this alteration\nto have been always made with consummate skill, so as to secure the most\ncomplete development of organic beings, and the greatest enjoyment to\nsensitive natures. Malevolence would not have done this; for it might with\ninfinite knowledge at command, have filled each successive period of the\nworld with natures unadapted to the mutable condition of things, capable,\nindeed, of a prolonged existence, not to enjoy, but only to suffer. But\ninfinite benevolence was fitting up this world by slow secondary agencies\nfor the elevated races which now occupy it, especially for one species,\nrational and immortal; and it lavished its kindness and wisdom by filling\nthe world, during those preparatory ages, with multitudes of happy beings,\nfitted exactly to each altered condition of the air, the water, and the\nsoil.\n\n_My ninth and last geological argument for the divine benevolence is\nfounded upon the permanence and security of the world, in spite of the\nmighty changes it has undergone, and the powerful agencies to which it is\nnow subject._\n\nWhen we learn from the records of geology, as they are inscribed upon the\nrocks, how numerous and thorough have been the revolutions of the surface\nand the crust of the globe in past ages; how often and how long the\npresent dry land has been alternately above and beneath the ocean; how\nfrequently the crust of the globe has been fractured, bent, and\ndislocated,--now lifted upward, and now thrown downward, and now folded\nby lateral pressure; how frequently melted matter has been forced through\nits strata and through its fissures to the surface; in short, how every\nparticle of the accessible portions of the globe has undergone entire\nmetamorphoses; and especially when we recollect what strong evidence there\nis that oceans of liquid matter exist beneath the solid crust, and that\nprobably the whole interior of the earth is in that condition, with\nexpansive energy sufficient to rend the globe into fragments,--when we\nreview all these facts, we cannot but feel that the condition of the\nsurface of the globe must be one of great insecurity and liability to\nchange. But it is not so. On the contrary, the present state of the globe\nis one of permanent uniformity and entire security, except those\ncomparatively slight catastrophes which result from earthquakes,\nvolcanoes, and local deluges. Even the climate has experienced no general\nchange within historic times, and the profound mathematical researches of\nBaron Fourier have demonstrated that, even though the internal parts of\nthe globe are in an incandescent state, beneath a crust thirty or forty\nmiles, the temperature at the surface has long since ceased to be affected\nby the melted central mass; that it is not now more than one seventeenth\nof a degree higher than it would be if the interior were ice; and that\nhundreds of thousands of years will not see it lowered, from this cause,\nmore than the seventeenth part of a degree. And as to the apprehension\nthat the entire crust of the globe may be broken through, and fall into\nthe melted matter beneath, just reflect what solidity and strength there\nmust be in a mass of hard rock from fifty to one hundred miles in\nthickness, and your fears of such a catastrophe will probably vanish.\n\nNow, such a uniformity of climate and security from general ruin are\nessential to the comfort and existence of animal nature. But it must have\nrequired infinite wisdom and benevolence so to arrange and balance the\nmighty elements of change and ruin which exist in the earth, that they\nshould hold one another in check, and make the world a quiet, unchanged,\nand secure dwelling-place for so many thousands of years. Surely that\nwisdom must have been guided by infinite benevolence. And it would seem\nfrom geology that the same union of wisdom and benevolence have always\narranged the past conditions of the earth. For, during each of the periods\nof organic existence, uniformity and security seem to have prevailed so\nlong as the purposes of the Deity required. In early times, indeed, when\nanimals were mostly confined to the waters, it was not necessary that the\ndry land should be as exempt as at present from catastrophes; and probably\nthey were then more frequent; and it may be that, while there were\nuniformity and security in one portion of the globe, or in one element,\nthere might have been disturbance and desolation in others. And it is\ndoubtful whether such general quiet has ever prevailed for so long a time\nas during the present, or historic period. We see a reason for this in the\nfact that never before were so many animals in existence, with a structure\nso delicate and complicated.\n\nSuch are the evidences of divine benevolence, drawn from a field at first\nview most unpromising. And yet, when we come to look beyond the surface,\nwhere do we find more decisive or more numerous indications of God's\nbeneficence? They are not like many hasty generalizations, which\nsuperficial examination has often brought from natural phenomena in proof\nof this same truth, but which, although beautiful at first view, must be\nabandoned upon careful research. But these, though repulsive at first,\ngain solidity and beauty by examination. And they are the more interesting\nbecause they come from an unexpected quarter. Men have been accustomed to\nsearch among the drift piled up by water and ice, among dislocated and\nrent strata of rocks, among mountains overturned and fields made desolate\nby volcanic eruptions, for the mementoes of penal inflictions; but they\nhave not imagined that divine benevolence might be seen among these\ndisturbances and desolations; and that simply because they confined their\nviews to the immediate effect of geological agencies, and did not enlarge\ntheir views to take in their connection with the great system of the\nuniverse. But now that we find the stamp of benevolence even here, we\nlearn an instructive lesson. Every reflecting mind is aware that the\ndoctrine of divine benevolence lies at the foundation of all natural and\nrevealed religion, and that until this be established we labor in vain to\nerect a superstructure. It is well known, also, that the existence of\nnatural and moral evil has been considered a strong objection to this\ngreat truth. Now, geology furnishes us with many examples, in which\nagencies, often fraught with terrific evils, are nevertheless eminently\nbeneficial when the whole extent of their operation is taken into account.\nWhy is it not a fair inference that, in all other cases where evils stand\nout prominently, they are only incidental results of some wide system of\noperations, of which our limited vision embraces only a part, but whose\ntendencies as a whole are eminently salutary, and whose incidental evils\ndo, in fact, increase the salutary effects? If so, what reason have we to\nbelieve that, when the light of eternity shall clarify our mental eye, and\nenlarge our knowledge of the present system of the universe, we shall find\nall \"partial evil to be universal good,\" and that our narrow views alone\nthrew obscurity and difficulty over this subject in this life? O, if even\nhere so many rays of divine love find their way into our narrow\nprison-house, what will be their brightness when they pour in upon us from\nthe unveiled glories of the heavenly world!\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VII.\n\nDIVINE BENEVOLENCE AS EXHIBITED IN A FALLEN WORLD.\n\n\nThe geological proofs of the divine benevolence considered in the last\nlecture present only a partial view of that glorious characteristic of\nJehovah. I am tempted, therefore, to exhibit it in its more general aspect\nand broader relations. This will necessarily bring into view other\nimportant religious truths respecting man's fallen condition and\ncharacter, and, as a consequence, the modified aspect of the divine\ngoodness in such a world.\n\nTo those destitute of a revelation this world has, indeed, ever seemed an\ninextricable maze, an enigma too dark for human wisdom to solve. Nor have\nthose favored with the Bible agreed in their modes of clearing up the\nmystery. Having endeavored to explain all by following out some leading\nand favorite idea, their theories have varied as these predominant\nconceptions differed. One, for instance, fixes his gaze so intently upon\nthe divine benevolence that he is blind to every manifestation of\nJehovah's sterner attributes. Another, deeply impressed with the story of\nman's original apostasy, sees only vindictive justice, and penal\ninfliction, and disordered action, in all the movements of nature and the\ntrials and sufferings of man. A third, captivated by the discoveries of\nmodern geology, relative to the existence of suffering and death in the\nworld before man's creation, and learning, moreover, from physiology,\nthat death is a general law of all organized natures, vegetable as well as\nanimal, is led to doubt whether the disorders of the world have any\nimportant connection with man's apostasy.\n\nNow, it were easy to show that our views on these subjects have a most\nimportant bearing upon our entire system of theology; and, therefore, they\ndeserve our most thorough and candid examination. To such an examination I\nnow invite your serious attention.\n\nIt is not my object to appeal to the Scriptures to prove the divine\nbenevolence. That were an easy task. So, were this an unfallen world,\nevery object and event would be redolent of God's goodness. But where sin\nand death abound, that goodness must assume a different aspect, since its\nunmixed manifestation would work mischief. Now, the point aimed at in this\nlecture is to ascertain whether natural religion can point out decisive\nevidence of divine benevolence. We can conceive it quite possible that in\na fallen world God might find it necessary so to mingle displays of\njustice with those of goodness, that man might be in doubt which\npredominated.\n\nThere is another reason for considering this subject apart from scriptural\nevidence. We need to establish the doctrine of divine benevolence as a\nbasis on which to rest the evidences of inspiration; or, rather, we want\nto be able to assume God's benevolence, in arguing for the truth of the\nBible, and in judging of its contents. This doctrine, therefore, is one of\nthe most important, as it is certainly the most difficult, in natural\ntheology.\n\nObviously the first step in this investigation must be to ascertain what\nis the real state of this world, as a manifestation of the benevolence and\njustice of God. In other words, we need to ascertain what exhibitions of\nthese attributes are presented to us in nature, and in the economy of\nProvidence, and how much of the evil in the world is to be imputed to\nman's perversion of the gifts of God. I shall proceed, therefore, to state\nthe main points on this subject which fair and candid reasoning seems to\nme to sustain. When these points are before us, with a summary of the\nevidence by which they are supported, we shall be prepared to deduce\nimportant conclusions respecting God's character and dispensations, and\nman's position and destiny.\n\n_In the first place, then, I maintain that benevolence decidedly\npredominates in the present system of the world._\n\nLet this proposition be fully understood. It does not mean that there is\nno mixture of evil in the operations of nature, but only that good\ndecidedly overbalances the evil. And by the operations of nature I mean\nthose processes resulting from natural laws, which are uninfluenced by the\nperverseness of man. How much of evil may be imputed to his perversion of\nthe gifts of Providence will be considered in another place, as will also\nthose cases in which evil seems inseparable from the original arrangements\nof the world. All that I am now concerned to prove is, that, in a vast\nmajority of instances, we see the marks of benevolent design and\nbenevolent operation in the arrangements of nature.\n\nThis position is established, in the first place, by the fact that the\ndesign of every natural contrivance is to produce happiness.\n\nTo show that such is the case, by an appeal to facts, would be, in truth,\nto write the history of every natural process, and show its design. But it\nwill be sufficient to consider only such cases as appear most decidedly to\nmilitate against my position, and to show that even these are not\ndesigned to cause evil or suffering.\n\nHow does it happen, then, you may inquire, that evil is the result of a\nmultitude of contrivances and processes in nature? It is an incidental\neffect, I answer; that is, an effect happening aside from the main design\nof the contrivance. Take a few illustrations.\n\nNo one can doubt that the law of gravity is essential to the preservation\nand comfort of the world, and to the harmonious motions of the heavenly\nbodies. Yet how often does it give rise to frightful accidents to men and\nanimals! But when they are crushed by falling bodies, or by falling\nthemselves, who imagines this to be the design of gravitation? How clear\nthat its real object is beneficial, and that the evil resulting from it is\nunavoidable in a world constituted like ours! Why the world is not\nconstituted differently, is an inquiry which men may try to answer; but an\nanswer is not important to my present object.\n\nTake an example from the organic world. Every one is aware that without a\nnervous system in animals there would be no sensibility, nor sensation,\nand, of course, no enjoyment; and without these, animals would be\nunconscious of danger, and would not guard against it, nor withdraw from\nit. We are sure, therefore, that these two objects are the grand design of\nthe nervous system, and, of course, it is a benevolent design. But the\nnervous system causes a great deal of suffering as well as pleasure.\nObviously, however, this is only an incidental effect, which could not be\nprevented without a miracle; while the main design is to produce happiness\nand guard against evil.\n\nIt may be asked, however, by what principle we can determine what is the\ndesign of a contrivance, and what the incidental effect. Why select a\npart of the effects, and call them the object aimed at by the contriver,\nwhile we regard others as incidental, and merely permitted, not intended?\n\nThe principle on which we make this distinction is very clear. We judge of\nthe design of a contrivance by its predominant tendencies and effects. If\nevil as often results as good, misery as often as happiness, we could not\ndecide whether the design was benevolent or malevolent, or an indifference\nto both. But the benevolent tendency and effects of every natural\ncontrivance are so obvious, and so immensely outweigh all its evil\nresults, that we are compelled to admit the design of the Author of nature\nto be benevolent. And, therefore, when we see evil occasionally result\nfrom such contrivances, we are authorized to say that this is only an\nincidental effect; not, indeed, wholly undesigned, for we cannot doubt\nthat God has a design in the permission of all evil. But for each\nparticular arrangement and movement in nature we can discover a\npredominant and benevolent object.\n\nTake another example from the human frame. In that frame we find a\nmultitude of organs, nearly all of which are obviously adapted to a\nparticular use. Now, the anatomist cannot lay his finger upon one of them,\nand say, This was intended to produce derangement and suffering in the\nsystem. Here is a muscle contrived to clog the operations of its\nneighbors; here a blood-vessel adapted to corrupt the blood and produce\ndisease; here a gland whose object is to secrete a poisonous fluid, to\ncontaminate the whole system; here a nerve made to produce pain; here a\nplexus of vessels suited to bring on disease. On the contrary, this\nanatomist perceives at once that all the organs of the animal system, and\ntheir collocation, are fitted in the best possible manner to produce\nhealth. It is obvious at a glance that this is their design.\n\nBut if such be the fact, how happens it that so few persons pass through\nlife without disease? Is it all to be imputed to an abuse and perversion\nof the organs and powers of life? Not so, in my opinion. But those organs\nare all liable to disease; and when we see how delicate and complicated\nthey are, we ought not to wonder that even the unavoidable causes of\nderangement should often bring it on. Yet, after all, health is the rule\nand the object, and disease only the exception. But I shall say more on\nthis subject in another part of the argument.\n\nSome one, however, who hears me, has doubtless ere this had his thoughts\nrecur to the organs of carnivorous animals, the poisonous fangs of\nserpents, and the organs of the scorpion, the tarantula, and of insects,\nfor the generation and protrusion of deadly poison. Here we have organs\nexpressly provided for the destruction of other animals. That such is\ntheir design, no physiologist can doubt; and hence they are intended to\nproduce suffering, and not happiness.\n\nIs this an exactly correct statement of the case? True, suffering is the\nresult of such organs; but the arrangement is intended to accomplish still\nhigher purposes. The leading one is to procure food for sustenance, the\nother is self-defence. Both of these are essential to the animal's\ncontinued existence. That suffering should be incidentally connected with\ninstruments or organs so important, is no more difficult to explain than\nis the existence of evil any where. The object even of these contrivances,\nthen, is beneficial. And if so, I know of no other example in nature so\nseemingly adverse to the position I have laid down, that the main object\nof every natural contrivance is benevolent in its origin and results. If\nthis be so, how clearly does it indicate the character of the contriver to\nbe benevolent!\n\nMy second argument is derived from the fact that the organic functions\noften produce pleasure where suffering was just as consistent with their\nmost perfect action; or I might say that such are the arrangements of the\nnatural world, that pleasure often results to sentient beings from its\noperations, when they might have been as perfectly performed with the\nproduction of pain. A few illustrations will render the meaning of this\nposition obvious.\n\nAs we look abroad upon nature, one of the most striking traits we discover\nis its unbounded variety. With the Psalmist we involuntarily exclaim, _O\nLord, how manifold are thy works!_ It is not merely variety as to form,\ntexture, attitude, and arrangement; but who can describe the countless\ntints of coloring which are spread over the heavens and the earth? Now,\nthere is in the human soul an aptitude to be pleased with variety; nay,\nthere is a craving for it. Nor can there be a more terrible infliction\nthan unvarying monotony and sameness of appearance, arrangement, and\naction. If, therefore, the Creator had been malevolent, or indifferent to\nthe happiness of man and other sentient beings, he might have gratified\nthis disposition most perfectly by giving to the human soul its present\nlove of variety, and then spreading over the face of nature a dead\nuniformity of figure, position, arrangement, and coloring; forming every\nthing upon the same model. And this might have been done without impairing\nat all the perfect operation of all her laws that are essential. Every\nthing might have been as systematic and harmonious as it now is; but\nsentient beings would have been miserable; and this must have been\nsupremely gratifying to infinite malevolence. He might also have so\nconstructed the organs of hearing, sight, and smell, that every sound\nmight have been ungrateful and grating, every odor repulsive, and every\nprospect disgusting. While hunger would have urged animals, as it now\ndoes, to seek food, its reception might have been painful, or utterly void\nof gustatory enjoyment. So in regard to social enjoyments; we might have\nbeen irresistibly drawn towards our fellow-men, and yet their society\nmight have been hateful in the extreme.\n\nHad such a state of things existed, how very clearly we should have\ninferred the malevolence of the Author of nature! Or if such a state had\nbeen witnessed about as often as its opposite, we might reasonably have\nsaid that he was indifferent to the happiness of his creatures. Why, then,\nmay we not, with equal reason, infer his benevolence, when we find, in a\nvast majority of cases,--nay, for aught I know, universally,--that\npleasure is superadded to animal enjoyment where it was wholly unnecessary\nto the perfect operation of nature's laws?\n\nThe fact is, God has made all nature \"beauty to our eye and music to our\near,\" when it was wholly unnecessary for the perfect operation of her\nlaws; and the inference is irresistible, that he delights in the happiness\nof his creatures. Nor can the fact that evil exists in the world destroy\nthe force of this argument, unless that evil is so general as to be\nobviously the design of the Creator in devising and arranging the system\nof the world. While we admit its existence, we say that it is only\nincidental, and that pleasure is so often superadded unnecessarily, as to\nprove happiness to be the design, and evil the exception.\n\nThe two arguments above presented are the evidence on which Dr. Paley\nrelies to prove the divine benevolence. They are, indeed, as it seems to\nme, unanswerable. But if I mistake not, they do by no means exhaust the\nstorehouse of nature's proofs of this fundamental principle of natural\nand revealed religion. I derive a third argument for the predominance of\nbenevolence in the works of nature from the variety of means often\nprovided for the performance of important functions; so that animals and\nplants can adapt themselves to different circumstances, and prolong their\nexistence.\n\nThe examples which I have in mind to illustrate this argument are all\nderived from the organic world. I refer, for instance, to the fact that\nnearly all our muscles, and many other important organs, as the hands, the\nfeet, the eyes, and the lungs, are in pairs, so that if one meets with an\ninjury, or is destroyed, the other can, to some extent, perform the office\nof both. The brain has two hemispheres, and one of them may be seriously\nwounded without destroying the healthy action of the other.\n\nBut perhaps the most appropriate example is in the blood-vessels, whose\ninosculations are so numerous that even though large arteries and veins be\ntied, the blood will find its way through the smaller ones, which\nultimately will so enlarge as to keep up the circulation nearly as well as\nbefore the injury. And, in fact, almost every one of the large\nblood-vessels has been tied by the surgeon with little ultimate injury to\nthe patient.\n\nIn the process of deglutition, or swallowing the nourishment essential to\nthe existence of all the more perfect animals,--since the food and the air\nfor respiration pass for a time through a common opening, the pharynx,--it\nis extremely important that the passage to the lungs should be most\nvigilantly guarded; since strangulation would follow the introduction\nthere of any thing but air. Accordingly, the entrance of the glottis is so\nsensitive, that the approach of the food causes it to close. But lest this\nsecurity should sometimes fail, we have an additional guard in the\nepiglottis, which shuts down like a valve upon the orifice. Even with this\ndouble precaution, strangulation sometimes follows the act of deglutition.\nHow much oftener would it occur, had not benevolence thus multiplied its\nvigilant sentinels at the point of danger!\n\nAnother illustration of this argument lies in the fact, that many of the\norgans of animals and plants possess the power, when an exigency requires\nit, of greatly increasing their action. When, for instance, an unusual\nquantity of osseous matter is requisite to repair a broken bone, the\nglands, whose office it is to elaborate that matter, are capable of\nsecreting an extraordinary quantity, until the injury is repaired.\n\nOf an analogous character is the sympathy existing between the different\norgans, so that when one has an unusual amount of labor to perform, the\nrest impart of their nervous energy to sustain their overtasked companion.\nThus, and thus only, could animals be carried through many of the severe\nexigencies of their existence. Their organs help one another, just as if\nthey were conscious of one another's necessities, and were prompted by\nbenevolence to aid the weakest.\n\nIn like manner, some of the organs possess the power of vicarious\nsecretion; that is, of producing, in peculiar circumstances, secretions\nthat are usually made by other glands. How they can do this, and how they\ncan know when to do it, are among the mysteries of physiology.\nNevertheless, the object of this arrangement is most obvious, viz., the\ncontinuance of health and life in spite of accidents, which would\notherwise prove fatal.\n\nThe same vicarious system is manifest in the well-known examples, where\nthe loss of one or more of the senses gives increased acuteness to the\nrest. The sense of touch, for instance, in the blind man, has sometimes\nproved no mean substitute for eyes; and, indeed, any of the senses by\ncultivation, in peculiar exigencies, may be prodigiously strengthened.\n\nNow, in all these cases, where the vicarious principle is brought into\noperation, or sympathy concentrates the power of many organs in one, or\nthe loss of one organ or sense quickens the sensibility of the rest, do we\nnot recognize the prospective care and kindness of infinite benevolence?\nDo you say that it merely shows infinite wisdom, which adjusts means to\nends with consummate skill, in order to be sure of success in its designs?\nWhy, then, I inquire, should these provisions for trying exigencies in the\nanimal system always tend to the happiness of the creature? Surely there\nwere other means at the command of infinite wisdom for securing the\nexistence of the animal, which would bring misery upon it instead of\nhappiness. The benevolent tendency of the design, therefore, proves the\nbenevolent feelings of the designer.\n\nThe extraordinary provisions that are made in some cases for the\nmultiplication of animals and plants, in order to prevent the extinction\nof any races, and to give life and happiness to as many animals as can be\nsustained, is another indication of benevolent care on the part of the\nCreator. Not less than five modes of reproduction are known to exist,\nviz., the viviparous, the ovo-viviparous, the oviparous, the gemmiparous,\nand the fissiparous; and among the lowest families of animals several of\nthese modes exist in the same species, so that their extinction, or even\ndeficient multiplication, is scarcely possible.\n\nThe same benevolence is manifested in the power possessed by animals and\nplants to adapt themselves to different circumstances. Often are they\nthrown into conditions widely diverse as to food, temperature, and\nexposure to chemical and mechanical agencies, with no possibility on their\npart of avoiding them. This is eminently true of man; and were not animals\nable to adapt themselves to these various states, they must perish. True,\nthere are limits to this adaptation; but they are wide enough to\naccomplish the great purposes of existence, and to make us comfortable and\nhappy amid great changes in our condition. Nor is this power of adaptation\namong animals limited to their physical nature. Their mental habits admit\nof an oscillation equally wide, so that, ere long, we become happy in a\ncondition which at first was painful in the extreme. New habits take the\nplace of the old ones so gradually that we scarcely realize the change.\n\nNow, if this power were not possessed in such a world as ours, could\norganic natures not bend at all to circumstances, constant suffering and\npremature dissolution would be the result. The power of adaptation,\ntherefore, looks like the benevolent provision of a kind Father, who\nwishes to make his creatures as happy as he can in the circumstances in\nwhich his wisdom has placed them. Certainly, malevolence, or indifference\nto their happiness, would not have introduced this power of adaptation\ninto their natures; for it is certain that their continued existence might\nhave been secured in some other way, had no reference been had to their\nhappiness.\n\nI base my fourth argument for the predominance of benevolence, in the\narrangements of nature, upon the aggregate results of the most destructive\nand terrific agencies which she employs.\n\nThe immediate effects of these agencies are often so appalling and so\nunmixed with good, that men view them only as penal inflictions; or, when\nthe sufferers are unconscious of guilt, as mysterious dispensations of\nevil, which need the light of another world to reconcile with infinite\nbenevolence. When the tornado or sirocco's hot breath sweeps over the\ndevoted land; when the river overflows its banks, and ingulfs the\ndefenceless inhabitants along its course, or the giant waves of the ocean\nroll in upon the devoted shore; when the heaving earthquake overturns in a\nmoment vast cities, and the earth swallows them in its bosom; or when the\nvolcano pours out its suffocating smoke and its scorching lava, and\nobliterates from earth the defenceless town, as once Herculaneum and\nPompeii were converted into petrified cities,--in the midst of such\ndesolating agencies, where can we discover a gleam of benevolence? Not\nsurely in the immediate effects. But suppose the tornado, the flood, the\nearthquake, and the volcano are essential to the preservation of the earth\nfrom a far wider ruin, so that, in fact, while they destroy some property\nand life, they preserve a far greater amount, and are essential to such\npreservation,--why is it not benevolence that gives a slight play to these\nterrific elements, while it checks their wild war so soon as the requisite\nsecurity has been obtained? When the storm has sufficiently purified the\natmosphere, when the flood has enriched the wide alluvial fields, and the\nearthquake and the volcano have given vent to the pent-up fires in the\nearth, so that they no longer threaten to rend a continent asunder, then a\nrestraining power is put upon them, and they are allowed no more range\nthan is essential to the general good. We may not, indeed, see why the\ngood could not be secured without the evil. But this question leads to the\ninquiry, whether the present system of the universe is the best possible;\nand that it is so we have the guaranty of the divine perfections. Those\nperfections admit the existence of evil; but at the same time they take\ncare that the aggregate result of the greatest evils should be beneficial.\n\nNor would we limit this position to evils springing out of the nature or\nthe changes of the inanimate world; for some of the severest evils are\ndependent upon the organization or operation of animate nature. Man, for\ninstance, finds himself often grossly annoyed by some species of the\ninferior animals, in his comfort, property, and even life. And he wonders\nwhy infinite wisdom and benevolence should permit certain species to\nexist, when they seem fitted only to annoy the rest. But he knows not what\nhe desires when he wishes their extinction. For such is the balance of\norganic nature, that to strike out even one species, is like removing a\nlink from a chain. Once broken, every other link is affected, and the\nwhole chain lies useless upon the ground. Or, to speak without a figure,\nif you blot out certain species of animals or plants, you disturb the\nbalance of the whole system of organic nature; nor can you tell where the\ndisturbance thus introduced will end. It may lead to the excessive\nmultiplication of species still more injurious than those you have\ndestroyed. At any rate, since the perfections of the Deity lead to the\nconclusion that the existing proportion between different species is the\nbest, all things considered, and change in the balance must be injurious,\nwe may conclude, that though noxious animals and plants may produce\nindividual inconvenience and injury, the aggregate effects upon the whole\nof organic nature are salutary, and, therefore, indicative of benevolence.\n\nSimilar reasoning will, I think, apply to the existence of that large\nclass of animals called carnivorous. These are evidently intended to prey\nupon other animals; and for this purpose they are provided with weapons\nfor seizing and destroying their prey. It is often extremely painful to a\nman of kind feelings to witness the scenes of blood and havoc which these\nflesh-eating animals produce. But we forget two things. The first is, that\nin order to keep the numbers of animated beings full in the different\ntribes, it is necessary that there should be a great excess of numbers\ncreated, to meet all the casualties to which they are exposed; and that\nexcess must in some way or other be removed from life. Secondly, all the\nenjoyment of the carnivorous races is so much clear gain to the sum of\nanimal happiness; for the excess of numbers in the tribes of vegetable\nfeeders suffer no more in being destroyed by the carnivorous races, than\nif they died in some other way; not so much, indeed, as if they perished\nby famine. We may safely conclude, then, that even this system of mutual\nslaughter, when viewed in all its relations, is the means, in such a world\nas ours, of increasing the amount of enjoyment, and is, therefore, a\nbenevolent provision.\n\nThis course of reasoning may be extended, as I judge, to the greatest of\nall mortal evils,--I mean death. In the case of the inferior animals, the\namount of physical or mental suffering from this cause is comparatively\nsmall. And if they survive the change of death, surely there is\nbenevolence in so easy a translation. Or, if they do not exist hereafter,\nthe stroke of death is a small deduction from the happiness of a whole\nlife. In man's case, we must not take into the account the aggravations of\ndeath which his own misconduct produces. And aside from these, what a\nblessing it would be to be transferred to a more exalted state of being,\nby an experience no more painful than that of a Christian dying what may\nbe called a natural death, by mere decay! Then, too, how much greater\nhappiness is the result of a succession of beings on earth, than one\nundying race would enjoy, both because the successive races would be ever\npassing through novel scenes, which would soon become monotonous to a\ncontinuous race, and because, as we have already suggested, a succession\nof races admits of the existence, at any one time, of a far greater number\nof species! Then, too, we must not forget the salutary moral influence\nwhich man experiences from the expectation of death; so great, indeed,\nthat without it, it seems doubtful whether the world would be any thing\nbetter than a Pandemonium. In making indissoluble the connection between\nsin and death, therefore, in such a system as the present, benevolence\npresided with wisdom and justice in the councils of Jehovah.\n\nBut in the third lecture I have treated this whole subject so much more\nfully, that I need not add any thing further in this connection.\n\nI base my fifth and last argument, to prove the predominance of\nbenevolence in the present system of nature, on the fact that good so\noften results from evil as a natural consequence. Or, to state the\nargument in another form, good seems generally to be the object or final\ncause of evil, whereas evil flows only incidentally from good.\n\nThis argument scarcely differs from the last, except in the more general\nform of its statement. That brings forward certain prominent and appalling\nevils, and endeavors to show that, in striking the balance of their\neffects, the preponderance is on the side of benevolence. This advances a\nstep farther, and attempts to show that the direct object of evil is to\nproduce good.\n\nIt follows, hence, that the examples adduced and elucidated under the last\nargument are not inappropriate to sustain and illustrate the present. Yet\nothers should be added.\n\nAlmost the entire history of medicine and surgery illustrates the manner\nin which physical evils result in physical good. Indeed, men never resort\nto the physician, or the surgeon, because their remedies and operations\nare desirable, but only because they are the necessary means of health and\ncomfort. These means are, indeed, for the most part, of human invention,\nbut not, therefore, the less indicative of the divine intention; for they\nare founded upon such a constitution in nature as makes it possible to\ndiscover remedies for disease and accidents. And the characteristics of\nnature's constitution are an index of the intentions of its Author.\n\nThe severe mental discipline through which the youth must pass, who would\nattain distinction in learning, affords us an example of intellectual evil\nresulting in intellectual wealth and happiness. The trial is too severe\nfor many irresolute minds, and they give over the effort, and sink down\ninto a state of indolence and neglect. But he who bears manfully the\ndiscipline will at length gather the golden fruit. And he will be\nsatisfied, too, of the wisdom and benevolence of that law of mental\nprogress, which makes it impossible ever to find a royal road to the\ntemple of learning, and which shuts out from that temple all who shrink\nfrom the preparatory discipline.\n\nStill more strikingly illustrative of this argument are the evils which\nmen suffer as necessary precursors of moral good. These may be physical or\nmental; embracing all those experiences that take the name of trials,\nafflictions, and disappointments. These are often intensely bitter, and\nthey constitute, indeed, the master evils of life. We shudder when we see\nthem coming; and we often writhe in agony when in the furnace. But how\nmany have come out of that furnace purified from base alloy, and ready for\nthe service of God and the world! To do good is henceforth their delight;\nand they thank God for the severe discipline. When his heavy blows fell\nupon them, one after another, they felt as if they were the strokes of an\nincensed Deity. But now they see that they were only the necessary\ninflictions of infinite love. And they admire the wisdom that could thus\neduce so much good out of so great evil.\n\nI do not contend that good is always educed from evil in this world, or\ncould be; but only that, in a plurality of cases, if men improve the evils\nthey suffer as they might, such would be the effect. And if this be\nadmitted, it is sufficient to establish the general principle, that one of\nthe direct objects of evil in this world is to produce individual benefit.\n\nBut the converse of this proposition cannot be maintained. We cannot,\nindeed, deny that evil sometimes results from good; but never as the\ndirect object of the latter. The effect is only incidental; that is, not\nas the main object; and so a few cases of this sort cannot invalidate the\nproposition which I defend.\n\nI might multiply much more the arguments furnished by nature to prove a\npredominance of benevolence in the arrangements and operations of the\npresent system of things. But I see no way of escaping the force of those\npresented, and cannot doubt that all will admit the conclusion. I advance,\ntherefore to a second proposition, and maintain that _the benevolence\nexhibited in the present system of nature is not unmixed_.\n\nI mean, by this statement, that the divine benevolence exhibited in this\nworld is modified by other perfections. While there is a predominance of\nbenevolence, there are also indications of God's displeasure; or, at\nleast, his dealings seem to be adapted to restrain and amend a wicked\nrace, rather than to make an innocent and holy race happy; so that the\ncondition of the human family is far less happy than unmixed benevolence\nwould confer.\n\nIn proof of this assertion, I maintain, first, that evil is incidental to\nevery process and event in nature.\n\nThis is preeminently true of all those actions which we call vicious.\nIndeed, they are in themselves evils of the worst kind; and not only so,\nbut they are connected incidentally with scarcely any thing but evil,\nthough sometimes, as theologians say, overruled for good.\n\nTake next the common operations of nature, which, of course, have no moral\ncharacter. Their leading design, as we have already seen, is to produce\ngood to sentient beings; but incidentally they bring much evil. Food is\nintended for gustatory enjoyment and for nourishment; but it is often the\noccasion of severe suffering, and becomes an active poison. Gravity is\nintended to hold the material universe in a proper balance, and to attach\nevery moving thing on earth to the surface; but it occasions a vast number\nof accidents, and a vast amount of suffering. Water and fire are of\nimmense direct benefit; yet the first buries a vast amount of property and\nlife in its bosom, and the latter is scarcely less injurious in its\nincidental effects. Indeed, what natural agency can be named, that is not\narmed with the power to do evil?\n\nBut the same principle extends also to benevolent actions. With our views\nof divine benevolence, we might expect that virtuous conduct would never\nbe coupled with evil. But this notion does not accord with facts; for the\nincidental evils connected with benevolent action are often the most\npainful in life. Indeed, in how many instances has doing good been\nrewarded by the loss of life, and under all the aggravations of suffering\nwhich malignant ingenuity could invent! And the fact has been, that those\nwhose motives in doing good were the purest have suffered the most.\nWitness the life and the death of Him who knew no sin, and yet was led as\na lamb to the slaughter. Since wickedness in this world is sometimes\nallowed to have the power of annoying goodness we might expect that the\nmore disinterested the latter, the more malignant and persecuting would be\nthe former, because its own deformity is made more manifest.\n\nBut the incidental evils connected with benevolent action are not limited\nto those resulting from the malice of the wicked. If, for instance, some\nhuge system of iniquity has become incorporated into the very texture of\nsociety, benevolence cannot root it out without producing many a severe\nlaceration of individuals, who are incidentally connected with the system,\nbut to whom no blame attaches. The history of the efforts that have been\nmade to substitute Christianity for heathenism and other false religions,\nis full of examples illustrative of this principle, in conformity with the\nremarkable declaration of Christ, _Think not that I am come to send peace\non earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword._ Alike prolific of\nillustrations are all the great attempted reforms which the world has\nwitnessed, whether for delivering religion from human corruptions, or\neradicating slavery, or intemperance, or breaking the political yoke of\nthe oppressor. In fine, no reasonable man ought to expect to do much good\nin this world, without suffering much himself and bringing some incidental\nsuffering upon others.\n\nNow, although the evils that have been described are incidental, they\nbelong to the constitution of this world, and, therefore, show the\nfeelings and intentions of its Author, as much as those effects of his\nworks which appear to be their final causes. But do not such evils,\nincidental to every event, indicate a feeling in the divine mind different\nfrom unmixed benevolence? Strictly speaking, these evils are not penal\ninflictions. But they certainly do not show in the Creator a simple desire\nto promote the happiness of men, by directly conferring it. They rather\nindicate a necessity, on account of some peculiarity in the character of\nman, of mingling severity with goodness in the divine conduct towards him.\n\nIn thus representing incidental effects as indicative of the feelings of\nthe Deity, I may seem to contradict my reasoning under the first head,\nwhere I gave, as proof of God's benevolence, the fact that the direct\nobject of every contrivance is beneficial, and evil only incidental. But I\ndid not mean to intimate that the incidental effects of a contrivance are\nno index of the feelings of its author, but only that the direct effects\nshow more clearly than the incidental what are his wishes and intentions,\nespecially if the former are the most numerous, important, and striking.\nStill, incidental effects are never without an object; and where they are\nevil, as in the case supposed, they indicate other feelings towards men,\nin the divine mind, than unmixed benevolence. For it is a strange\nlimitation of God's wisdom and power to say, as some do, that the evils\ncould not be prevented.\n\nIt may be said, however, that if men only conform to the laws of nature,\nthey will escape all the evils they suffer. On the other hand, I\nmaintain,--and this constitutes my second argument to show that the divine\nbenevolence is not unmixed,--I maintain that the highest virtue and the\nmost consummate prudence cannot avoid all the evils of life.\n\nSuch prudence and virtue will not secure any one against many destructive\nnatural agencies and operations to which he is exposed. Miasms productive\nof fatal disease may contaminate the atmosphere we breathe, unperceived by\nus; poison may exist in the food which we take as our necessary\nsustenance; the mechanical violence of the elements, or of gravity, may\ncrush us; the lightning may smite us to the earth; the wild beast may rush\nfrom his unnoticed lair as we pass; or the deadly insect, or serpent, may\ninject its poison into our blood at an unexpected moment; or the floods\nmay overwhelm, or the fire consume us.\n\nNow, although prudence and virtue may defend us against many evils, they\nafford no security against such as I have named, in very many instances.\nWe are often ignorant of their existence or proximity till we become their\nvictims, and suffering, often intense, is the consequence. Indeed, the\ngreatest of all physical evils--I mean death--is as sure to visit every\nson and daughter of Adam as any event can be; and nothing but insanity, or\nits religious synonyme, fanaticism, has ever pretended to be proof against\ndisease and death. You cannot, indeed, point out any particular organ or\nagency, whose direct object is to produce disease and death; but they are\nnevertheless the inevitable result of organic operations and agencies in\nsuch a world as this.\n\nIt will be said, perhaps, that the good resulting to the whole from even\nthe most severe of these sufferings, overbalances the evil, and therefore\nthey are indications of benevolence in such a world as ours. True, as\nthings are, this may be so. But the question is, Why is there such a\nconstitution given to nature as made it necessary to introduce disease,\naccident, and death? Would not unmixed benevolence have conferred the\ngood, but have withheld the evil? Had there not been something in man's\ncharacter requiring the discipline of trials, would pure benevolence have\nsent them? At least, we should suppose that they might all have been\navoided by prudence and virtue. Why should benevolence make such severe\ndrawbacks upon the happiness even of the virtuous, if something were not\nradically wrong in the human constitution?\n\nThirdly. The great sterility of so large a part of the earth, and the\nnecessity of severe bodily labor to secure sustenance from it, show us\nthat the benevolence exhibited in nature and in man's condition is not\nunmixed. Though some limited regions are exuberantly fertile, the larger\npart of the earth yields up even a mere sustenance only after the severest\nlabor. And the vast majority of the race can do nothing more than to\nobtain food for the body. The artificial state of most societies does,\nindeed, keep the lower classes much more depressed than a better state of\nthe world would bring them into; but at the best, nature unites with\nrevelation in attesting the truth of the sentence passed upon man--_In the\nsweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread._\n\nNor is this necessity for severe labor confined to the cultivation of the\nearth, but extends to all kinds of human pursuits. Success, as a general\nfact, can be secured only by vigorous industry; and often, in spite of\ntheir most honest and persevering efforts, men fail of securing even a\ncompetence for the support of themselves and their dependants.\n\nSome will say that all this arises from a necessity in the very nature of\nthe case. But does not such a view limit the divine power and wisdom?\nCould not God have prepared a world more paradisiacal than the present,\nwhere the earth should spontaneously yield her fruits, and pour out her\nhidden treasures at man's feet? Who will deny this? Why, then, has he not\ndone it? Because obviously a race so prone to evil as man, so incapable of\nmaintaining his integrity in the lap of ease and indulgence, needs all\nthis severe discipline to keep him where he ought to be. Here, then, we\nsee a reason why God must mingle seeming severity with benevolence.\n\nThe same thing is seen, in the fourth place, in the confined and depressed\ncondition of the human mind in this world, and in the multiplied obstacles\nin the way of its cultivation and enlargement.\n\nWhat a clog to the intellect is a body governed by gross appetites, and\noften stopping the ingress of truth, or perverting its aspect, by\ndisordered and imperfect senses! Nearly one third of the time must that\nintellect sink into oblivion, while sleep recruits the physical powers.\nAnd nearly another third of life must be given to the wants of the body;\nand as we have seen, the great mass of men are obliged to devote nearly\ntheir whole time to serve the necessary wants of the body. What an\nincalculable waste of mind does the world exhibit! And even when all\nartificial and unnecessary obstructions are taken out of the way, what an\nimmense waste must it always present, while in so gross a corporeal\ntenement! for were it free to exhibit its true nature, we cannot doubt its\npower of unwearied and incessant activity. And such might have been its\ncondition here, had it pleased infinite wisdom and benevolence. But what\nunmixed benevolence would have prompted, perfect wisdom would not permit\nto fallen man.\n\nI feel confident that my first two propositions are established, viz.,\nthat there is a predominance of benevolence in the arrangements and\noperations of the present world, and yet that it is not unmixed\nbenevolence. I advance to a third proposition, which asserts that _the\nsame mixed system of good and evil, which now exists, has always prevailed\nsince the earth was inhabited_.\n\nGeology shows us the true succession of events since the first appearance\nof organic beings on the globe, but no chronological dates are registered\non the rocks. And it is only by observing processes in existing nature,\nanalogous to those whose record is engraven on the solid strata, that we\ncan infer that the years since life first appeared on the surface must\nhave been very many. But however far back in the hoary past that event\noccurred, we have indisputable evidence that the same laws then controlled\nthe operations of nature as now, and the result was the same mixture of\ngood and evil.\n\nIn the crystalline structure, and in the perfect crystals of the older\nrocks, we learn the laws which predominated at their production. And we\nfind that the same chemical, electrical, and electro-magnetical influences\npresided over their formation as are now exhibited in the laboratory of\nthe chemist or the laboratory of nature. Now, these crystals conduct us\nback much farther than the dawn of terrestrial life, though similar ones,\nand produced by the same laws, are found through the whole series of\nrocks, from the oldest to the newest. And I might appeal to many other\nfacts in the earth's history, which demonstrate an identity between the\nphysical laws that have controlled nature's processes in every period of\npast time.\n\nWe have evidence, also, of the same identity in the laws of life, or\norganic laws. In the anatomical structure of the earliest animals and\nplants we find the same general type that pervades the present creation,\nmodified only, as it now is, to meet peculiar circumstances. This is true\nnot only of the osseous, but also of the muscular, circulatory, nervous,\nlymphatic, and nutritive organs. Hence, as we might expect, we have\nevidence of the prevalence of the same functional or physiological laws\nthen, as now. Respiration was performed, as it now is, and with the same\neffects. Vegetable and animal food was then, as now, masticated, digested,\nand assimilated; and since animals possessed the same senses, we infer\nthat their habits were essentially the same. There is not, indeed, any\nevidence that ancient animals and plants exhibited any peculiarities of\nstructure or function, save those necessary to adapt them to the\ncircumstances, so unlike the present, in many respects, in which they\nlived.\n\nWe are sure, also, that death has ever reigned over all organic nature. It\nhas always been produced by the same causes, and attended by the same\nsuffering. And its ravages were repaired by the same system of\nreproduction as now exists. All this we might presume would be the case,\nupon the discovery of an identity of laws, mechanical, chemical, and\norganic; but we have direct evidence, also, in the countless remains of\nanimals and plants entombed in the rocks, more than twenty thousand\nspecies of which have been disinterred by naturalists and described.\n\nI might multiply facts almost without number to sustain the position, that\nthe same mixed system has ever prevailed upon the globe; for geology is\nfull of the details. But in a subsequent lecture, the subject will be more\namply discussed.\n\nSuch are the facts respecting the divine benevolence, as they are\npresented in the volume of nature. Though benevolence decidedly\npredominates, it is modified by other divine attributes, and ever has\nbeen, since organic existence began upon the globe. Let us now, _in the\nfourth place, see what inferences are fairly deducible from the whole\nsubject_. For those inferences, if I mistake not, will not only clear away\nevery cloud from the divine benevolence, but throw much light upon man's\ncondition.\n\nIn the first place, the subject shows us that the world is not in a state\nof retribution.\n\nAs a general fact, virtue is to some extent rewarded, and vice to some\nextent punished. But it is not always so. Indeed, the picture is sometimes\nreversed apparently; and the good are afflicted because they do good, and\nthe wicked triumph because they do evil. Evil abounds, but it is not so\ndistributed as righteous retribution would award it; neither is good.\nSince, therefore, God's justice must be infinitely perfect, there must be\nsome other object for the prevalence of good and evil in the world besides\nrighteous retribution.\n\nSecondly. We learn from the subject that the world is in a fallen\ncondition.\n\nI mean, that man has fallen from holiness and happiness. For the world is\nevidently not such a world as infinite wisdom and benevolence would\nprepare for a being perfectly holy and happy. Philosophize as we may, we\ncannot discover any reason why the abode of such a being should be filled\nwith evils of almost every name--evils which the most consummate prudence\nand the most elevated virtue cannot wholly avoid--evils which often come\nupon the good man because he is eminent for holiness. But if man has\nfallen from original holiness and happiness by transgression, we might\nexpect just such a world to be fitted up for his residence, because evil\nis indissolubly linked to sin, perhaps in the very nature of things,\ncertainly by divine appointment. We know that it brings a curse upon every\nthing with which it is connected; and here we see a reason for the blight\nthat has marred some of the fairest features of nature, and introduced\npain and suffering into the animal frame, and brought a cloud over man's\nnoble intellect, and hebetude over his moral powers. Such a fallen\ncondition will explain what no other supposition can, viz., the clouded,\nfettered, and depressed condition of all organic nature.\n\nYet, thirdly. We should not infer that man's condition was hopeless, but\nrather that mercy might be in store for him.\n\nThe very fact that the world is not in a state of retribution would seem\nto afford hope that God had other purposes than punishment in allowing\nevil to be introduced. And then the vast predominance of benevolence and\nhappiness around us cannot but inspire hope for the fallen.\n\nThis will be still more manifest if we infer, and can show, fourthly, that\nthe world is in a state of probation or trial.\n\nBy this I mean that men are placed in a condition for the trial and\ndiscipline of their characters, in order to fit them for a higher state.\nIf fallen and depraved, they need to pass through such a discipline before\nthey can be prepared for that higher condition. And surely no one can\nobserve the scenes through which all pass, without being struck with their\neminent adaptedness to train man to virtue and holiness. Until we have\nbeen pupils for a time in this school, we are not fit even for the\nsuccessive states in this life into which we pass; much less for a higher\ncondition. But there is a marvellous power in this discipline to prepare\nus for both, as vast multitudes have testified while they lived and when\nthey died. Even death seems, so far as we can see, to be the only means by\nwhich a sinful being can be delivered from his stains; and the dread of\nthis terrific evil is one of the most powerful restraints upon vice, and\nstimulants to virtue. There is, in fact, no condition in which man is\nplaced, no good or evil that he meets, which is not eminently adapted, if\nrightly improved, to discipline and strengthen his virtue. Hence we cannot\ndoubt that this is the grand object of the present arrangements of the\nworld. True, if misimproved, the same means become only a discipline in\nvice. But this is only in conformity with a general principle of the\ndivine government, that the things which rightly used are highly\nsalutary, are proportionably injurious when perverted.\n\nFifthly. The subject shows us a reason why suffering and death prevailed\nin this world long before man's existence.\n\nGod foresaw--I will not say foreordained, though he certainly permitted\nit--that man would transgress; and, therefore, he made a world adapted to\na sinful fallen being, rather than to one pure and holy. If he had adapted\nit to an unfallen being, and then changed it upon his apostasy, that\nchange must have amounted to a new creation. For, as I have endeavored to\nshow in a previous lecture, (Lecture III.,) the whole constitution of our\nworld, and even its relations to other worlds, must have been altered to\nfit it for a being who had sinned. To have introduced such a one into a\nworld fitted up for the perfectly holy, would have been a curse instead of\na blessing. It was benevolence on the part of God to allow evil to abound\nin a world which was to be the residence of a sinful creature; for the\ndiscipline of such a state was the only chance of his being rescued from\nthe power of sin, and restored to the divine favor.\n\nIt may be thought, however, inconsistent with divine benevolence to place\nthe inferior, irrational animals in a condition of suffering because man\nwould transgress, and thus punish creatures incapable of sinning for his\ntransgression.\n\nAnimals do, indeed, suffer in such a world as ours; but not as a\npunishment for their own or man's sin. The only question is, Do they\nsuffer so much that their existence is not a blessing? Surely experience\nwill decide, without inquiring as to their future existence, that their\nenjoyments, as a general fact, vastly outweigh their sufferings; and hence\ntheir existence indicates benevolence. It should also be recollected that\ntheir natures are adapted to a world of sin and death, and they are\ndoubtless more happy here than they would be in a different condition,\nwhich might be more favorable to unfallen accountable beings.\n\nFinally. This subject harmonizes infinite and perfect benevolence in God\nwith the existence of evil on earth.\n\nThis is the grand problem of theology; and though I would not say that our\nreasoning clears it of all difficulties, yet it does seem to me that, by\nletting the light of this subject fall upon the question, we come nearer\nto its solution than by viewing it in any other aspect. For this subject\nshows us that benevolence decidedly predominates in all the arrangements\nof the material universe, and then it assigns good reasons why this\nbenevolence is not unmixed; in other words, why severity is sometimes\nmingled with goodness. It shows us that God, with a prospective view of\nman's sin, adapted the world to a fallen being; making it, instead of a\nplace of unmingled happiness, a state of trial and discipline; not as a\nfull punishment, (for that is reserved to a future state,) but as an\nessential means of delivering this immortal being from his ruin and\nmisery, and of fitting him for future and endless holiness and happiness.\nThus, instead of indicating indifference or malevolence in God, because he\nintroduced evil into the world, it is a striking evidence of his\nbenevolence. Such a plan is, in fact, the conjoint result of infinite\nwisdom and benevolence for rescuing the miserable and the lost. Had God\nplaced such a being in a world adapted to one perfectly holy, his\nsufferings would have been vastly greater, and his rescue hopeless.\n\nThus far do both reason and revelation conduct us in a plain path; and\nthat, probably, is as far as is necessary for all the purposes of\nreligion. Up to this point, infinite benevolence pours its radiance upon\nthe path, and we see good reasons for the evils incident to this life;\nnay, we see that they are the result of that same benevolence which strews\nthe way with blessings; that, in fact, they are only necessary means of\nthe greatest blessings. I am aware that there is a question lying farther\nback, in the outskirts of metaphysical theology, which still remains\nunanswered, and probably never can be settled in this world, because some\nof its elements are beyond our reach. The inquisitive mind asks why it was\nnecessary for infinite wisdom and power to introduce evil, or allow it to\nbe introduced, into any system of created things. Could not such natures\nhave been bestowed upon creatures, that good only might have been their\nportion? A plausible answer is, that evil exists because it can ultimately\nbe made subservient of greater good, taking the whole universe into\naccount, than another system. Certainly to fallen man we have reason to\nbelieve natural evils are the grand means of his highest good; and hence\nwe derive an argument for the same conclusion in respect to the whole\nsystem of evil. Indeed, such are the divine attributes, that it is absurd\nto suppose God would create any system which was not the best possible in\nexisting circumstances. But even though we cannot solve these questions in\ntheir abstract form, and as applied to the whole creation, it is\nsufficient for every practical purpose of religion if we can show, as we\nhave endeavored to do in this lecture, how the present system of the world\nfor a fallen being illustrates, instead of disproving, the divine\nbenevolence.\n\nHere, then, is the resolution of some of the darkest enigmas of human\nexistence, which philosophy, unaided by revelation, has never solved. Here\nwe get hold of the thread that conducts us through the most crooked\nlabyrinths of life, and enables us to let into the deepest dungeons of\ndespondency and doubt, the light of hope and of heaven.\n\nHere, too, we find the powerful glass by which we can pierce the clouds\nthat have so long obscured the full-orbed splendors of the divine\nbenevolence. To some, indeed,--and they sagacious philosophers,--that\ncloud has seemed surcharged only with vengeance. And even to those who\nhave caught occasional glimpses of the noble orb behind, the cloud over\nits face has always seemed to be tinged with some angry rays. Indeed, so\nlong as this is a sinful state, justice will not allow all the glories of\nthe divine goodness to be revealed. And yet, through the glass which\nphilosophy and faith have put into our hands, we can see that the disk is\na full-orbed circle, and that no spots mar and darken its clear surface.\nHow gloriously, then, when all those clouds shall have passed away, and\nthe last taint of evil shall have been blotted out by the final\nconflagration, shall that sun, in the new heavens, send down its light and\nheat upon the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness!\n\nOn the other hand, how sad the prospect which the analogies of this\nsubject open before him who misimproves his earthly probation, and goes\nout of the world unprepared for a higher and purer state of existence! If\nwe can see reasons why on earth God should mingle goodness and severity in\nthis man's lot, we can also see reasons why the manifestations of\nbenevolence should all be withdrawn when he passes into a state of\nretribution. For if an individual can resist the mighty influences for\ngood which the present state of discipline affords, and only become worse\nunder them all, his case is utterly hopeless, and Heaven can do no more,\nconsistently with the eternal principles of the divine government, to\nsave him. Infinite benevolence gives him over, and no longer holds back\nthe sword of retributive justice. Nay, the justice which inflicts the\npunishment is only benevolence in another form. And this it is that makes\nthe infliction intolerable. How much more terrible to the wayward child\nare the blows inflicted by a weeping, affectionate father, than if\nreceived from an enemy! God is that affectionate Father; and he punishes\nonly because he loves the universe more than the individual; and he has\nexhausted the stores of infinite mercy in vain to save him. Wicked men\nsometimes tell us that they are not afraid to trust themselves in the\nhands of infinite benevolence; whereas it is eminently this quality of the\ndivine character which, above all others, they have reason to fear. For\nif, even in this world of probation and hope, God finds it necessary to\nmingle so much severity with goodness, what but a cup of unmingled\nbitterness shall be put into his hands who goes into eternity unrenewed\nand unpardoned, and finds that even infinite benevolence has become his\neternal enemy!\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VIII.\n\nUNITY OF THE DIVINE PLAN AND OPERATION IN ALL AGES OF THE WORLD'S HISTORY.\n\n\nContrivance, adaptation, and design are some of the most striking features\nof the natural world. They are obvious throughout the whole range of\ncreation, in the minutest as well as in the most magnificent objects; in\nthe most complicated as well as in the most simple. So universally present\nare they, that whenever we meet with any thing in nature which seems\nimperfectly adapted to other objects, as the organ of an animal or plant,\nwhich exhibits malformation, it excites general attention, and the mere\nchild need not be told that, in its want of adaptation to other objects,\nit is an exception in the natural world.\n\nIn order to illustrate what I mean by contrivance, adaptation, and design,\nlet me refer to a familiar example--the human eye. Made up of three coats\nand three humors, of solids and fluids, of nerves, blood-vessels, and\nmuscles, and rivalling the most perfect optical instrument, it must have\nrequired the most consummate contrivance to give the requisite quantity\nand position to parts so numerous and unlike, for producing the phenomena\nof vision. Yet how perfectly it is done! How few, out of the hundreds of\nmillions of eyes of men and other animals, fail of vision through any\nnatural defect!\n\nNo less marvellous are the adaptations of the eye. In order to be adapted\nto the wonderful effect which we call light, its coats and humors must be\ntransparent, and possess a certain density and opacity, that the rays may\nform an image on the retina. Yet to prevent confusion in the image, the\ntransparency must be confined to the central parts of the eye, and a dark\nplexus of veins and muscles must be so situated as to absorb the\nscattering rays. In order to adapt the eye to different distances, and to\nthe greater or less intensity of the light, delicate muscles must be so\nsituated as to contract and dilate the pupil, and lengthen and shorten the\naxis. That the eye might be directed to different objects, strong muscles\nmust be attached to its posterior surface; and that the eyelid might\ndefend it from injuries in front, a very peculiar muscle must give it\npower to close. No less perfect is the adaptation of the eye to the\natmosphere, or, rather, there is a mutual adaptation; and it is as proper\nto say that the atmosphere is adapted to the eye, as that the eye is\nadapted to the atmosphere. In like manner, there is a striking relation\nbetween the eye and the sun and other heavenly bodies, and between the eye\nand day and night; so that we cannot doubt but they were made for one\nanother. We might, indeed, extend the relations of the eye to every object\nin the universe; and the same may be said of every organ of plants and\nanimals. The adaptation between them is as wide as creation. And it is the\nwonderful harmony between so many millions of objects that makes us feel\nthat infinite wisdom alone could have produced it.\n\nThe design of the multiplied contrivances and adaptations exhibited by the\neye is too obvious to need a formal statement. Comparatively few\nunderstand the wonderful mechanism of the eye; but we should consider it\nproof of idiotism, or insanity, for the weakest mind to doubt what is the\nobject of the eye. This is, to be sure, a striking example. But out of\nthe many organs of animals, how few are there of which we do not see the\ndesign! And as the subject is more examined, the few excepted cases are\nmade still fewer. They are more numerous in plants, because we cannot so\nwell understand them, and because of their microscopic littleness. They\nare so few, however, throughout all nature, that they never produce a\ndoubt that, for every individual thing in creation, there is a distinct\nobject. If we confine our views to the most simple parts of matter, we can\nsee design in them. If we take a wider view, and examine those minor\nsystems which are produced by the grouping of the elements of matter, we\nshall see design there; and if we rise still higher in our examination,\nand compare systems still more extensive, until we group all material\nthings, wise and beautiful design is still inscribed upon all. In fine,\ncreation is but a series of harmonies, wheel within wheel, in countless\nvariety, yet all forming one vast and perfect machine. Examine nature as\nwidely and as minutely as we may, we never find one part clashing with\nanother part; no laws, governing one portion of creation, different from\nthose governing the others. Amid nature's infinitely diversified\nproductions and operations we find but one original model or pattern. As\nDr. Paley finely expresses it, \"We never get amongst such original or\ntotally different modes of existence as to indicate that we are come into\nthe province of a different Creator, or under the direction of a different\nwill.\" All appears to have been the work of one mighty mind, capable of\ndevising and creating the vast system so perfectly that every part shall\nbeautifully harmonize with every other part; a mind capable of holding in\nits capacious grasp at once the entire system, and seeing the relation and\ndependence of all its parts, from the minutest atom up to the mightiest\nworld. In short, the unity of design which pervades all creation is\nperfect, more so than we witness in the most finished machine of human\nconstruction; for\n\n  \"In human works, though labored on with pain,\n  A thousand movements scarce one object gain;\n  In God's, one single can its end produce,\n  Yet serves to second too some other use.\"\n\nSuch are the wonderful contrivance, adaptation, and design which the\nmaterial world every where exhibits. But the geologist carries us back\nthrough periods of immense antiquity, and digs out from the deep strata\nevidences of other systems of organic life, which have flourished and\npassed away; other economies, which have existed on the globe anterior to\nthe present. And how was it with these? Had they any relation to the\nexisting system? Were they governed by different laws, or are they all but\nparts of one great and harmonious system, embracing the whole of the\nearth's past duration? We could not decide these questions beforehand; but\ngeology brings to light unequivocal evidence that the latter supposition\nis the true one; that is, in the language of the poet,--\n\n  \"All are but parts of one stupendous whole,\n  Whose body nature is, and God the soul.\"\n\nTo present the evidence of this conclusion will be my object in this\nlecture.\n\n_In the first place, the laws of chemistry and crystallography,\nelectricity and magnetism, have ever been the same in all past conditions\nof the earth._\n\nChemistry has attained to such a degree of perfection that the analyst\ncan now determine the composition of the various vegetable, animal, and\nmineral substances which he meets, with an extreme degree of accuracy. In\nmany instances, he can do this in two ways. He can always separate the\nelements which exist in a compound, and ascertain their relative quantity;\nand this is called _analysis_. And sometimes he can take those elements\nand cause them to unite, so as to form a particular compound; and this is\ncalled _synthesis_. By these methods he has ascertained that, amid the\nvast variety of substances in nature, there are only about sixty-four\nwhich cannot be reduced to a more simple form, and are therefore called\n_elements_, or simple substances. Now, the chemist finds that, when these\nelements unite to form compounds, certain fixed laws are invariably\nfollowed. They combine in definite quantities, which are always the same,\nor some multiple of the same weight; so that each element has its peculiar\nand invariable combining weight; and it cannot be made to combine in any\nother proportion. You may mix two or more elements together in any\nproportion, but it is only a certain definite quantity of each that will\ncombine, while the rest will remain in excess. Hence the same compound\nsubstance, from whatever part of the world it comes, or under however\ndiverse circumstances produced, consists of the same ingredients in the\nsame proportion. These laws are followed with mathematical precision, and\nwe have reason to believe that the same compound substance, produced in\ndifferent parts of the world, never differs in its composition by the\nsmallest conceivable particle. Indeed, with the exception of the planetary\nmotions and crystallography, chemical combination is the most perfect\nexample of practical mathematics to be found in nature.\n\nSuch are the laws which the chemist finds invariably to regulate all the\nchanges that now take place in the constitution of bodies. What evidence\nis there that the same laws have ever prevailed? In the rocks we have\nchemical compounds, produced in all ages of the world's history, since\nfire and water began to form solid masses. Now, these may be, and have\nbeen, analyzed; and the same laws of definite proportion in the\ningredients, which now operate, are found to have controlled their\nformation. The oldest granite and gneiss, which must have been the\nearliest rocks produced, are just as invariable in their composition as\nthe most recent salt formed in the laboratory. And the same is true of the\nsilicates, the carbonates, the sulphates, the oxides, chlorides,\nfluorides, and other compounds which constitute the rocks of different\nages. We never find any produced under the operation of different laws.\n\nNow, the almost invariable opinion among chemists is, that the reason why\nthe elements unite thus definitely is, that they are in different\nelectrical states, and therefore attract one another. Hence the most\nimportant laws of electricity have been coeval with those of chemistry;\nindeed, they are identical; nor can we doubt, if such be the fact, that\nevery other electrical law has remained unchanged from the beginning. And\nfrom the intimate connection, if not complete identity, between\nelectricity and magnetism, it is impossible to doubt that the laws which\nregulate the latter are of equal antiquity with those of the former.\nIndeed, we find evidence in all the rocks, especially those which are\nprismatic and concretionary, of the active influence of galvanism and\nelectro-magnetism in their production.\n\nThe reasoning is equally decisive to prove the unchanging character of the\nlaws which regulate the formation of crystals. The chemist finds that the\nsame substance, when it crystallizes, invariably takes the same\ngeometrical forms. The nucleus or primary form, with a few exceptions, of\nno importance in the present argument, to which all these secondary forms\nmay be reduced by change, is one particular solid, with unvarying angles;\nand all the secondary forms, built upon the primary, correspond in their\nangles. In short, in crystallography we have another example of perfect\npractical mathematics, as perfect as the theory.\n\nNow, the oldest rocks in the globe contain crystals, and so do the rocks\nof all ages, sometimes of the same kind as those produced in the chemist's\nlaboratory. And they are found to correspond precisely. It matters not\nwhether they were the produce of nature's laboratory countless ages ago,\nor of the skill of the nineteenth century,--the same mathematics ruled in\ntheir formation with a precision which infinite wisdom alone could secure.\n\n_In the second place, the laws of meteorology have ever been the same as\nat present._\n\nUnder meteorological laws I include all atmospheric phenomena. And\nalthough we have no direct proof from geology in respect to the more rare\nof these phenomena, such as the aurora borealis and australis, and\ntransient meteors, yet in respect to the existence of clouds, wind, and\nrain, the evidence is quite striking. In several places in Europe, and in\nmany in this country, are found, upon layers of the new red sandstone, the\ndistinct impressions of rain drops, made when the rock was fine mud. They\ncorrespond precisely with the indentations which falling rain-drops now\nmake upon mud, and they show us that the phenomena of clouds and storms\nexisted in that remote period, and that the vapor was condensed as at\npresent. In the fact that the animals entombed in the rocks of various\nages are found to have had organs of respiration, we also infer the\nexistence of an atmosphere analogous to that which we now breathe. The\nrain-drops enable us to proceed one step farther; for often they are\nelongated in one direction, showing that they struck the ground obliquely,\ndoubtless in consequence of wind. In short, the facts stated enable us to\ninfer, with strong probability, that atmospheric phenomena were then\nessentially the same as at present; and analogy leads us to a similar\nconclusion as to all the past periods of the world's history, certainly\nsince animals were placed upon it. What a curious register do these\nrain-drops present us! an engraving on stone of a shower that fell\nthousands and thousands of ages ago! They often become, too, an\nanemoscope, pointing out the direction of the wind, while the petrified\nsurface shows us just how many drops fell, quite as accurately as the most\ndelicate pluviameter. What events in the earth's pre-Adamic history would\nseem less likely to come down to us than the pattering of a shower?\n\n_In the third place, the agents of geological change appear to have been\nalways the same on the earth._\n\nWhoever goes into a careful examination of the rocks will soon become\nsatisfied that no fragment of them all remains in the condition in which\nit was originally created. Whatever was the original form in which matter\nwas produced, there is no longer any example of it to be found. The\nevidence of these changes is as strong almost as that constant changes are\ngoing on in human society. And we find them constantly progressing among\nthe rocks, as well as among men; nor do the agents by which they are\nproduced appear to have been ever different from those now in operation.\nThe two most important are heat and water; and it is doubtful whether\nthere is a single particle of the globe which has not experienced the\nmetamorphic action of the one or the other. Indeed, it is nearly certain\nthat every portion of the globe has been melted, if not volatilized. All\nthe unstratified rocks have certainly been fused, and probably all the\nstratified rocks originated from the unstratified, and have been modified\nby water and heat. In many of these rocks, especially the oldest, we\nperceive evidence of the joint action of both these agents. Evidently they\nwere once aqueous deposits; but they appear to have been subsequently\nsubjected to powerful heat. As we ascend on the scale of the stratified\nrocks, the marks of fire diminish, and those of water multiply, so that\nthe latest are mere mechanical or chemical depositions from water.\n\nIn these facts, then, we see proof that heat and water have been the chief\nagents of geological change since the first formation of a solid crust on\nthe globe; for some of the rocks now accessible, as already stated, date\ntheir origin at that early period. We might also trace back the agency of\nheat much farther, if the hypothesis adopted by not a few eminent\ngeologists be true, which supposes the earth to have been once in a\ngaseous state from intense heat. But to press this point will add very\nlittle to my argument, even could I sustain it by plausible reasoning. I\nwill only say, that, so far as we know any thing of the state of the earth\nprevious to the consolidation of its crust, heat appears to have been the\nchief agent concerned in its geological changes.\n\nAmong other agencies of less importance, that have always operated\ngeologically, is gravity. Its chief effect, at present is to bring the\nearth's surface nearer and nearer to a level, by causing the materials,\nwhich other agencies have loosened from its salient parts, to subside into\nits cavities and valleys. It also condenses many substances from a gaseous\nto a liquid or solid state, especially those deep in the earth's crust,\nand thus brings the particles more within the reach of cohesive\nattraction and chemical affinity, often changing the constitution, and\nalways the solidity, of bodies. And in the position of the ancient\nmechanical rocks, occupying as they do the former basins of the surface,\nand in the superior consolidation of the earlier strata, we find proof of\nthe action of gravity in all past geological time.\n\nElectricity too, in the form of galvanism, has never been idle. We have\nreason to think that it operates at this moment in accumulating metallic\nores in veins; and this segregation appears to have operated in all ages,\nnot only in filling veins, but also, probably, in giving a laminated\ncharacter and jointed structure to mountains of slate, as well as a\nconcretionary and prismatic form to others.\n\nLast, though not least, we may reckon among the agents of geological\nchange the forces of cohesion and affinity. When water and heat, gravity\nand galvanism, have brought the atoms of bodies into a proper state, these\nagents are always ready to change their form and constitution; and they\nhave ever been at hand to operate by the same laws, and we witness their\neffects in the oldest as well as the newest rocks found in the earth's\ncrust. This point, however, has been sufficiently considered, when\ntreating of the unvarying uniformity of the laws of chemistry and\ncrystallography.\n\nBut though the nature of the agencies above considered has never changed,\nthe intensity or amount of their action has varied; how much is a point\nnot yet settled among geologists. Some regard that intensity, as it has\nexisted during the present or alluvial period, as a standard for all\npreceding periods; that is, the intensity of these forces has never varied\nmore during any period of the earth's history than it has since the\nalluvial period commenced. Most geologists, however, regard this as an\nextreme opinion, and think they see evidence in geology of a far greater\nintensity in these agencies in past periods than exists at present. They\nthink they have proof that the world was once only a molten mass of\nmatter, and some evidence that previously it was in a state of vapor. They\nbelieve that vast mountains, and even continents, have sometimes been\nthrown up from the ocean's bed by a single mighty paroxysmal effort; and\nsuch effects they know to be far greater than the causes of change now in\noperation can produce, without a vast increase of their intensity. But\nthis question need neither be discussed nor decided for the sake of my\npresent argument, since my object is to prove an identity in the nature\nand laws, not in the intensity, of geological agencies.\n\n_In the fourth place, the laws of zoology and botany have always been the\nsame on the globe._\n\nAn examination of the animals now living, amounting to some hundred\nthousand species, perhaps to one or two millions, shows that they may be\narranged in four great classes. The first class embraces the vertebral\nanimals, distinguished by having a vertebral column, or back-bone, a\nregular skeleton, and a regular nervous system. It comprehends all the\nquadrupeds and bipeds, with man at their head, and is much superior to all\nother classes in complexity of organization and strength of the mental\npowers. The second class embraces the mollusks, or animals inhabiting\nshells. They are destitute of a spinal marrow, and for the most part their\nmuscles are attached to the external covering, called the shell, although\nthis shell is sometimes internal. The third class are called articulated\nanimals, having envelopes connected by annulated plates, or rings. It\nincludes such animals as the lobster, bloodsucker, spider, and insects\ngenerally. The fourth class have a radiated structure, and often resemble\nplants, or their habitation is a stony structure. Hence they are sometimes\ncalled zoophytes, which means _animal plants_; or lithophytes, which means\n_stony plants_. They swarm in the ocean, and some of them build up those\nextensive stony structures called coral reefs.\n\nNow, if we examine the descriptions of the organic remains in the rocks,\nwe find that in all ages of the world these four great classes of animals\nhave existed. But in the earliest times, the three last classes--the\nmollusks, the articulated, and the radiated tribes--vastly preponderated,\nwhile the vertebral class had only a few representatives; and it is not\ntill we rise as high as the new red sandstone, that we meet with any,\nexcept fishes, save a few batrachians in the old red sandstone, and the\ncarboniferous group, detected alone by their tracks. Then the reptiles\nbegan to appear in abundance, with tortoises and enormous birds of a low\norganization, but no mammiferous animal is found, until we reach the\noolite; and scarcely any till we rise to the tertiary strata, when they\nbecame abundant; but not so numerous as at present, though for the most\npart of larger size. Thus we find that the more perfect animals have been\ndeveloped gradually, becoming more and more complex as we rise on the\nscale of the rocks. But in the three other classes, there does not appear\nto have been much advance upon the original types, although in numbers and\nvariety there has been a great increase.\n\nThe plants now growing upon the globe, amounting probably to nearly one\nhundred thousand species, are divided into two great classes, by a very\ndecided character. Some of them have distinct flowers, and others are\ndestitute of them. The former are called phenogamian, or flowering plants;\nand the latter cryptogamian, or flowerless plants.\n\nAt present, the flowering plants very much predominate in the flora of\nevery country. But in the earliest periods of organic existence, the\nreverse was the case. We find, indeed but very few flowering plants, and\nthese of a character somewhat intermediate between flowering and\nflowerless; such as the coniferae and cycadeae, including the pine tribe. A\nfew palms appeared almost as early, and some other monocotyledons. But\nmost of the dicotyledons did not appear till the tertiary period, where\nmore than two hundred species have been found. Of the three hundred\nspecies found in and beneath the carboniferous group, two thirds are tree\nferns, or gigantic equisetaceae. More than one third of the entire flora of\nthe secondary formation consists of cycadeae; whereas, this family of\nplants forms not more than the two thousandth part of the existing flora.\nIn short, we find the more perfect plants as well as animals to be few in\nthe earliest periods, and to have been gradually introduced up to the\npresent time. But as to the flowerless plants, most of them seem to have\nbeen as perfect at first as they now are.\n\nThese facts teach us conclusively that the outlines of organic life on the\nglobe have always been the same; that the great classes of animals and\nplants have always had their representatives, and that the variations\nwhich have been introduced, have been merely adaptations to the varying\ncondition of the earth's surface. The higher and more complex natures,\nboth of animals and plants, were not introduced at first, because the\nsurface was not adapted to their existence; and they were brought in only\nas circumstances, favorable to their development, prepared the way.\n\nThere is another fact of great interest on this subject. Even a cursory\nexamination of the animals and plants now on the globe, shows such a\ngradation of their characters that they form a sort of chain, extending\nfrom the most to the least perfect species. But we see at once that the\nlinks of this chain are of very unequal length; or, rather, that there are\nin some instances wide intervals between the nearest species, as if one or\nmore links had dropped out. How remarkable that some of these lost links\nshould be found among the fossil species! I will refer to a few examples.\n\nAmong existing animals no genera or tribes are more widely separated than\nthose with thick skins, denominated pachydermata; such as the rhinoceros\nand the elephant. But among the fossil animals of the tertiary strata,\nthis tribe of animals was much more common; and many of them fill up the\nblanks in the existing families, and thus render more perfect and uniform\nthe great chain of being which binds together into one great system the\npresent and past periods of organic life.\n\nA similar case occurs among fossil plants. In tropical climates we find a\nfew species--not much over twenty--of a singular family of plants, the\ncycadeae connecting the great families of coniferae, or dicotyledons, with\nthe palms, which are monocotyledonous, and the ferns, which are\nacotyledonous. The chasm, however, between those great and dissimilar\nclasses of plants is but imperfectly filled by the few living species of\ncycadeae. But of the fossil species hitherto found above the coal\nformation, almost one half are cycadeae; so that here, too, the lost links\nof the chain are supplied.\n\n\"Facts like these,\" says Dr. Buckland, \"are inestimably precious to the\nnatural theologian, for they identify, as it were, the Artificer, by\ndetails of manipulation throughout his works. They appeal to the\nphysiologist, in language more commanding than human eloquence; the voice\nof very stocks and stones, that have been buried for countless ages in the\ndeep recesses of the earth, proclaiming the universal agency of one\nall-directing, all-sustaining Creator, in whose will and power these\nharmonious systems originated, and by whose universal providence they are,\nand have at all times been, maintained.\"--_Bridgewater Treatise_, vol. i.\np. 502.\n\nOne other fact, showing the identity of former zoological laws with those\nwhich now prevail, must not be omitted. I refer to the existence on the\nglobe in all past periods of organic life of the two great classes of\ncarnivorous and herbivorous animals; and they have always existed, too, in\nabout the same proportion. To the harmony and happiness of the present\nsystem, we know that the existence and proper relative number of these\ndifferent classes are indispensable. For in order that the greatest\npossible number of animals that live on vegetable food should exist, they\nmust possess the power of rapid multiplication, so that there should be\nborn a much larger number than is necessary to people the earth. But if\nthere existed no carnivorous races to keep in check this redundancy of\npopulation, the world would soon become so filled with the herbivorous\nraces that famine would be the consequence, and thus a much greater amount\nof suffering result than the sudden death inflicted by carnivorous races\nnow produces. To preserve, then, a proper balance between the different\nspecies is, doubtless, the object of the creation of the carnivorous. This\nsystem has been aptly denominated \"the police of nature.\" And we find it\nto have always existed. The earliest vertebral animals--the sauroid fishes\nand sharks--were of this description. The sharks have always lived, but\nthe sauroid fishes became less numerous when other marine saurians were\ncreated; and when they both nearly disappeared, during the tertiary\nperiod, other predaceous families were introduced, more like those now in\nexistence.\n\nThe history of the mollusks, or animals inhabiting shells, furnishes us\nwith an example still more striking. These animals, as they now exist, are\ndivisible into the two great classes of carnivorous and herbivorous\nspecies, being distinguished by their anatomical structure; and so has it\never been. In the fossiliferous rocks below the tertiary, we find immense\nnumbers of nautili, ammonites, and other kindred genera of polythalamous\nshells, called cephalopods, which were all carnivorous. And when they\nnearly disappeared with the cretaceous period, there was created another\nrace with carnivorous propensities and organs, called trachelipods; and\nthose continue still to swarm in the ocean. Had they not appeared when the\ncephalopods passed away, the herbivorous tribes would have multiplied to\nsuch an extent as ultimately to destroy marine vegetation, and bring on\nfamine among themselves.\n\nThese examples are sufficient to prove the existence of the carnivorous\nand herbivorous races in all ages and in about the same relative numbers.\nAnd it certainly furnishes most decisive evidence of the oneness of all\nthese systems of organic life on the globe.\n\n_In the fifth place, the laws of anatomy have always been the same since\norganic structures began to exist._\n\nIt had long been known that the organs of animals were beautifully adapted\nto perform the functions for which they were intended. But it was not till\nthe investigations of Baron Cuvier, within the last half century, that it\nwas known how mathematically exact is the relation between the different\nparts of the animal frame, nor how precise are the laws of variation in\nthe different species, by which they are fitted to different elements,\nclimates, and food. It is now well known, that each animal structure\ncontains a perfect system of correlation, and yet the whole forms a\nharmonious part of the entire animal system on the globe. But the\nlanguage of Cuvier himself will best elucidate this subject, so far as it\nis capable of popular explanation.\n\n\"Every organized individual,\" says he, \"forms an entire system of its own;\nall the parts of which mutually correspond, and concur to produce a\ncertain definite purpose, by reciprocal reaction, or by combining towards\nthe same end. Hence none of these separate parts can change their forms\nwithout a corresponding change in the other parts of the same animal, and\nconsequently each of these parts, taken separately, indicates all the\nother parts to which it has belonged. Thus, if the viscera of any animal\nare so organized as only to be fitted for the digestion of recent flesh,\nit is also requisite that the jaws should be so constructed as to fit them\nfor devouring prey; the claws must be constructed for seizing and tearing\nit to pieces; the teeth for cutting and dividing its flesh; the entire\nsystem of the limbs, or organs of motion, for pursuing and overtaking it;\nand the organs of sense, for discovering it at a distance. Nature, also,\nmust have endowed the brain of the animal with instinct sufficient for\nconcealing itself, and for laying plans to catch its necessary victims.\n\n\"In order that the jaw may be well adapted for laying hold of objects, it\nis necessary that its condyle should have a certain form; that the\nresistance, the moving power, and the fulcrum, should have a certain\nrelative position with respect to each other, and that the temporal\nmuscles should be of a certain size; the hollow, or depression, too, in\nwhich these muscles are lodged, must have a certain depth; and the\nzygomatic arch, under which they pass, must not only have a certain degree\nof convexity, but it must be sufficiently strong to support the action of\nthe masseter.\n\n\"To enable the animal to carry of its prey when seized, a corresponding\nforce is requisite in the muscles which elevate the head; and this\nnecessarily gives rise to a determinate form of the vertebrae, to which\nthese muscles are attached, and of the occiput into which they are\ninserted.\n\n\"In order that the teeth of a carnivorous animal may be able to cut the\nflesh, they require to be sharp, more or less so in proportion to the\ngreater or less quantity of flesh which they have to cut. It is requisite\nthat their roots should be solid and strong, in proportion to the greater\nquantity and size of the bones which they have to break to pieces. The\nwhole of these circumstances must necessarily influence the development\nand form of all the parts which contribute to move the jaws.\n\n\"To enable the claws of a carnivorous animal to seize its prey, a\nconsiderable degree of mobility is necessary in their paws and toes, and a\nconsiderable strength in the claws themselves. From these circumstances,\nthere necessarily result certain determinate forms in all the bones of\ntheir paws, and in the distribution of the muscles and tendons by which\nthey are moved. The fore arm must possess a certain facility of moving in\nvarious directions, and consequently requires certain determinate forms in\nthe bones of which it is composed. As the bones of the fore arm are\narticulated with the arm bone, or humerus, no change can take place in the\nform or structure of the former, without occasioning correspondent changes\nin the form of the latter. The shoulder-blade, also, or scapula, requires\na correspondent degree of strength in all animals destined for catching\nprey, by which it likewise must necessarily have an appropriate form. The\nplay and action of all these parts require certain proportions in the\nmuscles which set them in motion, and the impressions formed by these\nmuscles must still farther determine the form of all these bones.\n\n\"After these observations it will easily be seen that similar conclusions\nmay be drawn with respect to the hinder limbs of carnivorous animals,\nwhich require particular conformations to fit them for rapidity of motion\nin general; and that similar considerations must influence the forms and\nconnections of the vertebrae and other bones constituting the trunk of the\nbody, and to fit them for flexibility and readiness of motion in all\ndirections. The bones, also, of the nose, of the orbit, and of the ears,\nrequire certain forms and structures to fit them for giving perfection to\nthe senses of smell, sight, and hearing, so necessary to animals of prey.\nIn short, the shape and structure of the teeth regulate the forms of the\ncondyle, of the shoulder-blade, and the claws, in the same manner as the\nequation of a curve regulates all its other properties; and as, in regard\nto a particular curve, all its properties may be ascertained by assuming\neach separate property as the foundation of a particular equation, in the\nsame manner a claw, a shoulder-blade, a condyle, a leg, an arm bone, or\nany other bone, separately considered, enables us to discover the\ndescription of teeth to which they have belonged; and so, also,\nreciprocally, we may determine the form of the other bones from the teeth.\nThus commencing our investigations by a careful survey of any one bone by\nitself, a person who is sufficiently master of the laws of organic\nstructure may, as it were, reconstruct the whole animal to which that bone\nhad belonged.\"\n\nAfter applying the same principle to animals with hoofs, Cuvier comes to a\nconclusion even more surprising. \"Hence,\" says he, \"any one who observes\nmerely the print of a cloven hoof, may conclude that it has been left by a\nruminant animal, and regard the conclusion as equally certain with any\nother in physics or in morals. Consequently this single footmark clearly\nindicates to the observer the forms of the teeth, of all the leg bones,\nthighs, shoulders, and of the trunk of the body of the animal which left\nthe mark. It is much surer than all the marks of Zadig.\n\n\"By thus employing the method of observation, where theory is no longer\nable to direct our views, we procure astonishing, results. The smallest\nfragment of bone, even the most apparently insignificant apophysis,\npossesses a fixed and determinate character relative to the class, order,\ngenus, and species of the animal to which it belonged; insomuch that when\nwe find merely the extremity of a well-preserved bone, we are able, by a\ncareful examination, assisted by analogy and exact comparison, to\ndetermine the species to which it once belonged, as certainly as if we had\nthe entire animal before us. Before venturing to put entire confidence in\nthis method of investigation, in regard to fossil bones, I have very\nfrequently tried it with portions of bones belonging to well-known\nanimals, and always with such complete success, that I now entertain no\ndoubts with regard to the results which it affords.\"\n\nThe remarkable correlation between the parts of existing animals having\nbeen thus proved by the most rigid and satisfactory tests, we shall\ninquire with interest for the result, when Cuvier applied the same\nprinciples to the fossil animals. If the laws of anatomical structure were\nthe same when these extinct races lived as they now are, these principles\nwill apply equally well to the bones found in the rocks; and though often\nonly scattered fragments are brought to light, the anatomist will be able\nto reconstruct the whole animal, and present him to our view. Cuvier was\nthe first who solved this problem. The quarries around Paris had furnished\na vast number of bones of strange animals, and these were thrown\npromiscuously into the collections of that city. Well prepared by previous\nstudy, this distinguished anatomist went among them with the inquiry, _Can\nthese bones live?_ The spirit of scientific prophecy was upon him, and, as\nhe uttered his inspirations, _there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and\nthe bones came together, bone to his bone. And the sinews and the flesh\ncame upon them, and the skin covered them._ \"I found myself,\" says he, \"as\nif placed in a charnel-house, surrounded by mutilated fragments of many\nhundred skeletons of more than twenty kinds of animals, piled confusedly\naround me. The task assigned me was to restore them all to their original\nposition. At the voice of comparative anatomy, every bone and fragment of\na bone resumed its place. I cannot find words to express the pleasure I\nexperienced in seeing, as I discovered one character, how all the\nconsequences which I predicted from it were successively confirmed; the\nfeet were found in accordance with the characters announced by the teeth;\nthe teeth in harmony with those indicated beforehand by the feet; the\nbones of the legs and thighs, and every connecting portion of the\nextremities, were found set together precisely as I had arranged them,\nbefore my conjectures were verified by the discovery of the parts entire;\nin short, each species was, as it were, reconstructed from a single one of\nits component elements.\"\n\nIt is hardly necessary to say that, since this first successful\nexperiment, the same principles have been more thoroughly investigated and\nextended with the same success into every department of fossil organic\nnature. The results which have crowned the labors of such men as Agassiz,\nEhrenberg, Kaup, Goldfuss, Bronn, Blainville, Brongniart, Deshayes, and\nD'Orbigny, on the continent of Europe, and of Conybeare, Buckland,\nMantell, Lindley, and Hutton, and eminently of Owen, in Great Britain,\nalthough sustained by the most rigid principles of science, are\nnevertheless but little short of miraculous; and they demonstrate most\nclearly the identity of anatomical laws, in all ages, among animals and\nplants of every size and character, from the lofty lepidodendra and\nsigillaria to the humblest moss or sea-weed, and from the gigantic\ndinotherium, mastodon, megatherium, and iguanodon, to the infinitesimal\ninfusoria.\n\n_In the sixth place, physiological laws have always been the same upon the\nglobe._\n\nThat death has reigned in all past ages over all animated tribes, as it\nnow reigns, so that in that war there has never been a discharge, I need\nnot attempt formally to prove. For the preserved and petrified relics of\nall the former races, that now lie entombed in the rocks, furnish a silent\nbut impressive demonstration of the former triumph of that great\nphysiological law, which is stamped by the signet of Jehovah upon all\nexisting organic natures--_Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou\nreturn._\n\nScarcely more necessary is it to attempt to show that the same system of\nreproduction for filling the chasms which death occasions, and which is\nnow universal in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, has always existed.\nIndeed, such a system is a necessary counterpart to a system of\ndissolution. And we find the same phases to this reproductive system in\nancient and in modern periods. Organic remains clearly teach us that there\nhave always been viviparous as well as oviparous creatures, and\ngemmiparous as well as fissiparous animals and plants. The second great\nphysiological law of existing nature has, then, always been the same.\n\nThe character of the nourishment by which animals and plants have been\nsustained has never varied. The latter have ever been nourished by\ninorganic, and the former by organic, matter. Some animals have ever fed\nupon the flesh of other animals, as their petrified remains, enclosing the\nmasticated and half-digested fragments of other animals, testify. Other\ntribes have fed only upon herbs or fruits; and some were omnivorous; just,\nin fact, as we find the habits of existing animals.\n\nNo less certain are we that the processes of digestion and assimilation\nhave ever been unchanged. We find the same organs for these purposes as in\nexisting animals, viz., the mouth, the stomach, the intestines, and the\nblood-vessels, as the coprolites and the cololites abundantly testify. We\ninfer, therefore, with great confidence, the existence of gastric juice\nand bile for completing the transformation of the food into blood. Indeed,\nthe discovery by a lady (Miss Mary Anning, of England) of that singular\nsecretion from which the color called _India ink_ is prepared, with the\nink-bag of the sepia, or loligo, in a petrified state, shows that the\nprocess of secretion existed in these ancient animals; and when we find\nthat in all respects their structure was like that of existing animals,\nalthough some of the softer vessels have not been preserved, we cannot\ndoubt but the entire process of digestion, and the conversion of blood\ninto bone, nerve, and muscle, was precisely the same as it now is.\n\nIn the fact, also, that we find in fossil specimens organs of respiration,\nsuch as lungs, gills, and trachea, we learn that the process of a\ncirculation of blood, and its purification by means of the oxygen of the\natmosphere, have never varied. Animal heat, too, dependent as it is\nessentially upon this oxygenating process, was always derived from the\nsame source as at present.\n\nThe perfectly preserved minute vessels of vegetables enable us, by means\nof the microscope, to identify them with the plants now alive; and they\nprove, too, incontestably, that the nourishment of vegetables has always\nbeen of the same kind, and has been converted into the various proximate\nprinciples of plants by the same processes.\n\nAgain. We have evidence that these ancient animals possessed the same\nsenses as their congeneric races now on the globe. We have one good\nexample in which that most delicate organ, the eye, is most perfectly\npreserved. It is well known that the visual organ of insects and of\ncrustaceans is composed of a multitude--often several hundreds or\nthousands--of eyes, united into one, so as to serve the purpose of a\nmultiplying glass; each eye producing a separate image of the object\nobserved. Such an eye had the trilobite. Each contained at least four\nhundred nearly spherical lenses on the surface of the cornea, united into\none organ; revealing to us the interesting fact, that the relations of\nlight to animal organization were the same in that remote era as they now\nare.\n\nBut I need not multiply proof of the functional identity of organic nature\nin all ages. It may, however, be inquired, how this identity, as well as\nthat of anatomical structure, is reconciled with the great anomalies, both\nin size and form, which have confessedly prevailed among ancient animals.\nCompare the plants and animals which now occupy the northern parts of the\nglobe with those which flourished there in the remote periods of\ngeological history, and can we believe them to be portions of one great\nsystem of organic nature?\n\nCompare, for instance, the thirty or forty species of ferns now growing to\nthe height of a few inches, or one or two feet, in Europe and this\ncountry, with the more than two hundred species already dug out of the\ncoal mines, many of which were forty to forty-five feet in height; or the\ndiminutive ground pines, and equiseta, now scarcely noticed in our\nforests, with the gigantic lepidodendron, sigillaria, calamites, and\nequiseta, of the carboniferous period; and who will not be struck with the\ngreat difference between them?\n\nOr go to Germany, and imagine the bones of the dinotherium to start out of\nthe soil, and become clothed with flesh and instinct with life. You have\nbefore you a quadruped eighteen feet in length, and of proportional\nheight, much larger than the elephant, and with curved tusks reaching two\nor three feet below its lower jaw, while no other living animal would be\nfound there larger than the ox, or the horse--mere pygmies by the side of\nsuch a monster, and evidently unfit to be his contemporaries.\n\nAgain. Let the megatherium be brought back to life on the pampas of South\nAmerica, and you have an animal twelve feet long and eight feet high, with\nproportions perfectly colossal. Its fore feet were a yard long, its thigh\nbone three times thicker than that of the elephant, its width across the\nhaunches five feet, its spinal marrow a foot in diameter, and its tail,\nwhere it was inserted into the body, two feet in diameter. What a giant in\ncomparison with the sloth, the anteater, and the armadillo, to which it\nwas allied by anatomical structure!\n\nStill more unequal in size, as compared with living batrachians, was the\nlabyrinthidon, once common in England and Germany, if, indeed, the tracks\non sandstone were made by that animal. It was, in fact, a frog as large as\nan ox, and perhaps as large as an elephant. Think of such animals swarming\nin our morasses at the present day!\n\nBut coming back from Europe, and turning our thoughts to the animals that\ntrod along the shores of the estuary that once washed the base of Mount\nHolyoke, in New England, we shall encounter an animal, probably of the\nbatrachian family, of more gigantic proportions. It was the _Otozoum\nMoodii_, a biped, with feet twenty inches long, more than twice the size\nof those of the labyrinthidon; yet its tracks on the imperishable\nsandstone show that such a giant once trod upon the muddy shore of that\nancient estuary.\n\nAlong that same shore, also, enormous struthious birds moved in flocks,\nmaking strides from three to five feet long, with feet eighteen inches\nlong, lifting their heads, it may be, from twelve to eighteen feet above\nthe ground, surpassing, as it appears, even the gigantic dinornis of New\nZealand, now that the feet of the latter have been discovered. I refer to\nthe _Brontozoum giganteum_, whose tracks are so common on the new red\nsandstone of the Connecticut valley. What dwarfs are we in comparison, who\nnow consider ourselves lords of that valley!\n\nStill more remarkable for peculiarities of structure was the tribe of\nsaurians, which were once so numerous in the northern parts of Europe and\nAmerica. The ichthyosaurus, a carnivorous marine reptile, sometimes thirty\nfeet long, had the snout of a porpoise, the teeth of a crocodile, the head\nof a lizard, the vertebrae of a fish, the sternum of an ornithorhynchus,\nand the paddles of a whale. Those paddles, corresponding to the fins of a\nfish, or the web feet of water birds, were composed, each of them, of more\nthan one hundred bones. In short, we find in this animal a combination of\nmechanical contrivances, which are now found among three distinct classes\nof the animal kingdom. Its eye, also, having an orbital cavity, in one\nspecies, of fourteen inches in its longest diameter, was proportionally\nlarger than that of any living animal.\n\nThe plesiosaurus had the general structure of the ichthyosaurus; but its\nneck was nearly as long as its whole body--longer, in proportion to its\nsize, than even that of the swan.\n\nThe iguanodon was an herbivorous terrestrial reptile that formerly\ninhabited England. It approaches nearest in structure to the iguana, a\nreptile four or five feet long, inhabiting the marine parts of this\ncontinent. Yet the iguanodon was thirty feet long, with a thigh six feet,\nand a body fourteen feet in circumference. What an alarm would it now\nproduce, to have such a monster start into life in the forests of England,\nwhere no analogous animal could be found more than half a foot in length!\nSurely this must have been one of the fabulous monsters of antiquity.\n\nStill more heteroclitic and unlike existing nature was the pterodactyle, a\nsmall lizard, contemporary with the ichthyosaurus and plesiosaurus. At one\ntime anatomists regarded it as a bird, at another as a bat, and finally as\na reptile, having the head and neck of a bird, the body and tail of a\nquadruped, the wings of a bat, and the teeth of a saurian reptile. With\nits wings it could fly or swim; it could walk on two feet or four; with\nits claws it could climb or creep. \"Thus,\" says Dr. Buckland, \"like\nMilton's fiend, all qualified for all services, and all elements, the\npterodactyle was a fit companion for the kindred reptiles that swarmed in\nthe seas, or crawled on the shores of a turbulent planet.\"\n\n                                        \"The fiend,\n  O'er bog, or steep, through straight, rough, dense, or rare,\n  With head, hands, wings, or feet pursues his way,\n  And swims, or sinks, or wades, or creeps, or flies.\"\n\nNow, when the details of such facts are brought before us, it is very\nnatural to feel that it is the history of monsters, and that the\nCentaurs, the Gorgons, and Chimeras of the ancients, are no more unlike\nexisting animals than these resurrections from the rocks. But further\nexamination rectifies our mistake, and we recognize them as parts of one\ngreat system. All the peculiarities of size, and structure, and form,\nwhich we meet, we find to be only wise and benevolent adaptations to the\ndifferent circumstances in which animals have been placed. The gigantic\nsize of many of them, compared with existing races, may be explained by\nthe tropical, or even ultra tropical character of the climate; and not a\nsingle anomaly of structure and form can be pointed out, which did not\ncontribute to the convenience and happiness of the species, in the\ncircumstances in which they were placed. It is our ignorance and narrow\nviews alone that give any of them the aspect of monsters. Listen to the\nopinion of Sir Charles Bell, one of the ablest of modern anatomists. \"The\nanimals of the antediluvian world,\" says he, \"were not monsters; there is\nno _lusus_, or extravagance. Hideous as they appear to us, and like the\nphantoms of a dream, they were adapted to the condition of the earth when\nthey existed.\" \"Judging by these indications of the habits of the animals,\nwe acquire a knowledge of the condition of the earth during their period\nof existence; that it was suited at one time to the scaly tribe of the\nlacertae, with languid motion; at another, to animals of higher\norganization, with more varied and lively habits; and, finally, we learn\nthat, at any period previous to man's creation, the surface of the earth\nwould have been unsuitable to him.\"--_Bridgewater Treatise_, pp. 35 and\n31.\n\nA similar view is given of this subject by England's geological poet,\n(Rev. Mr. Wilks,) in whose playful verses we find more of true science and\njust inference than in many a ponderous tome of grave prose. In one of\nhis poems he says,--\n\n                                \"Seamy coal,\n  Limestone, or oolite, and other sections,\n  Give us strange tidings of our old connections;\n  Our arborescent ferns, of climate torrid,\n  With unknown shapes of names and natures horrid;\n  Strange ichthyosaurus, or iguanodon,\n  With many more I cannot verse upon,--\n  Lost species and lost genera; some whose bias\n  Is chalk, marl, sandstone, gravel, or blue lias;\n  Birds, beasts, fish, insects, reptiles; fresh, marine,\n  Perfect as yesterday among us seen\n  In rock or cave; 'tis passing strange to me\n  How such incongruous mixture e'er could be.\n  And yet no medley was it: each its station\n  Once occupied in wise and meet location.\n  God is a God of order, though to scan\n  His works may pose the feeble powers of man.\"\n\nThe facts and reasonings which have now been presented will sustain the\nfollowing important inferences:--\n\n_In the first place, we learn that the notions which have so widely\nprevailed, in ancient and modern times, respecting a chaos, are without\nfoundation._\n\nAmong all heathen nations of antiquity, the belief in a primeval chaos was\nalmost universal; and from the heathen philosophers it was transmitted to\nthe Christian world, and incorporated with the Mosaic cosmogony. It is\nnot, indeed, easy to ascertain what is the precise idea which has been\nattached to a chaos. It is generally described, however, as \"a confused\nassemblage of elements,\" \"an unformed and undigested mass of heterogeneous\nmatter;\" not, of course, subject to those laws which now govern it, and\nwhich have arranged it all in beautiful order, even if we leave out of\nthe account vegetable and animal organization. Now, I have attempted to\nshow that there never was a period on the globe when these laws, with the\nexception of the organic, did not operate as they now do. Nay, the\ngeologist, when he examines the oldest rocks, finds the results of these\nlaws at the supposed period when chaos reigned; that is, in the earliest\ntimes of our planet. And what are these results? The most splendid\ncrystallizations which nature furnishes. The emerald, the topaz, the\nsapphire, and other kindred gems, were elaborated during the supposed\nchaotic state of the globe; for no earlier products have yet been\ndiscovered than these most perfect illustrations of crystallographical,\nchemical, and electrical laws. If, indeed, any should say, that by a chaos\nthey mean only that state of the world when no animals or plants\nexisted,--in other words, when no organic laws had been established,--to\nsuch a chaos I have no objection. And this is the chaos described in the\nBible, where it is said that, before the creation of animals and plants,\nthe earth was _without form and void_. The _tohu vau bohu_ of Moses, which\nis thus translated in our English Bible, means, simply and literally,\n_invisible and unfurnished_--_invisible_, both because the ocean covered\nthe present land, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and\n_unfurnished_, because as yet no organic natures had been called into\nexistence. This is the meaning which the old Jewish writers, as Philo and\nJosephus, attached to these words; and they have been followed by some of\nthe ablest modern commentators. \"It is wonderful,\" says Rosenmuller the\nelder, \"that so many interpreters could have persuaded themselves that it\nwas possible to detect a chaos in the words [Hebrew]. That notion\nunquestionably derived its origin from the fictions of the Greek and Latin\npoets, which were transferred by those interpreters to Moses. If we\nfollow the practice of the language, the Hebrew phrase has this\nsignification: _The earth was waste and desert_, or, as others prefer,\n_empty and vacuous_; that is, _uncultured and unfurnished_ with those\nthings with which the Creator afterwards adorned it.\"--_Antiquiss. Tell.\nHist._ p. 19-23.\n\nUpon the whole, there is no evidence whatever, either in nature or\nrevelation, that the earth has ever been in a state corresponding to the\ncommon notions of a chaos; while, on the other hand, there is strong proof\nthat the present laws of nature have been in operation from the beginning.\nThese laws have varied in the intensity of their action, and we have\nstrong reason to believe that organic laws did not always exist; but none\nof these laws have ever been suspended, to leave the elements to mix in\nwild disorder in a formless mass. It is high time that religion was freed\nfrom the indescribable incubus of a chaos.\n\n_Finally, the most important conclusion to which the mind is conducted by\nthis subject is, that the present and past conditions of this world are\nonly parts of one and the same great system of infinite wisdom and\nbenevolence._\n\nWe have seen that the same wise and benevolent laws, organic and\ninorganic, have always controlled, as they now control, this lower world.\nIt is true we find modified conditions of the globe in its past history;\nbut they were always the foreseen result of the same laws, and in harmony\nwith the same great plan. And the modifications of organic structure,\nwhich were great in the successive economies, were always in perfect\ncorrespondence with the earth's physical changes. Nowhere do we meet with\nconflicting plans; but throughout all nature, from the earliest zoophyte\nand sea-weed of the silurian rocks to the young animals and plants that\ncame into existence to-day, and from the choice gems that were produced\nwhen the earth was without form and void, to the crystals which are now\nforming in the chemist's laboratory, one golden chain of harmony links all\ntogether, and identifies all as the work of the same infinite mind.\n\n\"In all the numerous examples of design which we have selected from the\nvarious animal and vegetable remains that occur in a fossil state,\" says\nDr. Buckland, \"there is such a never-failing identity in the fundamental\nprinciples of their construction, and such uniform adoption of analogous\nmeans to produce various ends, with so much only of departure from one\ncommon type of mechanism as was requisite to adapt each instrument to its\nown especial function, and to fit each species to its peculiar place and\noffice in the scale of created beings, that we can scarcely fail to\nacknowledge in all these facts a demonstration of the unity of the\nintelligence in which such transcendent harmony originated; and we may\nalmost dare to assert that neither atheism nor polytheism would ever have\nfound acceptance in the world, had the evidences of high intelligence and\nunity of design which have been disclosed by modern discoveries in\nphysical science been fully known to the authors or the abetters of\nsystems to which they are so diametrically opposed. It is the same\nhandwriting that we read, the same system and contrivance that we trace,\nthe same unity of object and relation to final causes which we see\nmaintained throughout, and constantly proclaiming the unity of the great\ndivine original.\"--_Bridgewater Treatise_, p. 584.\n\n\"The earth, from her deep foundations, unites with the celestial orbs,\nthat roll throughout boundless space, to declare the glory and show forth\nthe praise of their common Author and Preserver; and the voice of natural\nreligion accords harmoniously with the testimonies of revelation, in\nascribing the origin of the universe to the will of one eternal and\ndominant intelligence, the almighty Lord and supreme First Cause of all\nthings that subsist; _the same yesterday, to-day, and forever, before the\nmountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made,\nGod from everlasting and without end_.\"--_Bridgewater Treatise_, p. 596.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IX.\n\nTHE HYPOTHESIS OF CREATION BY LAW.\n\n\nIn all ages of the world, where men have been enlightened enough to reason\nupon the causes of phenomena, a mysterious and a mighty power has been\nimputed to the laws of nature. A large portion of the most enlightened men\nhave felt as if those laws not only explain, but possess an inherent\npotency to continue, the ordinary operations of nature. Most men of this\ndescription, however, have thought that to originate nature must have\ndemanded the special exercise of an infinite and all-wise Being. But a\nfew, in every age, have endeavored to exalt law into a Creator, as well as\nController, of the world. The hypothesis has assumed a great variety of\nforms, and until recently few have attempted to draw it out in all its\ndetails, and apply it to all nature. Among the ancient philosophers it was\nbased on the eternity of matter, and made the foundation of a system of\nrank atheism. Starting with the position, as an axiom, that nothing\nproduces nothing,--in other words, that creation out of nothing is\nimpossible,--Democritus maintained that all existence was the result of\ntwo necessary and self-existent principles, viz., space, infinite in\nextent, and atoms, infinite in number. The latter have been eternally in\nmotion, in directions varying from right lines; and their necessary\ncollisions have produced the various forms of organic and inorganic\nnature. To produce animals and plants, it was only necessary that the\natoms should be suitably arranged. The only animating principle was the\nrapid agitation of atoms.\n\nIn modern times, very few philosophers have ventured to solve the whole\nproblem of the universe by any self-acting, self-producing power in\nnature. La Place limited himself to the mode in which the great bodies of\nthe universe were produced by the vertical movements of nebulous matter;\nalthough his object, equally with that of Democritus and Epicurus, was to\ndispense with an intelligent, personal Deity. Lamarck, Geoffrey St.\nHilaire, and Bory St. Vincent, assuming the existence of matter and its\nlaws, have endeavored to show, by the inherent vitality of some parts of\nmatter, how the first or lowest classes of animals and plants may have\nbeen produced; and how, from these, by the theory of development and the\nforce of circumstances, all the higher families, with their instincts and\nintellects, may have been evolved. A still more recent, but anonymous,\nwriter has had the boldness to unite these nebular hypotheses, with those\nof spontaneous generation and transmutation, into a single system, and to\nattempt to clothe it with the garb of philosophy; nay, to do this in\nconsistency, not only with Theism, but with a belief in revelation. This\ntheory is what I denominate the _hypothesis of creation by law_. And\njudging from its wide reception, we should be led to infer that it had\nstrong probabilities in its favor. It should, therefore, at least receive\na careful and candid examination. For though many of its statements and\nconclusions are absurd, and some of them are highly ridiculous, the\nhypothesis, at least in some of its parts, falls in with certain loose\nnotions that have got possession of the public mind, and which nothing but\ncogent reasoning can eradicate.\n\nBefore entering upon such an examination, however, it seems necessary to\ngo somewhat more into detail in illustration of the nature of this\nhypothesis. It may conveniently be described under the heads of\n_cosmogony_, which attempts to account for the origin of the world;\n_zoogony_, which explains the origin of animals; and _zoonomy_, which\ndescribes the laws of animal life.[17]\n\nThe cosmogony of this theory is embraced in what is denominated the\nnebular hypothesis, propounded by the eminent mathematician La Place. He\nsupposes that, originally, the whole solar system constituted only one\nvast mass of nebulous matter, being expanded into the thinnest vapor and\ngas by heat, and more than filling the space at present occupied by the\nplanets. This vapor, he still further supposes, had a revolution from west\nto east on an axis. As the heat diminished by radiation, the nebulous\nmatter must condense, and consequently the velocity of rotation must\nincrease, and an exterior zone of vapor might be detached; since the\ncentral attraction might not be able to overcome the increased centrifugal\nforce. This ring of vapor might sometimes retain its original form, as in\nthe case of Saturn's ring; but the tendency would be, in general, to\ndivide into several masses, which, by coalescing again, would form a\nsingle mass, having a revolution about the sun, and on its axis. This\nwould constitute a planet in a state of vapor; and by the detachment of\nsuccessive rings might all the planets be produced. As they went on\ncontracting, by the same law, satellites might be formed to each; and the\nultimate result would be solid planets and satellites, revolving around\nthe sun in nearly the same plane, and in the same direction, and also on\ntheir axes.\n\nAlthough this hypothesis has been regarded with favor by many\nphilosophers, who were Theists, and even Christians, yet the object of La\nPlace in proposing it was to sustain atheism. Sir Isaac Newton had\nexpressed the conviction that \"the admirable arrangement of the solar\nsystem cannot but be the work of an intelligent and most powerful Being.\"\nLa Place declared that, in this statement, Newton \"had deviated from the\nmethod of true philosophy,\" and brought forward these views to sustain his\ndeclaration. Whether they do sustain it, will be considered in another\nplace. But since it is one of those modes in which men have attempted to\naccount for the universe without a Deity, it is a proper subject of\nexamination in this lecture, in which we are inquiring whether law alone\nwill account for the creation and sustentation of the universe.\n\nThe zoogony of this hypothesis undertakes to show how animals and plants\nmay be produced without any special exercise of creating power on the part\nof the Deity. It supposes matter to be endowed with certain laws, whose\noperation alone will determine life in brute matter, or, rather, whose\noperation constitutes life. Some would have it that a part of matter is\nessentially vital; that is, endowed with inherent life; and that this\nmatter, like leaven, communicates life to dead matter arranged in a\ncertain order. But the more modern view is, that life is produced by\nelectrical agency. It is found that the fundamental form of organic beings\nis a globule, having another globule forming within it. It is also found\nthat globules may be produced in albumen by electricity; and if we could\ndiscover how nature produces albumen, it is thought that the whole process\nby which living organisms are produced would be distinctly before us. It\nseems to be simply the operation of electricity, and requires no\nintervention of special creating energy. If the question arises, Whence\ncame such marvellous laws to exist in nature? the atheist replies that\nmatter and its laws are eternal, having neither beginning nor end; while\nthe Theist, who maintains this hypothesis, asserts that, when God created\nmatter, he endowed it with such laws, having an inherent, self-executing\npower.\n\nHaving thus ascertained, as it supposes, how life and organization in the\nsimplest forms may be produced, the next inquiry is, how the more perfect\nand complicated forms of organic beings may be developed by laws, without\ndivine power. This constitutes the zoonomy of the subject. The French\nzoologist, Lamarck, first drew out and formally defended this hypothesis,\naided by others, as Geoffroy St. Hilaire and Bory St. Vincent. Their\nsupposition was, that there is a power in nature, which they sometimes\ndenominated the Deity, yet did not allow it to be intelligent and\nindependent, but a mere blind, instrumental force. This power, they\nsupposed, was able to produce what they called _monads_, or rough draughts\nof animals and plants. These monads were the simplest of all organic\nbeings, mere aggregations of matter, some of them supposed to be\ninherently vital. And such monads are the only things ever produced\ndirectly by this blind deity. But in these monads there was supposed to\nreside an inherent tendency to progressive improvement. The wants of this\nliving mass of jelly were supposed to produce such effects as would\ngradually form new organs, as the hands, the feet, and the mouth. These\nchanges would be aided by another principle, which they called the _force\nof external circumstances_, by which they meant the influence upon its\ndevelopment of its peculiar condition; as, for instance, a conatus for\nflying, produced by the internal principle, would form wings in birds; a\nconatus for swimming in water would form the fins and tails of fishes; and\na conatus for walking would form the feet and legs of quadrupeds. Thus the\norgans were not formed to meet the wants, but by the wants, of the animal\nand plant. Of course, new wants would produce new organs; and thus have\nanimals been growing more and more complicated and perfect from the\nearliest periods of geological history. Man began his course as a monad,\nbut, by the force of Lamarck's two principles, has reached the most\nelevated rank on the scale of animals. His last condition before his\npresent was that of the monkey tribe, especially that of the orang-outang.\nThe advocates of this hypothesis generally, however, suppose that there\nare from three to fifteen species of men, and that the different races are\nnot mere varieties of one species. The most perfect species, the\nCaucasian, after leaving the monkey state, has gradually risen through the\ninferior species, and is still making progress; so that we cannot tell\nwhere they will stop. In general, the advocates of this hypothesis are\nmaterialists; that is, they do not suppose that there is a soul in man,\ndistinct from the body, but that thought is one of the functions of the\nbrain. They usually also regard moral qualities as mainly dependent upon\norganization, agreeably to the opinions of ultra phrenologists; and hence\nthat they are more to be pitied than blamed for their deviations from\nrectitude.\n\nSuch is the hypothesis. Let us now, in the first place, assume it to be\nproved, and see what inferences follow.\n\n_I remark, first, that the occurrence of events according to law does not\nremove the necessity of a divine contriving, superintending, and\nsustaining Power._\n\nThat every event in the universe takes place according to fixed laws I am\nready to admit. For what is a natural law? Nothing more nor less than the\nuniform mode in which divine power acts. In the case of miracles, it may\nbe that the ordinary laws of nature are suspended or counteracted; at\nleast, they are increased or diminished in their power. Yet from what we\nknow of the divine perfections, we must conclude that God has certain\nfixed rules by which he is regulated in the performance of miracles; and,\nof course, in the same circumstances we should expect the same miracles.\nSo that we may reasonably admit that even miracles are regulated and\ncontrolled by law, like common events; though, from the infrequency of the\nformer, men cannot understand the laws that regulate them.\n\nNow, if the advocates of this hypothesis mean simply that every event is\nregulated by law,--in other words, that with like antecedents like\nconsequents will be connected,--I have no controversy with them; and such\nis the precise statement of a modern anonymous popular writer on the\nsubject.\n\nHe declares that his \"purpose is, to show that the whole revelation of the\nworks of God presented to our senses and reason is a system based on what\nwe are compelled, for want of a better term, to call _law_; by which,\nhowever, is not meant a system independent or exclusive of the Deity, but\none which only proposes _a certain mode of his working_.\"--_Sequel to the\nVestiges of Nat. Hist. of Creation_, p. 2.--But this is by no means all\nthat is meant by this hypothesis. Nay, the grand object of the writer\nabove quoted is, to show that there is no such thing as miraculous\ninterference in the creation or preservation of the universe. He admits\nonly the ordinary laws of nature, but denies all special and extraordinary\nlaws; and says that it does not \"appear necessary that God should exercise\nan immediately superintending power over the mundane economy.\"--_Vestiges_,\np. 273.--Nay, he denies that the original creation of the universe and of\nanimals and plants required any thing but the operation of natural laws;\nof such laws as we see and understand. The thought does not seem to have\noccurred to him, that special and miraculous acts of the Deity may be as\ntruly governed by law as the motions of planets. Every thing of that sort\nhe seems to regard as a violation of law,--a stepping aside from fixed\nprinciples,--a sort of afterthought with Jehovah,--a remedy for some\ndefect in his original plans. True, the law of miracles and of special\nprovidence is very different from the common course of nature; and,\ntherefore, the one may for a time supersede the others. But this does not\nprove that the former is not regulated by laws; nor that it did not enter\ninto the original plan of the universe in the divine mind. It must have\nbeen a part of that plan; every thing was a part of it, and there can be\nwith him no afterthought, no improvement, no alteration of his eternal\ndesigns.\n\nAdmitting that every event, miraculous as well as common, is under law, it\nby no means renders a present directing and energizing Deity unnecessary.\nThis hypothesis admits that organic life had a beginning, for its grand\nobject is to show how it began by law alone. Now, who gave to matter, in a\ngaseous state, such wonderful laws that this fair world should be the\nresult of their operation? If it would require infinite wisdom as well as\npower to create the present universe at once out of nothing, would it\ndemand less of contrivance and skill to impart such powers to brute\nmatter? It was not merely a power to produce organic natures, to form\ntheir complicated organs, to give life, and instinct, and intellect; but\nto adapt each particle, each organ, each animal, and each plant, most\nexactly and most wonderfully to its place in the vast system, so that\nevery single thing should most beautifully harmonize with every other\nthing.\n\nAgain. What is a natural law without the presence and energizing power of\nthe lawgiver? How easily are men bewildered by words! and none has led\nmore astray than this word _law_. We talk about its power to produce\ncertain effects; but who can point out any inherent power of this sort\nwhich it possesses? Who can show how a law operates but through the\nenergizing influence of the lawgiver? How unphilosophical then to separate\na law of nature from the Deity, and to imagine him to have withdrawn from\nhis works! For to do this would be to annihilate the law. He must be\npresent every moment, and direct every movement of the universe, just as\nreally as the mind of man must be in the body to produce its movements.\nTake away God from the universe, or let him cease to act mentally upon it,\nand every movement would as instantly and certainly cease, as would every\nmovement of the human frame, were the mind to be withdrawn, or cease to\nwill. We realize the necessity of the divine presence and energy to\nproduce a miracle. But if miracles are performed according to law, as much\nas common events,--and we surely cannot prove they are not,--why is a\npresent Deity any more necessary in the one case than in the other? The\nBible considers common and miraculous events exactly alike in this\nrespect. And true philosophy teaches the same.\n\nI see not, then, why this law hypothesis does not require an infinite\nDeity, just as much as the ordinary belief, which supposes that God\noriginally created the universe by his fiat, and sustains it constantly by\nhis power, and from time to time interferes with the regular sequence of\ncause and effect by miracles. The only difference seems to be this: While\nthe common view represents God as always watching over his works, and\nready, whenever necessary, to make special interpositions, the law\nhypothesis introduces him only at the very dawn of the universe, exerting\nhis infinite wisdom and power to devise and endow matter with exquisite\nlaws, capable, by their inherent self-executing power, of originating all\norganic natures, and producing the infinite variety of nature, and keeping\nin play her countless and unceasing agencies. It was only necessary that\nhe should impress attenuated matter with these laws, and then put the\nmachine in motion, and it would go on forever, without any need of God's\npresence or agency; so that he might henceforward give himself up to\nundisturbed repose.\n\nI know, indeed, that La Place, and some other advocates of this latter\nhypothesis, do not admit any necessity for a Deity even to originate\nmatter or its laws; and to prove this was the object of the nebular\nhypothesis. But how evident that in this he signally failed! For even\nthough he could show how nebulous matter, placed in a certain position,\nand having a revolution, might be separated into sun and planets, by\nmerely mechanical laws, yet where, save in an infinite Deity, lie the\npower and the wisdom to originate that matter, and to bring it into such a\ncondition, that, by blind laws alone, it would produce such a universe--so\nharmonious, so varied, so nicely adjusted in its parts and relations as\nthe one we inhabit? Especially, how does this hypothesis show in what\nmanner these worlds could be peopled by countless myriads of organic\nnatures, most exquisitely contrived, and fitted to their condition? The\natheist may say that matter is eternal. But if so, what but an infinite\nmind could in time begin the work of organic creation? If the matter\nexisted for eternal ages without being brought into order, and into\norganic structures, why did it not continue in the same state forever?\nDoes the atheist say, All is the result of laws inherent in matter? But\nhow could those laws remain dormant through all past eternity,--that is,\nthrough a period literally infinite,--and then at length be aroused into\nintense action? Besides, to impute the present wise arrangements and\norganic creations of the world to law, is to endow that law with all the\nattributes with which the Theist invests the Deity. Nothing short of\nintelligence, and wisdom, and benevolence, and power, infinitely above\nwhat man possesses, will account for the present world. If there is, then,\na power inherent in matter adequate to the production of such effects,\nthat power must be the same as the Deity; and, therefore, it is truly the\nDeity, by whatever name we call it. In short, the fact that La Place did\nnot see that his hypothesis utterly failed to account for the universe\nwithout a Deity, strikingly shows us, that a man may be a giant in\nmathematics, while he is only a pygmy in moral reasoning; or, to make the\nstatement more general, how a man, by an exclusive cultivation of one\nfaculty of the soul, may shrivel all the rest into a nutshell.\n\nFrom these views and reasonings, it is clear, I think, that the hypothesis\nof creation by law does not necessarily destroy the theory of religion.\nFor if we admit that every thing in the world of matter and of mind, not\nexcepting miracles and special providences, is regulated, if not produced,\nby law, it does not take away the necessity of a contriving, sustaining,\nand energizing Deity. Even though we admit that God has communicated to\nnature's laws, at the beginning, a power to execute themselves, (though\nthe supposition is quite unphilosophical,) no event is any the less God's\nwork, than if all were miraculous.\n\nIn consistency with this conclusion, we find that while some advocates of\nthis hypothesis evidently intended it to sustain atheism, its most\nplausible advocate, as we have seen, fully admits, not only the divine\nexistence, but the reality of revelation. It may, indeed, be doubted\nwhether this anonymous writer has not virtually taken away the Deity, and\neven moral accountability, by his materialism and his ultra-phrenology;\nyet we do not see but he may assert his law system without denying God's\nexistence or attributes.\n\nIt must be admitted, however, that the influence of this hypothesis upon\npractical religion is disastrous. It does, apparently, so remove the Deity\nfrom all concern in the affairs of the world, and so foists law into his\nplace, that practically there is no God. If his agency is acknowledged, as\nhaving put the vast machine in motion, in some indefinitely remote period\nof past duration, yet the feeling is, that since then he has given up the\nreins into the hands of law, so that man has nothing to do with him, but\nonly with nature's laws; that he has only to submit to these, and not\nexpect any interposition for his relief, however earnestly he cry for it.\nNow, it is obviously the intention and desire of the advocates of this\nhypothesis thus to remove God away from his works, and from their\nthoughts; else why should they so strenuously resist the notion of\nmiracles? For these may just as properly be referred to law as common\nevents. Yet it is one of the most striking features of the hypothesis,\nthat it opposes strongly the idea of any special oversight and\ninterposition on the part of the Deity. True, when we look at the subject\nphilosophically, we must acknowledge that an event is just as really the\nwork of God, when brought about by laws which he ordains and energizes, as\nby miraculous interposition. Still the practical influence of these two\nviews of Providence is quite different.\n\nWhoever the author of the Vestiges may be, he has evidently lived in a\nreligious community, and felt the influence of a religious atmosphere; for\nhe tries to conform his system as much as possible to the principles of\nProtestant Christianity. In other words, he feels so much the power of\npractical piety around him, that he does not suffer the influence of the\nsystem which he advocates to exhibit itself fully, nor to drive him into\nthose extravagances of belief which naturally result from it. In order to\nsee what is its natural tendency, we need to go to such a country as\nGermany, or Switzerland, where there is little to restrain the wildest\nvagaries of belief. In the works of Professor Lorenz Oken, of Zurich, we\nsee fully developed the tendencies and results of this hypothesis of\ndevelopment by law, combined with the unintelligible idealism of Kant,\nFichte, Schelling, &c. In his Physio-philosophy, translated by the Ray\nSociety for the edification of sober, matter-of-fact Anglo-Saxons, we find\na man, of strong mind and extensive knowledge, taking the most ridiculous\npositions with the stoutest dogmatism, and the most imperturbable gravity,\nyet whose blasphemy is equalled only by their absurdity. Let a few\nquotations illustrate and confirm this statement.\n\n\"The highest mathematical idea, or the fundamental principle of all\nmathematics, is the zero == 0.\n\n\"Zero is in itself nothing. Mathematics is based upon nothing, and\nconsequently arises out of nothing.\n\n\"Real and ideal are no more different from each other than ice and water:\nboth of these, as is well known, are essentially one and the same, and yet\nare different, the diversity consisting in the form. Every real is\nabsolutely nothing else than a number.\n\n\"The Eternal is the nothing of nature.\n\n\"There is no other science than that which treats of nothing.\n\n\"There exists nothing but nothing--nothing but the Eternal.\n\n\"Every thing in the world is endowed with life; the world itself is alive,\nand continues only, maintains itself by virtue of its life.\n\n\"Man is God wholly manifested. God has become man, zero has become + --.\nMan is the whole of arithmetic, compacted, however, out of all numbers; he\ncan, therefore, produce numbers out of himself.\n\n\"Animals are men who never imagine. They are beings who never attain to\nconsciousness concerning themselves. They are single accounts; man is the\nwhole of mathematics.\n\n\"Arithmetic is the truly absolute or divine science. Theology is\narithmetic personified.\n\n\"For God to become real, he must appear under the form of the sphere.\nThere is no other form for God. God manifesting is an infinite sphere.\n\n\"God is a rotating globe; the world is God rotating.\n\n\"The whole universe is material, is nothing but matter; for it is the\nprimary act repeating itself eternally in the centre. The universe is a\nrotating globe of matter.\n\n\"There is no dead matter; it is alive through its being, through the\nEternal that is in it. Matter has no existence in itself, but it is the\nEternal only that exists in it. Every thing is God that is there, and\nwithout God there is absolutely nothing.\n\n\"Every thing that is is material. Now, however, there is nothing that is\nnot; consequently there is every where nothing immaterial.\n\n\"Fire is the totality of ether, is God manifested in his totality.\n\n\"Every thing that is has originated out of fire; every thing is only\ncooled, rigidified fire.\n\n\"God being in himself is gravity; acting, self-emergent light; both\ntogether, or returning into himself, heat.\n\n\"God only is monocentral. The world is the bicentral God, God the\nmonocentral world, which is the same with the monas and dyas.\nSelf-consciousness is a living ellipse.\n\n\"God is a threefold trinity; at first the eternal, then the ethereal, and\nfinally the terrestrial, where it is completely divided.\n\n\"The symbolical doctrine of the colors is correct according to the\nphilosophy of nature. Red is fire, love--Father. Blue is air, truth, and\nbelief--Son. Green is water, formation, hope--Ghost. These are the three\ncardinal virtues. Yellow is earth, the immovable, inexorable falsity, the\nonly vice--Satan. There are three virtues, but only one vice. A result\nobtained by physio-philosophy, whereof pneumato-philosophy as yet augurs\nnothing.\n\n\"The primary mucus, out of which every thing organic has been created, is\nthe sea mucus.\n\n\"The whole sea is alive. It is a fluctuating, ever self-elevating, and\never self-depressing organism.\n\n\"If the organic fundamental substance consist of infusoria, so must the\nwhole organic world originate from infusoria. Plants and animals can be\nonly metamorphoses of infusoria. No organism has consequently been created\nof larger size than an infusorial point; whatever is larger has not been\ncreated, but developed.\n\n\"The mind, just as the body, must be developed out of these animals,\n(infusoria.) The human body has been formed by an extreme separation of\nthe neuro-protoplasmic or mucous mass; so must the human mind be a\nseparation, a memberment of infusorial sensation. The highest mind is an\nanatomized or dismembered mesmerism, each member whereof has been\nconstituted independent in itself.\n\n\"The liver is the soul in a state of sleep, the brain is the soul active\nand awakening.\n\n\"Circumspection and forethought appear to be the thoughts of the bivalve\nmollusca, and snails.\n\n\"Gazing upon a snail, one believes that he finds the prophesying goddess\nsitting upon the tripod. What majesty is in a creeping snail, what\nreflection, what earnestness, what timidity, and yet at the same time what\nfirm confidence! Surely a snail is an exalted symbol of mind slumbering\ndeeply within itself.\"\n\nIt is difficult for an Anglo-Saxon mind to believe that a man who could\nwrite thus was not out of his senses. Yet Oken is an eminent physiologist,\nand has made, it is said, important discoveries in respect to the cranial\nhomologies, which have been developed in Professor Owen's work on the\nHomologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton. Nay, Oken declares himself to have\nwritten his Physio-philosophy \"in a kind of inspiration\"--from what world\nthe religious man might be in doubt.\n\nThese extravagant notions show what is the natural tendency of the law\nhypothesis. Yet it does not necessarily convert a man into an atheist. And\nif any of its advocates declare themselves Theists, and even Christians,\nwe need not regard them as hypocrites, though we may consider them as in\nan eminently dangerous position; and that, when they shall act\nconsistently, they will swing off into utter irreligion. But my arguments\nagainst the hypothesis will be based on the position that _it is not\nsustained by facts_; and this is the second position of my lecture.\n\nThe nebular hypothesis is a part of the foundation on which the doctrine\nof creation by law rests. And the high scientific reputation of its\nauthor, as well as its apparent coincidence with some of the deductions of\ngeology respecting the earliest condition of the earth, have made\nphilosophers look upon it with considerable favor. Yet very few have been\nready to give it implicit credence. And of late the most plausible\nevidence in its favor seems to be fast vanishing away. The ablest\nmechanicians are unable to see how a rotary motion should be produced in\nnebulous matter by refrigeration; or, if this be assumed, how the\nsuccessive portions, detached by superior centrifugal force, should form\nspherical masses. But a still more formidable objection lies in the fact\nthat, as improvements are made in telescopes, one and another of the\nnebulae, on which the hypothesis rests, have been resolved into stars; and\nthe presumption hence arising is very strong that all are resolvable. In\nthe present aspect of the subject, no sagacious philosopher would dare to\nrest even an hypothesis upon the unresolved nebulae. If, however, the\nnebular hypothesis were shown to be true, it would prove nothing in regard\nto the production of animals and plants by mere law, without the special\nagency of the Deity.\n\nThe essential and inherent vitality of some kinds of matter is another\ndoctrine on which this hypothesis rests. \"In vain,\" says Bory St. Vincent,\n\"has matter been considered as eminently brute. Many observations prove\nthat, if it is not all active, by its very nature, a part of it is\nessentially so; and the presence of this, operating according to certain\nlaws, is able to produce life in an agglomeration of the molecules; and\nsince these laws will always be imperfectly known, it will at least be\nrash to maintain that an infinite intelligence did not impose them; since\nthey are manifested by their results.\"--_Dictionnaire Classique\nd'Histoire Naturelle_, art. _Materie_.\n\nThe \"observations\" to which this writer refers to sustain his hypothesis\nare those which had been made upon certain vegetable infusions, which, in\ncertain circumstances, exhibited minute particles in motion, apparently by\nvital forces. These were called _monads_, and were not supposed to be\ndistinct animals, but only atoms, ready to be organized. The more modern\nand accurate researches of Ehrenberg and others, however, have shown,\nbeyond all doubt, that these monads are true animals, the minutest of all\nliving beings hitherto discovered. Not less than twenty-six species of\nthem have been described and figured by microscopists, the smallest of\nwhich never exceeds the twelve thousandth of an inch in diameter.\n\nThe vegetable physiologists have described certain peculiar motions in the\nminute vessels of plants, that might readily be regarded as matter\nessentially vital. I refer to what they call _rotation_ and _cyclosis_.\nBut these are never seen save in the living plant; and, therefore, seem\ndependent on the general life of the vegetable.\n\nThere is, however, danger of mistaking certain motions of the particles of\nmatter, by chemical agency, for the effect of vitality. A curious example\nis thus described by Ehrenberg, which was discovered by Professor\nBornsdorff. \"If a solution of the chloride of aluminum be dropped into a\nsolution of potassa, by the alternate precipitation and solution of the\naluminum, in the excess of the alkali, an appearance will be given to the\ndrop of aluminate matter, by the chemical changes and reactions which take\nplace, as if the _Amoeba diffluens_ were actually present, both as to\nits form and evolutions, and will seem to be alive. Such appearance is\nconsidered by its able discoverer as bearing the same relationship to the\nreal animalcule as a doll, or a figure moved by mechanism, does to a\nliving child.\"\n\nWe see, then, that the supports on which rests the doctrine of the\nessential vitality of matter, give way before better instruments and more\ncareful research. Another statement, however, of much higher pretensions,\nhas lately been made, and on no mean authority. Able electricians declare\nthat, by passing currents of galvanism through solutions of silicate or\nferrocyanate of potassa, or some analogous substance, after a time,\nsometimes several years, numerous small insects have been developed,\nbelonging to the _acari_ family.\n\nThese experiments appear to have been conducted with fairness and skill;\nand that the insects showed themselves at the pole of the battery, around\nwhich the gelatinous silex collected, cannot be doubted. It is true,\nhowever, that, when the solution was exposed to the atmosphere, the\ninsects appeared much sooner and more numerous than when care was taken to\nexclude every thing but oxygen enough to sustain life. This fact leads to\nthe suspicion that the ova of the insect might have been communicated\nthrough the air, and that, even when an attempt was made to exclude the\natmosphere, some ova were still present. This conclusion is rendered still\nmore probable by some experiments made by Professor Schulz, of Berlin, on\nthe production of infusoria. Having first boiled the vegetable and animal\ninfusions, so as to destroy all germs of organic life, and expelled all\nthe atmosphere, he attached an apparatus in such a manner that, whatever\nair entered afterwards, must pass through sulphuric acid, or a solution of\npotash. The result was, that no infusoria or vegetable forms appeared\nduring two months; but in the same infusion, placed in the open air, and\nexposed to the same light and heat as that enclosed in the glass vessel,\nnumerous animalcula and fungi appeared in a day or two. It will need,\ntherefore, very long and patient experiments to establish the assertion\nthat galvanism alone can produce living animals without the presence of\ngerms.\n\nNot many years since, the equivocal or casual production of animalcula,\nwithout any other parentage than law, was thought to be made out by a\nmultitude of facts. For these minute creatures appeared almost every\nwhere, and in places where it seemed impossible that their ova should be\nfound. But the researches of Ehrenberg have cleared up the difficulties of\ntheir origination in the ordinary modes of reproduction, in nearly every\ninstance, and the advocates of the law hypothesis have been fairly driven\nfrom this stronghold of their argument. In describing the various modes of\nreproduction with which nature has provided the infusoria, Professor Owen\nsays, \"Thus each leaves, by the last act of its life, the means of\nperpetuating and diffusing its species by thousands of fertile germs. When\nonce the thickly tenanted pool is dried up, and its bottom converted into\na layer of dust, these inconceivably minute and light ova will be raised\nwith the dust by the first puff of wind, diffused through the atmosphere,\nand may there remain long suspended; forming, perhaps, their share of the\nparticles which we see flickering in the sunbeam, ready to fall into any\ncollection of water, beaten down by every summer shower into the streams\nor pools which receive or may be formed by such showers, and, by virtue of\ntheir tenacity of life, ready to develop themselves whenever they may find\nthe requisite conditions of their existence. The possibility, or, rather,\nthe high probability, that such is the design of the oviparous generation\nof the infusoria, and such the common mode of the diffusion of their ova,\nrenders the hypothesis of equivocal generation, which has been so\nfrequently invoked to explain their origin in new-formed natural or\nartificial infusions, quite gratuitous.\"--_Lectures on Comp. Anat._ vol.\nii. p. 31.\n\nNo longer able to maintain a foothold among the animalcula, the defenders\nof this hypothesis have of late attempted to take a stand among animals of\na somewhat higher grade, viz., the entozoa, or animals inhabiting other\nanimals. These being considerably larger than the infusoria, their ova\ncould not float in the atmosphere; but they possess a wonderful tenacity\nof life; some of them exhibiting signs of life after having been in\nboiling water for an hour; others have revived after having been packed\nfor a long time in ice, and frozen; others have revived after lying in a\ndried state for six or seven years. Their power of reproduction, in the\nordinary modes, is also prodigious, exceeding even that of the infusoria.\nIt will, then, demand very strong evidence to prove that such animals\npossess also the power of spontaneous production, without parentage, or\nthat their existence within other animals cannot be explained without such\na supposition. For, if capable of being produced without parentage, why\nshould such extraordinary care have been taken for their multiplication,\nin almost all the ordinary modes in which animals are reproduced?\n\nThe extraordinary facts that have been discovered by Professors\nSteenstrup, Owen, and others, within a few years, respecting what they\ncall _alternate generation_, or _parthenogenesis_, have been thought\nfavorable to the hypothesis of development. Among the mollusca, the\npolyparia, the entozoa, and infusoria, it is found that, in some species,\nthe result of sexual union is the production of a larva without sex, and,\ntherefore, incapable of propagating in the usual way. Yet that larva can\nof itself produce another larva quite different from itself, and this\nlarva another, and so on, sometimes for eight or ten generations, when the\nspermatic force seems to be exhausted, and a progeny exactly like the\noriginal parents that started the series is produced, capable of giving\nrise to another and a similar series. Here, then, we find a succession of\nprogeny for several generations, and all quite unlike one another, yet\nwithout any immediate parental agency. Why is it not an example of\nspontaneous generation? and why may not new species be produced in this\nmanner?\n\nThere are two facts prominent on this subject which afford a full answer\nto such questions. One is, that these generations of larvae always begin\nwith the spermatozoon and the ovum of parents; the other is, that the\nseries always closes, if allowed to run its natural course, in individuals\nwith sex, exactly identical with those that started it; so that the\nspecies always remains entire. The whole process is simply one of the\ninfinitely varied modes which nature employs to preserve and perfect the\nspecies. The process never stops with any of the larvae intervening between\nthe fertile parents at the beginning, and the fertile individuals at the\nend of the series. Professor Owen supposes--certainly with much\nplausibility--that some of the original germ-cells, not wanted for the\nproduction of the first larva, pass on to form the successive generations,\ntill the series is complete; so that, after all, the case is not an\nexception to the general law of reproduction by parental agency; and\ninstead of sustaining, it certainly goes against, the notion of\nspontaneous generation and of transmutation of species; because it shows\nhow far parental influence may reach, and how tenacious nature is of\nspecific distinctions. For the same reasons, the case affords a\npresumption against other alleged cases of equivocal generation and\nmetamorphoses of species.[18]\n\nAppeal has also been made to the vegetable kingdom for examples of the\nproduction of organic beings, viz., plants without seeds. Who has not\nobserved, for instance, how the clearing up and burning over of a piece of\nland will often cause an entirely new tribe of plants to spring up and\nflourish? Whence came the seeds? We have seen, for instance, (in Richmond,\nVirginia,) a thick growth of pines upon a spot where from six to ten feet\nof soil had been removed a few years previously.\n\nIt is very possible, in some cases of this kind, that the soil, having\nbeen produced by aqueous agencies, may contain seeds to a considerable\ndepth, and that their vitality may have been preserved for centuries; for\nwe know that seeds three thousand years old, taken from Egyptian\ncatacombs, have germinated, in favorable circumstances. In most cases of\nthis sort, however, the winds have probably supplied the seed, it may be,\nlong before. We were one day wandering over Mount Holyoke, where a spot\nrecently cleared was covered with the fire-weed, a species of senecio; and\nas we were musing upon its origin, a strong blast of wind swept over the\nplants, just ready to throw off their seeds. Sustained by their light\negrets, they floated away on the air in numbers sufficient to cover half\nthe mountain with the plant, when it should be cleared and burnt over. Yet\ntheir existence would never be suspected till those circumstances should\nbe developed. At least, until we can prove that the soil contains no\nseeds by the most careful examination, it will be premature to infer the\nequivocal production of the plants growing upon it.\n\nVegetable physiology furnishes another fact, which seems to me to look\nstill more favorable to this law hypothesis than the preceding, although\nit has not been noticed, so far as I know, by the advocates of that\nhypothesis. Speaking of the matter of which certain flowerless plants are\ncomposed, Dr. Lindlay says, \"It is even uncertain whether this matter will\nproduce its like, and whether it is not a mere representation of the vital\nprinciple of vegetation, capable of being called into action, either as a\nfungus, or algae, or lichen, according to the particular conditions of\nheat, light, and moisture, and the medium in which it is placed; producing\nfungi upon dead or putrid organic beings, lichens upon living vegetables,\nearth, or stones, and algae where water is the medium in which it is\ndeveloped.\" Again, in speaking of that green slime which often covers the\nsoil, rocks, walls, and glass in damp places, he says, \"The slime\nresembles a layer of albumen, spread with a brush; it exfoliates in\ndrying, and finally becomes visible by the manner in which it colors green\nor deep brown. One might call it a provisional creation, waiting to be\norganized, and then assuming different forms according to the nature of\nthe corpuscles which penetrate it, or develop among it. It may further be\nsaid to be the origin of two very distinct existences, the one certainly\nanimal, the other purely vegetable.\"--_Natural System_, pp. 326, 328, 334.\n\nNow, admitting all the facts that have been detailed respecting the\nproduction of infusoria, entozoa, acari, and cryptogamian plants to be\ntrue, although most of them are far from being proved, it seems to me that\nthey do not show us how vitality is produced by mere law, without the\nspecial agency of the Deity. Writers on the subject seem to overlook the\ndistinction between organization and life. The first may be present in its\nhighest perfection without the latter, as it is in animals and plants\nrecently killed. The organization is merely a preparation to receive the\nmysterious principles which we call _life_ and _intellect_. Light, heat,\nand electricity may be the essential agents in producing the organization,\nbut they do not explain the nature, or account for the presence, of life.\nThat must, so far as we know, come from some other and a higher source.\nGalvanism may bring gelatinous matter into the form of an insect, or\ninfusoria, or entozoa; but there is no evidence that it can impart life,\nhowever exquisite the organization. It may be, and we have reason to\nsuppose it is, the divine will to bestow life whenever a certain\norganization exists; but this does not show that his special agency is not\nconcerned in it. He may will that the peculiar life of a lichen shall be\ngiven to the same elementary matter which, in another situation, he\nconstitutes an alga, or a fungus, or even an animal. But this would not\nprove that natural law alone could produce life. There is nowhere any\nevidence that sensibility, contractility, and especially intellect and\nvolition, are the result of any natural operations. In their properties\nthey are so entirely diverse from all known physical effects, that we must\nimpute them to some other than a natural cause. We must call in the power\nof a supreme intelligent Being. The laws of affinity, light, heat, and\nelectricity, of endosmose and exosmose, may prepare the organization, but\ntheir power ends there; and hence true philosophy requires us to impute\nthe phenomena of life and intellect to an extraneous and infinitely higher\ncause.\n\nThe case, then, stands thus: In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, we\nare certain that organization requires the previous existence and agency\nof a being similarly organized, which we call the parent. But suppose\nthat, in a very few cases, the laws of nature can produce the\norganization. It still demands another and a higher power--not a blind\nimpulse, but an intelligent cause--to bestow life and intellect. To prove\nthe existence of a natural cause for the arrangement of the atoms into an\norganic structure, does by no means prove the same for those higher and\nmysterious principles that make that structure a living, thinking being.\n\nSuch, however, are the strongest arguments by which the advocates of the\nlaw hypothesis sustain their views of the origin of organism, life, and\nintellect. The next step in their reasoning is to show how animals and\nplants may be transmuted from one species, or genus, or family, to\nanother; so that the existing vast variety can be traced to a few original\ngerms. They maintain that these developments of the more from the less\nperfect have proceeded along certain parallel lines; one series of\ndevelopments, for instance, taking the line of the fishes, another of the\nreptiles, another of the birds, another of quadrupeds, and so on.\n\nTo prove these developments or transmutations, they appeal first to the\nphysiological history of the mammalian embryo. In its earliest stages, it\ncan hardly be distinguished, except in size, from the unborn polygastric\ninfusoria. The brain of a human embryo appears at first like that of an\ninvertebrate animal; next like that of a fish; then successively like that\nof a reptile, a bird, a rodent mammal, a ruminant, and a monkey. So the\nheart, at an early stage, looks like that of an insect; then it has two\nchambers, like that of a fish; then it becomes three chambered, like that\nof a reptile; and finally, four chambered, as in the mammalia. The\ninference which these theorists would draw from such facts is, that man\nactually begins his existence as an animalcule, and passes successively\nthrough the mould or condition of other animals, before he reaches the\nhighest. And the reasons why he does become a man, rather than an\nechinoderm, or a fish, or a monkey, is only some slightly modifying\ncircumstance, as, for instance, a longer gestation. It appears to me,\nhowever, that the inferences sound philosophy should derive from such\nfacts are, first, that, while there is a seeming resemblance between the\nhuman embryo and that of lower animals, there is, in fact, a real and a\nwide diversity; so that the one infallibly becomes an inferior animal, and\nthe other a man. Could a single example be produced in which a human\nembryo stopped at and became an insect, or a fish, or a monkey, there\nmight be some plausibility in the supposition. But it is as certain to\nbecome a man as the sun is to rise and set; and, therefore, the human\ncondition results from laws as fixed as those that regulate the movements\nof the heavenly bodies. That is a very superficial philosophy which infers\nidentity of nature from mere external resemblance.\n\nThe phenomena of hybridity furnish another ground of argument in favor of\nthe transmutation of species, and of course in favor of the law\nhypothesis; for that hybrids are sometimes the result of the union of\ndifferent species will not be denied. There is, however, a natural\nrepugnance to union between different species; and in a state of nature\nthis can very rarely be overcome. But domestication changes and almost\nobliterates many natural instincts, and hence hybridity is far more common\namong domesticated animals and plants. As a general fact, also, the hybrid\noffspring is incapable of propagating its own race, without union with one\nof the original species by which it was produced; and this inability to\ncontinue this mixed race has been generally regarded among naturalists as\nthe best characteristic of species. Some, however, attempt to show that\nsome hybrid races do continue from generation to generation to propagate\ntheir kind. But in most cases the hybrid race ere long runs out, and there\nis always a strong tendency to revert to the original stock; and were it\nnot for the influence of man, probably such a thing as hybridity would\nscarcely ever have been heard of. Nature seems to have established strong\nbarriers around species, so that an identity should be preserved; and even\nif we admit the possibility of their coalescence in some cases, yet we\nhave evidence that almost always they are preserved distinct from century\nto century; and the same is true even of the more prominent varieties, for\nwe find not only the same species, but the same varieties of animals and\nplants, preserved some three thousand years in the Egyptian catacombs,\nthat are now alive in the same country. How idle, then, to suppose that\nthe laws of hybridity will account for such radical and entire\ntransmutations as this hypothesis supposes! To accomplish this, it would\nneed as strong a tendency in nature to a union of species, genera, and\nfamilies, as now exists against it.\n\nBut a special appeal has been made on this subject to geology. The history\nof organic remains, it is thought, corresponds to what we might expect, if\nthe hypothesis of development is true. In the oldest rocks we find chiefly\nthe more simple invertebrate animals, and the vertebrated tribes appear at\nfirst in the form of fish, then of reptiles, then of birds, then of\nmammals, and last of all of man. What better confirmation could we wish\nthan this gradually expanding series? True, all the great classes of\norganic beings, vegetable and animal, are found nearly at the earliest\nepoch, and continue through the entire series of rocks. But we have only\nto suppose a distinct stirps for each of the classes, and that the\ndevelopments took place along parallel lines, in order to harmonize the\nfacts with the hypothesis.\n\nSuch a general view of the subject of organic remains seems to give\nplausibility to the hypothesis of organic development. But the tables are\nturned when we descend to particulars. The idea of a distinct stirps or\ngerm for each great class of animals and plants seems to me to destroy an\nessential feature of the hypothesis. It supposes that law produces at once\na vertebral animal and a flowering plant; for the first, certainly, we\nfind in the very lowest of the fossiliferous rocks. \"The lower silurian,\"\nsays Sir Roderick Murchison, in 1847, \"is no longer to be viewed as an\ninvertebrate period, for the onchus (a genus of fish) has been found in\nthe Llandeilo Flags, and in the lower silurian rocks of Bala.\"\n\nIt is also a most important fact, that this fish of the oldest rock was\nnot, as the development scheme would require, of a low organization, but\nquite high on the scale of fishes. The same is true of all the earliest\nspecies of this class. \"All our most ancient fossil fishes,\" says\nProfessor Sedgwick, \"belong to a high organic type; and the very oldest\nspecies that are well determined fall naturally into an order of fishes\nwhich Owen and Mueller place, not at the bottom, but at the top of the\nwhole class.\"--_Discourse on the Studies of the University_, &c. 5th edit.\np. lxiv. pref.\n\nThis point has been fully and ably discussed by Hugh Miller, Esq., in his\nlate work, \"The Footprints of the Creator, or the Asterolepis of\nStromness.\" The asterolepis was one of these fishes found in the old red\nsandstone, sometimes over twenty feet long; yet, says Mr. Miller, \"instead\nof being, as the development hypothesis would require, a fish low in its\norganization, it seems to have ranged on the level of the highest\nichthyic-reptilian families ever called into existence.\"\n\nAnother point which Mr. Miller has labored hard to establish, and of which\nthere seems to be no reasonable doubt, is, that in many families of\nanimals, not only were the first species that appeared of high\norganization, but there was a gradual degradation among those that were\ncreated afterwards. Of the fishes generally, he says, that \"the progress\nof the race, as a whole, though it still retains not a few of the higher\nforms, has been a progress, not of development from the low to the high,\nbut of degradation from the high to the low.\" Again he says, \"We know, as\ngeologists, that the dynasty of the fish was succeeded by that of the\nreptile; that the dynasty of the reptile was succeeded by that of the\nmammiferous quadruped; and that the dynasty of the mammiferous quadruped\nwas succeeded by that of man, as man now exists--a creature of a mixed\ncharacter, and subject, in all conditions, to wide alternations of\nenjoyment and suffering. We know further,--so far, at least, as we have\nsucceeded in deciphering the record,--that the several dynasties were\nintroduced, not in their lower, but in their higher forms; that, in short,\nin the imposing programme of creation, it was arranged as a general rule,\nthat in each of the great divisions of the procession the magnates should\nwalk first. We recognize yet further the fact of degradation specially\nexemplified in the fish and the reptile.\" \"Among these degraded races,\nthat of the footless serpent, which _goeth upon its belly_, has long been\nnoted by the theologian as a race typical, in its condition and nature, of\nan order of hopelessly degraded beings, borne down to the dust by a\nclinging curse; and curiously enough, when the first comparative\nanatomists in the world give _their_ readiest and most prominent instance\nof degradation among the divisions of the natural world, it is this very\norder of footless reptiles that they select.\"\n\nAmong the invertebrate animals are numerous examples of the deterioration\nof a race. M. Alcide D'Orbigny, one of the most accomplished of living\npaleontologists, in his _Cours Elementaire de Paleontologie et de\nGeologie_, speaks as follows of the cephalopods found in the oldest rocks:\n\"See, then, the result; the cephalopods, the most perfect of the mollusks,\nwhich lived in the early period of the world, show a progress of\ndegradation in their generic forms. We insist on this fact relative to the\ncephalopods, which we shall hereafter compare with the less perfect\nclasses of mollusks, since it must lead to the conclusion that the\nmollusks, as to their classes, have certainly retrograded from the\ncompound to the simple, or from the more to the less perfect.\"\n\nSuch facts as these are absolutely fatal to the hypothesis of development;\nand geology abounds with them. Indeed, through all her archives, we search\nin vain for facts that show any thing like a passage of one species,\ngenus, or family, into another. Certain distinct types characterize the\ndifferent formations up to a certain period, when there is a sudden\nchange; and in the subsequent strata we find animals and plants entirely\ndifferent from those that have disappeared. The new races are, indeed,\noften of a higher grade than those that preceded them, but could not have\nsprung from them.\n\nThe true theory of animal and vegetable existence on our globe appears to\nbe this: Such natures were placed upon the earth as were adapted to its\nvarying condition. When the earliest group was created, such were the\nclimate, the atmosphere, the waters, and the means of subsistence, that\nthe lower tribes were best adapted to the condition of things. That group\noccupied the earth till such changes had occurred as to make it unsuited\nto their natures, and consequently they died out, and new races were\nbrought in; not by mere law, but by divine benevolence, power, and wisdom.\nThese tribes also passed away, when the condition of things was so changed\nas to be uncongenial to their natures, to give place to a third group, and\nthese again to a fourth, and so on to the present races, which, in their\nturn, perhaps, are destined to become extinct. From the first, however,\nthe changes which the earth has undergone, as to temperature, soil, and\nclimate, have been an improvement of its condition; so that each\nsuccessive group of animals and plants could be more and more complicated\nand perfect; and therefore we find an increase and development of\nflowering plants and vertebral animals. And yet, from the beginning, all\nthe great classes seem to have existed, so that the changes have been only\nin the proportion of the more and less perfect at different periods. In\nshort, we have only to suppose that the Creator exactly adapted organic\nnatures to the several geological periods, and we perfectly explain the\nphenomena of organic remains. But the doctrine of development by law\ncorresponds only in a loose and general way to the facts, and cannot be\nreconciled to the details. If that hypothesis cannot get a better foothold\nsomewhere else, it will soon find its way into the limbo of things\nabortive and forgotten.\n\nI have now noticed, I believe, the principal sources of evidence in which\nthe law hypothesis rests; and at the best, we find only a possibility, but\nrarely, if ever, a probability, that such a power exists in nature. I turn\nnow, for a few moments, to the arguments on the other side; that is,\nagainst the hypothesis.\n\n_And first, it cannot explain the wonderful adaptation of animals and\nplants to their condition and to one another._\n\nThere is not a more striking thing in nature than that adaptation; and\ngeology shows us that it has always been so. Now, if any thing requires\nthe exercise of infinite wisdom and power, it is this feature of creation.\nBut according to this hypothesis, the laws of nature may be so arranged as\nto create every animal and plant just at the right time, and place them in\nthe right spot, and adjust every thing around them to their nature and\nwants. In other words, it supposes law capable of doing what only infinite\nwisdom and power can do. What is this but ascribing infinite perfection to\nlaw, and imputing to it effects which only an infinite intelligence could\nbring about? In other words, it is making a Deity of the laws which he\nordains. Theoretically it may be of little importance by what name men\ncall the Deity; but practically to impute natural effects to law, as an\nindependent power, is to put a blind, unintelligent agency in the place of\nJehovah.\n\n_In the second place, where one fact in nature looks favorable to this\nhypothesis, a thousand facts teach the contrary._\n\nTake for example the reproduction of animals. Out of every thousand\nindividuals we have certain evidence that nine hundred and ninety-nine are\nbrought into existence by the ordinary modes of generation; that is, they\ndepend upon progenitors. Still, if in the thousandth case the animal's\nexistence was clearly casual, if we could see an elephant, or an ox, start\ninto life without parental agency, that single case would prove the\nhypothesis. But never do its advocates pretend that any of the larger\nanimals are produced in this way. Nor is it till they get among the\nsmaller and obscure animals, whose habits are very difficult to trace out,\nthat we find any examples where a suspicion even can exist of the\ncommunication of vitality irrespective of parental agency. Is not a strong\npresumption hence produced that further and more scrutinizing observation\nwill show the few excepted cases not to be real exceptions? Does not sound\nphilosophy demand that the proof of the casual production of the\nthousandth case shall be as decided as that of the normal generation of\nthe nine hundred and ninety-nine? But no one, it seems to me, will pretend\nthat any thing like such certainty exists in a single example throughout\nall nature. The presumption, then, is really more than a thousand to one\nagainst the hypothesis.\n\nTake an example from hybridity. While a thousand species retain from age\nto age their individuality, not more than one coalesces with its neighbor,\nand loses its identity. And even here, all admit that there is a constant\ntendency in the hybrid race to revert to the original stock; and there is\nstrong reason to believe that this will sooner or later take place, and\nthat it would speedily occur in every case, were it not for the influence\nof domestication. Such facts make the presumption very strong, that\nspecies are permanent, and any extensive metamorphosis impossible.\nHybridity appears to be in a measure unnatural; and the old proverb true\nin respect to it--\n\n  \"Si furca naturam expellas,\n  Usque recurret.\"\n\nBy the hypothesis under consideration, we ought to expect at least a few\nexamples of the formation of new organs in animals, in the efforts of\nnature to advance towards a more perfect state. It has usually been said\nthat the time since animals were first described is too short for such\ndevelopment. But we have examples, from the catacombs of Egypt, of animals\nand plants that lived in that country three thousand years ago; and yet,\naccording to Cuvier,--and who is a better judge?--they are precisely like\nthe living species. Strange that this great length of time should not have\nproduced even one new organ, or the marks of a conatus to produce one. We\nare, indeed, pointed to the different varieties of the human species, as\nexamples of this progress. But these diversities, also, can be shown to be\nthe same now as at the earliest date of historical records; and where,\nthen, is the evidence that they ever have undergone, or ever will undergo,\nany change of importance? There may indeed be examples of amalgamation,\nbut under favorable circumstances the original varieties are again\ndeveloped.\n\n_In the third place, geology contradicts this hypothesis._\n\nWe have seen that it offers no satisfactory explanation of the gradual\nincrease of the more perfect animals and plants, as we rise higher in the\nrocks. That fact is most perfectly explained by supposing that divine\nwisdom and benevolence adapted the new species, which from time to time\nwere created, to the changing and improving condition of the earth. A\nmultitude of species have been dug from the rocks; but not one exhibits\nevidence of the development of new organs in the manner described by this\nhypothesis. New species often appear, but they differ as decidedly from\nthe previous ones as species now do; and at the beginning of each\nformation there is often a very decided advance in the organic beings from\nthose found in the top of the subjacent formation. How can this hypothesis\nexplain such sudden changes, when its essential principle is, that the\nprogress of the development is uniform? Nothing can explain them surely\nbut special creating interposition.\n\nGeology also shows us that for a vast period the world existed without\ninhabitants. Now, what was it that gave the laws of nature power, after so\nlong an operation unproductive of vitality, to produce organic natures?\nWho can conceive of any inherent force that should thus enable them, all\nat once, to do what true philosophy shows to have demanded infinite\nskill?\n\nIn short, of all the sciences, geology most clearly shows special divine\ninterference to explain its phenomena. It presents us with such stupendous\nchanges, after long periods of repose, such sudden exhibitions of life,\nspringing forth from the bosom of universal death, that nothing but\ndivine, special, miraculous agency can explain the results. And of all the\nvast domains of nature, it seems to me no part is so barren of facts to\nsustain this hypothesis as the rocks; nor so full of facts for its\nrefutation. These, however, have been so fully detailed in a previous part\nof this lecture that they need not be here repeated.\n\n_In the fourth place, the prodigious increase of the power and the means\nof reproduction, which we find among the lower tribes of animals, affords\na strong presumption against this hypothesis._\n\nThe animals highest on the scale, and most perfect in their organization,\nhave only one mode of reproduction, viz., the viviparous. Descending a\nlittle lower, we come to the oviparous and ovoviviparous tribes. Passing\nto the invertebrate animals, we meet with two other modes of reproduction,\nthe gemmiparous and fissiparous. In the first mode, the animal is\npropagated by buds, like some plants, as the tiger lily; by the second\nmode, a spontaneous division of the animal takes place.\n\nNow, in some of the lowest of the invertebrate tribes, we find most of the\nmodes of propagation that have been enumerated in operation; so that the\nsame individual in one set of circumstances is oviparous, in another\ngemmiparous or fissiparous. The consequence is, a power of multiplication\ninconceivably great. Mr. Owen calculates that the _ascaris lumbricoides_,\nthe most common intestinal worm, is capable of producing sixty-four\nmillions of young; and Ehrenberg asserts that the _hydatina senta_, one of\nthe infusoria, increased in twelve days to sixteen millions, and another\nspecies, in four days, to one hundred and seventy billions.\n\nWhy, now, are these astonishing powers of reproduction given to these\nminute animals, if it be true that they can also be produced without\nparentage, and by mere law? This latter mode would supersede the necessity\nof the former; and therefore, the care taken by Providence to provide the\nformer is a strong presumption that the latter does not exist.\n\n_In the fifth place, it is an instructive fact on this subject that, as\ninstruments have been improved, and observations have become more\nsearching, the supposed cases of spontaneous generation have diminished_,\nuntil it is not pretended now that it takes place except in a very few\ntribes, and those the most obscure and difficult to observe of all living\nthings. A hundred years ago, naturalists, and especially other men, might\neasily have been made to believe that many of the smaller insects had a\ncasual origin. But long since, save in the matter of the acari, the\nentomological field has been abandoned by the advocates of the law\nhypothesis, and they have been driven from one tribe after another, till\nat length some of the obscure hiding-places of the entozoa and infusoria\nare now the only spots where the light is not too strong for the\nlarge-pupiled eyes of this hypothesis. Is not the presumption hence\narising very strong that it will need only a little further improvement in\ninstruments and care in observation to carry daylight into these recesses,\nand demonstrate the parentage and normal development of all organic\nbeings?\n\n_Finally. The gross materialism inseparable from this hypothesis is a\nstrong argument against it._\n\nI am not aware that any one, except Oken, perhaps, has ever attempted to\nshow that mind, as a spiritual essence, distinct from matter, has been\ncreated by natural laws; in other words, that there is in nature a power\nto produce mind. All such maintain that intellect is material, or, rather,\nthe result of organization, the mere function of the brain, as are also\nlife and instinct. Generally, also, they contend--and, indeed, consistency\nseems to require it--that the moral powers depend chiefly upon different\ndevelopments of the brain; so that a disposition to do wrong results more\nfrom organization than from punishable mental obliquity; indeed, the worst\nof criminals are often, on this account, more to be pitied than blamed,\nand the physician is of more importance than the moralist and the divine\nfor their reformation.\n\nNow, if this system of materialism is true, we ought to embrace it,\nwithout any fear of ultimate bad effects. But a philosopher will hesitate\nlong before he adopts a system which thus seems to degrade man from his\nlofty standing as a spiritual, accountable, and immortal being, and makes\nhis intellectual and moral powers dependent upon the structure of the\nbrain, and, therefore, destined to perish with the material organization,\nwith no hope of future existence, unless God chooses to recreate the man.\nNay, if there be no distinct spirit in man, what evidence have we that\nthere is one in Jehovah? A true philosopher, I say, will demand very\nstrong evidence before he adopts any hypothesis that leads a logical mind\nto such conclusions; and I see not how the one under consideration can\nterminate in any thing else.\n\nSuch are the reasons that lead me to reject the hypothesis of creation by\nlaw. I have endeavored to treat the subject in a candid and philosophical\nmanner, not charging atheism upon its advocates when they declare\nthemselves Theists and Christians. Neither have I called in the aid of\nridicule, as might easily be done, and as, in fact, has been done by\nalmost every opponent of the system who has written upon it. I have\nendeavored to show that the hypothesis, tried in the balances of sound\nphilosophy, is found wanting; because, in the first place, the facts\nadduced to sustain it are insufficient; and secondly, because, where one\nfact seems to favor it, a thousand testify against it. Is not the\nconclusion a fair one, that the hypothesis has no solid foundation? Is not\nthe evidence against it overwhelming? Yet it has many advocates, and I\nmust think--I hope not uncharitably--that these are the reasons: First,\nbecause men do not like the idea of a personal, present, overruling Deity;\nand secondly, because there is very little profound and thorough knowledge\nof natural history in the community. It is just such an hypothesis as\nchimes in with the taste of that part of the world who have a smattering\nof science, and who do not wish to live without some form of religion, but\nwho still desire to free themselves from the inspection of a holy God, and\nfrom the responsibility which his existence and presence would impose.\nDepend upon it, gentlemen, you will meet these delusions not unfrequently\namong the cultivated classes of society, where they have already done\nimmense mischief. You will, indeed, find all the eminent comparative\nanatomists and physiologists, such as Cuvier and Owen; such chemists as\nLiebig; such zoologists as Agassiz and Edward Forbes; such botanists as\nHooker, Henslow, Lindley, Torrey, and Gray; and such geologists as De la\nBeche, Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, D'Orbigny, Buckland, and Miller,\ndecided in their rejection of these views. But when even educated men\nobtain only a smattering of natural science, they find something very\nfascinating in this hypothesis; and this is just the religion, or,\nrather, the irreligion, that suits the superficial, selfish, and\npleasure-seeking exquisites of fashionable drawing-rooms, theatres, and\nwatering-places. You will find, therefore, the need of thoroughly studying\nthis subject, or you will not be able, as you would wish, to vindicate the\ncause of true science and true religion.\n\nI cannot terminate this discussion without referring to an ingenious\nanalogy, suggested by Hugh Miller, in his \"Footprints of the Creator,\" and\ndrawn from the facts he had stated respecting the degradation of species.\nNo one who has thoroughly studied Bishop Butler's Analogy of Natural and\nRevealed Religion to the Course of Nature will venture to say that Mr.\nMiller's suggestions are mere fancy. As the ideas are entirely original\nwith him, I give them in his own words.\n\nHaving spoken of the several dynasties of animals that have succeeded one\nanother on the globe, in a passage which we have already quoted, he says,\n\"Passing on to the revealed record, we learn that the dynasty of man in\nthe mixed state and character is not the final one; but that there is to\nbe yet another creation, or, more properly, re-creation, known\ntheologically as the resurrection, which shall be connected in its\nphysical components, by bonds of mysterious paternity, with the dynasty\nwhich now reigns, and be bound to it mentally by the chain of identity,\nconscious and actual; but which, in all that constitutes superiority,\nshall be as vastly its superior as the dynasty of responsible man is\nsuperior to even the lowest of the preliminary dynasties. We are further\ntaught that, at the commencement of this last of the dynasties, there will\nbe a re-creation of not only elevated, but also of degraded beings--a\nre-creation of the lost. We are taught yet further that, though the\npresent dynasty be that of a lapsed race, which at their first\nintroduction were placed on higher ground than that on which they now\nstand, and sank by their own act, it was yet part of the original design,\nfrom the beginning of all things, that they should occupy the existing\nplatform; and that redemption is thus no afterthought, rendered necessary\nby the fall, but, on the contrary, part of a general scheme, for which\nprovision had been made from the beginning; so that the divine Man,\nthrough whom the work of restoration has been effected, was in reality, in\nreference to the purposes of the Eternal, what he is designated in the\nremarkable text, _the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world_. Slain\nfrom the foundation of the world! Could the assertors of the stony science\nask for language more express? By piecing the two records together,--that\nrevealed in Scripture and that revealed in the rocks,--records which,\nhowever widely geologists may mistake the one, or commentators\nmisunderstand the other, have emanated from the same great Author,--we\nlearn that in slow and solemn majesty has period succeeded period, each in\nsuccession, ushering in a higher and yet higher scene of existence; that\nfish, reptiles, mammiferous quadrupeds, have reigned in turn; that\nresponsible man, 'made in the image of God,' and with dominion over all\ncreatures, ultimately entered into a world ripened for his reception; but,\nfurther, that this passing scene, in which he forms the prominent figure,\nis not the final one in the long series, but merely the last of the\n_preliminary_ scenes; and that that period to which the by-gone ages,\nincalculable in amount, with all their well-proportioned gradations of\nbeing, form the imposing vestibule, shall have perfection for its occupant\nand eternity for its duration. I know not how it may appear to others, but\nfor my own part I cannot avoid thinking that there would be a lack of\nproportion in the series of being, were the period of perfect and\nglorified humanity abruptly connected, without the introduction of an\nintermediate creation of _responsible_ imperfection with that of the\ndying, irresponsible brute. That scene of things in which God became man,\nand suffered, _seems_, as it no doubt _is_, a necessary link in the\nchain.\"\n\nA single concluding thought forces itself upon my mind. It is this: How\ningenious and persevering men are in deluding themselves on the subject of\nreligion! Since the time of Christ, what countless devices have they\nframed to escape from the lofty truths and spiritual piety of his gospel!\nNor are they satisfied with this; for the gospel has shed so much light\nupon the religion of nature, that even this is more than men like; and,\ntherefore, every science is ransacked for facts to neutralize all\nreligion. Men's consciences do not permit them to throw off all the forms\nof religion; and, therefore, they are satisfied if they can only tear out\nits heart. They like to preserve and to embalm its external covering, as\nthe naturalist does the skin of an animal for his cabinet. And as the\nlatter fills his specimen with straw and arsenic, and fits glass eyes into\nit, so do men fill up their religious specimen with error and vain\nspeculation, and fit into its head the eyes of false philosophy, and then\nclaim for it intellectual worship. It is the business of educated men to\nshow that such caricatures are neither science nor religion. May you,\ngentlemen, have your full share in this most useful and noble work.[19]\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE X.\n\nSPECIAL AND MIRACULOUS PROVIDENCE.\n\n\nNext in importance to the question whether the Deity exists, is the\ninquiry whether he exerts any direct agency in upholding the universe and\nin controlling its events. This point has been discussed in all ages in\nwhich there have been philosophers or theologians, and the current of\nopinion has fallen principally into three channels.\n\nIn the first place, some have removed the Deity entirely from his works\ninto a fancied extra-mundane sphere, where in solitude he might enjoy the\nblessedness of his own infinite nature, without the trouble of directing\nthe events of the universe, or watching over the works of his hand.\nForgetful of the great principle, that the intellectual powers produce\nhappiness only when called into exercise, they have fancied that the care\nof the universe must be a burden to its Creator, and that it would\nderogate from his dignity. It is supposed, therefore, that the world has\nbeen given up to the rule of fate or chance.\n\nIn the second place, a more numerous class have maintained that the\nSupreme Being, after creating the world, committed its preservation and\ngovernment either to a subordinate agent, or to the laws which he\nimpressed upon matter and mind, which possess an inherent power to execute\nthemselves; so that, in fact, God exercises no direct and immediate agency\nin natural operations. The learned and usually profound Cudworth adopted\nthe hypothesis of a _plastic nature_, as he terms it, by which he means a\nvital, spiritual, and unintelligent, yet subordinate agent, by whose\nagency the world is governed and its operations carried on. At first view,\nthis hypothesis would seem to lead inevitably to atheism; but such was not\nthe intention of its author. Still, it is obviously so clumsy, that had it\nnot been the product of a great mind, it never would have received so much\nnotice, or called forth such mighty efforts for its refutation, as have\nbeen bestowed upon it.\n\nTwo varieties of opinion exist among those who believe the world governed\nand sustained by natural laws, established by the Deity. Some maintain\nthat these laws are general, not particular; not extending to minor\nevents, but only the more important; not providing for species, but only\nfor families. Hence they suppose that these general cases may interfere\nwith one another, and produce results apparently repugnant to the\nintention of their Author. Others, shocked at the absurdity of such\nconclusions, believe the laws of nature to extend to every event, and\nnever to interfere with one another, and always to act in accordance with\nthe divine will and appointment, but without any direct agency exerted by\nthe Deity. They suppose these laws--in other words, secondary agencies--to\nhave the power of producing all natural phenomena.\n\nIn the third place, there are others who believe that a law can have no\nefficiency without the presence and agency of the lawgiver. They,\ntherefore, suppose every event in the natural world to be the result of\nthe direct and immediate agency of God. What we call laws are only the\nuniform mode of his operation. They agree with the advocates of the\nlast-named theory in supposing the laws of nature to extend to every\nevent, and to be in accordance with the ordination of the Deity; but they\ndiffer in maintaining that the presence and direct efficiency of a\nlawgiver are essential to the operation of natural laws.\n\nI should then define a Special Providence to be an event brought about\napparently by natural laws, yet, in fact, the result of a special agency,\non the part of the Deity, to meet a particular exigency, either by an\noriginal arrangement of natural laws, or by a modification of second\ncauses, out of sight at the time.\n\nThe doctrine, which supposes the Deity to exercise a superintendence and\ndirection over all the affairs of the universe, in any of the modes that\nhave been mentioned, whether by a subordinate agent, or by laws, general\nor particular, with inherent self-executing power, or by the direct\nefficiency of the divine will, is called the doctrine of divine\nprovidence. If the superintendence extend only to general laws, it is\ncalled a general providence. If those laws reach every possible case, it\nis called a particular or universal providence.\n\nBy a _Miraculous Providence_ is meant a superintendence over the world\nthat interferes, when desirable, with the regular operations of nature,\nand brings about events, either in opposition to natural laws, or by\ngiving them a less or greater power than usual. In either of these cases,\nthe events cannot be explained by natural laws; they are above, or\ncontrary to, nature, and, therefore, are called miracles, or prodigies.\n\nThere may be, and, as I believe, there is, another class of occurrences,\nintermediate between miracles and events strictly natural. These take\nplace in perfect accordance with the natural laws within human view, and\nappear to us to be perfectly accounted for by those laws; and yet, in some\nway or other, we learn that they required some special exercise of divine\npower, out of human view, for their production. Thus, according to the\nviews of most Christian denominations, conversion takes place in the human\nheart in perfect accordance with the laws of mind, and could be\nphilosophically explained by them; yet revelation assures that it _is not\nof blood,_ [natural descent,] _nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the\nwill of man, but of God_. Divine power, therefore, is essential to the\nchange, although we see only the operation of natural causes. So a storm\nmay appear to us to be perfectly accounted for by natural laws; and yet\ndivine efficiency might have produced a change in some of those laws out\nof our sight, and thus meet a particular exigency. Such events I call\n_special providence_; and I maintain that we cannot tell how frequently\nthey may occur.\n\nIt is chiefly the bearings of science, especially of geology, upon the\ndoctrine of miraculous and special providence, which I wish to consider.\nBut it may form a useful introduction, to state the evidence, which goes\nto show that the agency of the Deity, in the ordinary operations of\nnature, is a direct efficiency; or, in other words, that the laws of\nnature are only the modes in which divine agency operates.\n\nIn the first place, if we suppose ever so many secondary causes to be\nconcerned in natural events, the efficiency must, after all, be referred\nto God.\n\nWhat is a secondary cause? or, in other words, what is a law of nature\nconsidered as a cause? It is simply a uniform mode of operation. We find\nthat heavy bodies uniformly tend towards the earth's centre, and that we\ncall the law of gravity; but if those bodies sometimes ascended, and\nsometimes moved horizontally, under the same circumstances, we could not\ninfer the existence of such a law.\n\nNow, there must be some cause for uniformity of operation in nature. There\nmust be some foreign power, which gives the uniformity, since it is\ncertain that the law itself can possess no efficiency. We may, indeed,\nfind one law dependent upon a second law, and this upon a third, and so\non. But the inquiry still arises, What gives the efficiency to this second\nand third law? and still the answer must be, Something out of itself. So\nthat if we run back on the chain of causes ever so far, we must still\nresort to the power of the Deity to find any efficiency that will produce\nthe final result. In most cases, we can trace back only one or two links\non the chain. For instance, we account for the falling of all bodies by\nthe law of gravity. But philosophers have wearied themselves in vain to\nfind any cause for gravity, except in the will of God. The failure of\nevery other hypothesis, though invented by such men as Newton and Le Sage,\nhas been signal. Sound philosophy, then, requires us to infer that gravity\nowes its efficiency to the direct exertion of divine power. And so in all\ncases, when we can no longer discover second causes for any phenomenon,\nwhy should we imagine their existence, rather than refer it to the agency\nof God? For go back as far as we may, and discover a thousand intervening\ncauses, the efficiency resides alone in God. We have no evidence that even\ninfinite power can communicate that efficiency to the laws of nature, so\nthat they can act without the presence and agency of God. The common idea,\nwhich endows those laws with independent power, will not bear examination.\n\nIn the second place, if natural operations do not depend upon the exercise\nof divine power, no other efficient cause can be assigned for their\nproduction.\n\nWe have seen that in the laws of nature, independently of the Deity, there\nis no efficiency; and I know not where else we can resort for any agency\nto carry forward the operations of nature, except to the same infinite\nBeing. The fate and chance of the ancients, the plastic nature of\nCudworth, the delegated nature of Lamarck, are indeed names invented by\nmen to designate a certain imaginary efficiency residing somewhere,\nindependent of the Deity, by which the phenomena of nature have been\nsupposed to be produced. But the moment they are described, they are found\nto be mere imaginary agencies, meaning nothing more than the course of\nnature, or the laws of nature, which we have seen possess no independent\nefficiency. To a divine agency, therefore, we must resort, or be left\nwithout any adequate cause for the complicated and wonderful processes of\nnature.\n\nIn the third place, this view of the subject is strongly confirmed by the\nChristian Scriptures.\n\nHow universal is the divine agency represented in the well-known\npassage--_for of him, and through him, and to him, are all things_.\nEqually vivid is Paul's statement on Mars Hill--_In him we live, and move,\nand have our being._ How graphic a description is the 147th Psalm of God's\nagency in the natural world! Not only is all good ascribed to God, but\nevil also. By the mouth of Isaiah he says, _I form light and create\ndarkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things._\nIn short, no event in the material or spiritual world is by the sacred\nwriters ascribed to chance, or to nature, or the laws of nature, as it is\namong men; but to the direct efficiency of God. Nor is there any\ndifference in this respect between miracles and common events. The one\nclass is represented as originating in the agency of God, just as much as\nthe other.\n\nFinally. It will hardly be thought strange, in view of the preceding\nconsiderations, that a large proportion of the most acute and\nphilosophical minds in modern times have preferred this view of divine\nprovidence to any other.\n\nSir Isaac Newton declares that the various parts of the world, organic and\ninorganic, \"can be the effect of nothing else than the wisdom and skill of\na powerful, ever-living Agent, who, being in all places, is more able by\nhis will to move the bodies within his boundless, uniform _sensorium_,\nthereby to form and reform the parts of the universe, than we are by our\nwill to move the parts of our own bodies.\"\n\nSays Dr. Clarke, the friend and disciple of Newton, \"All things which we\ncommonly say are the effects of the natural powers of matter, and laws of\nmotion, are, indeed, if we will speak strictly and properly, the effects\nof God's action upon matter continually, and at every moment, either\nimmediately by himself, or mediately by some created, intelligent being.\nConsequently there is no such thing as the course of nature, or the power\nof nature, independent of the effects produced by the will of God.\"\n\nIn speaking of the principle of vegetable life, Sir James Edward Smith,\nthe eminent botanist, says, \"I humbly conceive that, if the human\nunderstanding can in any case flatter itself with obtaining, in the\nnatural world, a glimpse of the _immediate agency_ of the Deity, it is in\nthe contemplation of this _vital principle_, which seems independent of\nmaterial organization, and an impulse, of his own divine\nenergy.\"--_Introduction to Botany_, p. 26, (Boston edition.)\n\n\"We would no way be understood,\" says Sir John Herschel, \"to deny the\nconstant exercise of this [God's] direct power in maintaining the system\nof nature, or the ultimate emanation of every energy, which material\nagents exert, from his immediate will, acting in conformity with his own\nlaws.\"--_Discourse on Nat. Philosophy._\n\n\"A law,\" says Professor Whewell, \"supposes an agent and a power; for it is\nthe mode according to which the agent proceeds, the order according to\nwhich the power acts. Without the presence of such an agent, of such a\npower, conscious of the relations on which the law depends, producing the\neffects which the law prescribes, the law can have no efficiency, no\nexistence. Hence we infer that the intelligence by which the law is\nordained, the power by which it is put in action, must be present at all\ntimes and in all places where the effects of the law occur; that thus the\nknowledge and the agency of the divine Being pervades every portion of the\nuniverse, producing all action and passion, all permanence and change. The\nlaws of nature are the laws which He, in his wisdom, prescribes to his own\nacts; his universal presence is the necessary condition of any course of\nevents; his universal agency the only origin of any efficient\nforce.\"--_Bridgewater Treatise_, p. 270.\n\n\"The student in natural philosophy,\" observes the Bishop of London, \"will\nfind rest from all those perplexities, which are occasioned by the\nobscurity of causation, in the proposition which, although it was\ndiscredited by the patronage of Malebranche and the Cartesians, has been\nadopted by Clarke and Dugald Stewart, and which is by far the most simple\nand sublime account of the matter--that all events which are continually\ntaking place in the different parts of the material universe are the\n_immediate_ effects of the divine agency.\"--_Whewell's Bridgewater\nTreatise_, p. 273.\n\n\"Jonathan Edwards,\" says M'Cosh in his Method of the Divine Government,\n\"somewhere illustrates the manner in which God upholds the universe, by\nthe way in which an image is upheld in a mirror. That image is maintained\nby a continual flow of rays of light, each succeeding pencil of which\ndoes not differ from that by which the image was first produced. He\nconceives that the universe is, in every part of it, supported in a\nsimilar way by a continual succession of acts of the divine will, and\nthese not differing from that which at first caused the world to spring\ninto existence. Now, it may be safely said of this theory that it cannot\nbe disproved. Several considerations may be urged in support of it.\"\n\nWhich of the views respecting divine providence that have been stated has\nthe best practical tendency, seems hardly to admit of doubt. If we believe\nthat God has submitted the direction and government of this world to a\nsubordinate agent, a plastic nature; or if we suppose he has impressed\nmatter and mind with certain general laws, which have the power of\nexecuting themselves without his agency, and especially if in their\noperation they do sometimes actually clash with one another, or even if\nthose laws extend to every movement of matter and mind,--still, if they do\nnot require divine efficiency, men cannot but feel that God is removed\nfrom his works, and that the laws of nature, and not his agency, are their\nsecurity. But if they believe that every movement of matter or mind\nrequires a direct exercise of divine power or efficiency, just as much as\nif every event was a miracle, it cannot but bring God near to us, and make\nus realize his presence.\n\nIf we obtain a timepiece from London or Paris, which contains all the\nsprings and wheels requisite to keep it in operation, by occasionally\nwinding it up, how little do we think of the artist who constructed it,\nexcept, perhaps, occasionally to admire his ingenuity! But if it had been\nnecessary for that artist to accompany the chronometer, and actually to\nput forth the strength of his own arm every moment to keep it in motion,\nhow much more should we think of him and realize his presence! The same\neffect, in a greater or less degree, will attend the belief that God must\nbe not only virtually, but substantially, present every where, and be\nconstantly exercising his power to keep in operation the vast machine of\nthe universe. It cannot but deeply impress the heart, and exert a most\nsalutary influence upon the affections, to realize that every event around\nus is brought about by the immediate agency of the supreme Being.\n\nBut notwithstanding the salutary influence of this view of Providence upon\nour moral feelings, and though philosophy pronounces it decidedly the most\nreasonable, still it meets with strong opposition. I need not stop to\nnotice the objections, that it makes God the author of evil as well as\ngood, and that it represents man as a mere machine in the hands of the\nDeity, and therefore takes away human responsibility. I say I need not\nstop to answer such objections, because they lie equally strong against\nany system which makes God the original author of the universe. But a more\nplausible objection is, that it makes all events miraculous. This\nobjection is based on the supposition that every event which takes place\nthrough the direct and immediate agency of God is a miracle. But is this\nthe true meaning of a miracle? Is the term ever applied to any but\nextraordinary events? It may or it may not imply a contravention of the\nlaws of nature. But it does always imply something which the laws of\nnature cannot produce, and which, of course, they cannot explain. It is\nalways the result of some new force coming in to the aid of the laws of\nnature, or in the place of them, or even sometimes, perhaps, in opposition\nto them; as when the _sun stood still upon Gibeon, and the moon in the\nvalley of Ajalon_. Hence an event may take place through the direct and\nimmediate agency of God, and yet not be a miracle. If it be neither\nabove, nor independent of, nor in opposition to the laws of nature, then\nit forms a part of the ordinary providence of God; it is a part of the\nusual, the fixed and uniform course of nature, and can be explained by\nknown and unalterable laws. The nature of the event is not affected at all\nby the question whether it is produced by the direct efficiency of God, or\nby a power inherent in those laws. We, who believe that the direct\nefficiency of God is necessary to the operation, and even to the\nexistence, of the laws of nature, are just as firm believers in the\nconstancy of those laws as he who supposes them possessed of inherent\npowers. When that constancy is interrupted in any way, we call it a\nmiracle. Hence it appears that our views of the nature of a miracle are\nthe same as his, viz., an event which takes place out of the ordinary\ncourse of nature; and, therefore, our system is no more liable to the\nobjection that all events are made miracles than his system.\n\nThe way is now prepared for inquiring what geology teaches respecting the\nordinary and extraordinary providence of God over this world.\n\nThe evidences of ordinary providence, which are common to geology and\nother sources of proof, I shall pass by; both because they are familiar to\nall, and because I have, in a former lecture, shown the existence and\noperation of the present laws of nature in all past ages. But there is one\nfeature of the past condition of the world taught by geology to which I\nwould call your attention, as exhibiting a more impressive view of the\nwisdom and skill of ordinary providence than almost any other department\nof nature presents. When the heavenly bodies are once put under the\ncontrol of the two great forces that guide them, viz., the centrifugal and\ncentripetal, we see no reason why they may not move on forever in their\naccustomed paths. But the two great agents of geological change, fire and\nwater, have an aspect of great irregularity and violence, and are\napparently less under the control of mathematical laws. In the mighty\nintensity of their action in early times, we can hardly see how there\ncould have been much of security or permanence in the state of the globe,\nwithout the constant restraining energy of Jehovah. We feel as if the\nearth's crust must have been constantly liable to be torn in pieces by\nvolcanic fires, or drenched by sweeping deluges. And yet the various\neconomies of life on the globe, that have preceded the present, have all\nbeen seasons of profound repose and uniformity. The truth is, these mighty\nagencies have been just as much under the divine control as those which\nregulate the heavenly bodies; and I doubt not but the laws that regulate\ntheir action are as fixed and mathematical as those which guide the sun,\nmoon, and planets. Still, it must have required infinite wisdom and power\nso to arrange the agencies of nature that the desolating action of fire\nand water should take place only at those epochs when every thing was in\nreadiness for the ruin of an old economy and the introduction of a new\none. Geological agencies differ from astronomical in this--that the former\nmust be allowed an irregular action within certain limits; whereas the\nlatter act with unvarying uniformity in all circumstances. If the former\nhad not some room for irregular action, they would not act at all; but if\nallowed too much liberty, they will destroy what they were intended to\npreserve. And God does restrain, and always has restrained them, just at\nthe point where desolation would be the result of their more powerful\noperation. I do not, indeed, contend that it requires more power or wisdom\nto bind those mighty agencies within proper limits than to control the\nheavenly bodies. But to our limited faculties it certainly seems a more\ndifficult work; and, therefore, the geological history of the globe gives\nus a more impressive idea of the ordinary providence of God than we see in\nthe calm and uniform movements of nature around us.\n\n_In the second place, geology furnishes us with some very striking\nexamples of miraculous providence._\n\nIn disproving the eternity of the organic world, in a former lecture, I\nadduced and illustrated these examples so fully, that I shall do little\nmore in this place than give a recapitulation of that argument.\n\nIf we suppose the earth originally to have been merely a diffused mass of\nvapor, like comets, or nebulae, I can conceive how, by the operation of\nsuch natural laws as now exist, it might have been condensed into a solid\nglobe; into a melted state, indeed, from the amount of heat extricated in\nthe condensation. Those same laws might subsequently form over the molten\nmass a solid crust, which, at length, might be ridged and furrowed by the\naction of internal heat, so as to form the basis of continents and the\nbeds of oceans. In due time, the vapors might condense, so as to fill\nthose basins with water; and, by the mutual and alternate action of the\nwaters above and the heat beneath, the rocks might be comminuted, so as to\nform the basis of soils. So far might the arrangements of the world have\nproceeded by natural laws; in other words, by the ordinary providence of\nGod. But at this point we must bring in an extraordinary agency of the\nDeity, or the world would have remained, in the expressive language of\nrevelation, _without form and void_; that is, invisible and unfurnished.\nYou have, indeed, the framework of a world, but the most difficult and\ncomplicated part of the work, the creation of plants and animals, remains\nyet to be performed. Here, then, is the precise point where you must call\nin the miraculous agency of the Deity, or the earth would forever remain\nan uninhabited waste. For if it does not require miraculous agency to\nbring into existence animals and plants, I know not what can require it,\nor prove its operation. I can almost as easily conceive how matter might\nspring from nothing fortuitously, certainly I can as easily conceive of\nits eternity, as that organism and life can result from the ordinary laws\nof nature.\n\nIt may be, however, that I shall here be met by the statement, that some\ndistinguished geologists maintain the probable existence of organized\nbeings on the globe at an indefinitely earlier period than that in which\ntheir remains first appear in the rocks. They contend that the extreme\nheat which has melted the older rocks has obliterated all traces of\norganic existence below a certain line. Now, in order to meet this\ndifficulty, it is not necessary to show this opinion to be erroneous. We\nhave only to advance another step in our general argument, which brings us\nupon ground admitted to be good by the geologists above alluded to. They\nall of them believe that many new animals and plants have from time to\ntime appeared on the globe; that, in fact, there have been several almost\nentire changes in its inhabitants. Most of them suppose these new races to\nhave been introduced in large numbers at particular epochs, though some\nprefer the theory which supposes the new species to have been introduced\none by one, as the old ones became extinct. But even this supposition does\nnot essentially affect my argument; because they all allow that these\nsuccessive species were really new, and could not have been the result of\nany metamorphosis of the old species. And it is the fact that new organic\nbeings have, from time to time, been created, that is alone essential to\nmy argument. Whether they were created by groups or singly, is an\ninteresting geological question; but, in either case, miraculous power\nmust have been put forth as really and as efficiently to call into\nexistence a single new species of animalcula, or sea-weed, as to introduce\nan entirely new race. The successive economies of organic life that have\nexisted on the earth, and passed from it, do most unequivocally\ndemonstrate the extraordinary or miraculous providence of God.\n\nBut we might abandon even this strong ground of our argument, and still\ngeology would afford us a most unequivocal example of the creative agency\nof the Deity. That science shows, beyond all question, that man, and most\nof his contemporary races of animals and plants, have not always occupied\nthis globe; and, indeed, that they were not placed upon it till nearly\nevery form buried in the rocks had passed away. And since those races\nwhich now inhabit the globe have among them a larger proportion of highly\norganized and more complicated species than have ever before been\ncontemporaries,--especially since man is among them, confessedly the most\nperfect in organization and in intellect of all the beings that ever\noccupied this planet,--we can here point to the highest exercise of\ncreative power ever exhibited in this lower world, as a certain memento of\nGod's extraordinary or miraculous providence. Indeed, who, that has any\nadequate idea of the wonders of man's intellectual, moral, and immortal\nnature, and of the strange extremes that meet and harmonize in his\nphysical and intellectual constitution, will believe that any loftier\nmiracle has ever been exhibited on this globe than his creation?\n\nBut I have already dwelt so long upon this whole argument in a former\nlecture, that I will add no more in this place. If the facts which I have\nstated do not prove the miraculous agency of the Deity in past ages, I\nknow not how it can be proved. But assuming this position to be\nestablished, and several inferences of importance will follow.\n\n_In the first place, this subject removes all philosophical presumption\nagainst a special revelation from heaven._\n\nIf we can prove that the Deity has often so interfered with the course of\nnature as to introduce new species, nay, whole races of animals and plants\nupon the globe,--if, in a comparatively recent period, he has created a\nmoral and immortal being, endowed with all the powers of a free and an\naccountable agent,--it would surely be no more wonderful if he should\ncommunicate to that being his will by a written revelation. Indeed, the\nbenevolence of the Deity, as we learn it from nature, would create a\npresumption that such a revelation would be given, if it appear, as we\nknow it does, that no sufficient knowledge is inherent in his nature to\nguide him in the path of duty; since such a revelation would be no greater\nmiracle than to people the world, originally destitute of life, and then\nto repeople it again and again, with so vast a variety of organic natures.\nPhilosophy has sometimes been disinclined to admit the claims of\nrevelation, because it implies a supernatural agency of the Deity; and,\nuntil recently, revelation seemed to be a solitary example of special\ninterference on the part of Jehovah. But geology adds other examples, long\nanterior to revelation--examples registered, like the laws of Sinai, on\ntables of stone. And the admission of the geological evidence of special\ninterference with the regular sequence of nature's operations ought to\npredispose the mind for listening to the appropriate proofs of a moral\ncommunication to ignorant and erring man.\n\n_In the second place, the subject shows us how groundless is the famous\nobjection to the miracles recorded in Scripture, founded on the position\nthat they are contrary to experience._\n\n\"It is,\" says Mr. Hume, \"a maxim worthy of our attention, that no\ntestimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of\nsuch a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact\nwhich it endeavors to establish.\" Hence he asserts, that \"the evidence of\ntestimony, when applied to a miracle, carries falsehood on the very face\nof it, and is more properly a subject of derision than of argument,\" and\nthat \"whoever believes the Christian religion is conscious of a continued\nmiracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his\nunderstanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most\ncontrary to custom and experience.\"\n\nAt the time when Mr. Hume wrote, and with his great skill in weaving\ntogether metaphysical subtilties, such an argument might deceive\nsuperficial minds; for then a miracle was supposed to be contrary to all\nexperience. But geology has disclosed many new chapters in the world's\nhistory, and shown the existence of miracles earlier than chronological\ndates. Even Mr. Hume would hardly deny that the creation of whole series\nof animals and plants was miraculous; and yet, in proof of that creation,\nwe need not depend upon testimony; for we can read it with our own eyes\nupon the solid rocks. Such proof appeals directly to our common sense; nor\ncan any ingenious quibble, concerning the nature of human testimony,\nweaken its influence in producing conviction.\n\nAnd if God has wrought stupendous miracles of creation in order to people\nthe world, who does not see that it is still more probable he would\nperform other miracles when they were needed to substantiate a revelation\nof his will to those moral and accountable beings, who needed its special\nteachings to make them acquainted with their God, their duty, and their\ndestiny?\n\n_Finally. The subject removes all presumption against the exercise of a\nspecial and miraculous providence in the divine government of the world._\n\nIn all ages of the world, philosophers, and even many theologians, have\nbeen strenuous opposers of special and miraculous providence. If they have\nadmitted, as most of the latter class have done, that some miracles were\nperformed in ancient times, they have strenuously maintained that the\ndoctrine of special providence in these days is absurd, and that God\ncannot, without a miracle, bestow any special favors upon the virtuous in\nanswer to their prayers, or inflict any special punishments upon the\nwicked; and that it is fanaticism to expect any other retributions than\nsuch as the ordinary and unmodified course of nature brings along with it.\n\nThe unvarying constancy of nature, in consequence of being governed by\nfixed laws, is the grand argument which they adduce in opposition to any\nsupposed special providence. _Since the fathers fell asleep_, say they,\n_all things continue as they were from the beginning._ God has subjected\nthe world to the government of laws, and he will not interfere with,\ncounteract, set aside, or give a supernatural force to those laws, to meet\nparticular exigencies. For the adjustment of all apparent inequalities of\ngood and evil, suffering and enjoyment here, we must wait for the\ndisclosure of eternity, when strict retributive Justice will hold her even\nscales. When natural evils come upon us, therefore, it is idle to expect\ntheir removal, except so far as they may be mitigated or overcome by\nnatural means; and hence it is useless to pray for their removal, or to\nexpect God will deliver us from them in any other way. When the heavens\nover us become brass, and the earth under our feet iron, and the rain of\nour land is powder and dust, and want, and famine, as the consequence,\nstalk forth among the inhabitants, of what use to pray to God for rain,\nsince to give it would require a miracle, and the age of miracles has\npassed? When the pestilence is scouring through the land, and our\nneighbors and nearest friends are within its grasp, and we may next become\nits victims,--nay, when we, too, are on the borders of the grave,--why\nshould we expect relief by prayer, since sickness is the result of natural\ncauses, and God will not interpose to save us from the effects of natural\nevils, because that would be contrary to a fixed rule of his government?\nWhen dangers cluster around the good man in the discharge of trying\nduties, it would be enthusiasm in him to expect any special protection\nagainst his enemies, though he pray ever so fervently, and trust in divine\ndeliverance with ever so much confidence. He must look to another world\nfor his reward, if called to suffer here. Nor has the daringly wicked man\nany reason to fear that God will punish his violations of the divine law\nby any unusual display of his power; not in any way, indeed, but by the\nevils which naturally flow from a wicked life. In short, it will be\nuseless to pray for any blessing that requires the least interference with\nnatural laws, or for the removal of any evil which depends upon those\nlaws. And since our minds are controlled as much by laws as the functions\nof our bodies, we are not to expect any blessings in our souls, which\nrequire the least infringement of intellectual laws. In fine, the effect\nof prayer is limited almost entirely to its influence upon our own hearts,\nin preparing them to receive with a proper spirit natural blessings, and\nto bear aright natural evils; to stimulate us to use with more diligence\nthe means of avoiding or removing the latter, and securing the former.\n\nNot a few philosophers of distinction, and some theologians, have adopted\nthese views. Even Dr. Thomas Brown uses the following language: \"It is\nquite evident that even Omnipotence, which cannot do what is\ncontradictory, cannot combine both advantages--the advantage of regular\norder in the sequences of nature, and the advantages of a uniform\nadaptation of the particular circumstances of the individual. We may take\nour choice, but we cannot think of a combination of both; and if, as is\nvery obvious, the greater advantage be that of uniformity of operation, we\nmust not complain of the evils to which that very uniformity which we\ncannot fail to prefer--if the option had been allowed us--has been the\nvery circumstance that gave rise.\"--_Lecture 94._\n\n\"Science,\" says George Combe, \"has banished from the minds of profound\nthinkers belief in the exercise by the Deity, in our day, of special acts\nof supernatural power, as a means of influencing human affairs; and it has\npresented a systematic order of nature, which man may study, comprehend,\nand follow, as a guide to his practical conduct. Many educated laymen, and\nalso a number of the clergy, have declined to recognize fasts,\nhumiliations, and prayers, as means adapted, according to their views, to\navert the recurrence of the evil, [the potato blight.] Indeed, these\nobservances, inasmuch as they mislead the public mind with respect to its\ncauses, are regarded by such persons as positive evils.\"\n\n\"The most irreligious of all religious notions, as it seems to us,\" says\nthe North American Review, \"is a belief in special providences; for if the\ndoctrine has any weight at all, it is gained at the expense of a general\nprovidence. To assume to detect God as nearer to us on some occasions is\nto put him farther off from us on other occasions. To have him in special\nincidents is to forget him in the common tenor of events. The doctrine of\nspecial providences evidently has no other foundation than this, that men\n_think they can detect_ God's purpose and presence more signally in some\nincidents than in others; so that the doctrine, after all, is only a\ncompliment to man's power of detection, instead of an acknowledgment of\nGod's special presence.\"\n\nSuch views and reasonings seem, upon a superficial examination, to be very\nplausible. But when we look into the Bible, we cannot but see that the\nmain drift of it is directly opposed to such notions. That book does\nencourage man to pray to God for the removal of evils of every kind; evils\nas much dependent upon natural laws as the daily course of the sun through\nthe heavens. It does teach us to look to God in every trying situation for\ndeliverance, if it is best for us to be delivered. It does represent the\nwicked man as in danger of special punishment. It exhibits a multitude of\nexamples, in which God has thus delivered those who trusted in him, and\npunished those who violated his laws.\n\nIn every age, too, the most devotedly pious men have testified, that they\nhave found deliverance and support in circumstances in which mere natural\nlaws could afford them no relief. Moreover, when men are brought into\ngreat peril or suffering of any kind, they involuntarily cry to God for\nhelp. When the vessel founders in the fury of the storm, the hardened\nsailor employs that breath in ardent prayer which just before had been\npoured out in blasphemies. And when the widowed mother hears the tempest\nhowling around her dwelling at night, she cannot but pray for the\nprotection of her child upon the treacherous sea. When violent disease\nracks the frame, and we feel ourselves rapidly sinking into the grave, it\nis scarcely in human nature to omit crying to God with a feeling that he\ncan save us. In short, it is a dictate of nature to call upon God in times\nof trouble. Our reasoning about the constancy of nature, which appears to\nus while in safety so clearly to show prayer for the removal of natural\nevils to be useless, loses its power, and the feelings of the heart\ntriumph. It now becomes, therefore, an important practical question, which\nof these views of the providence of God is correct. Is it those which our\nreasoning derives from the constancy of nature, or those inspired by piety\nand the Bible? I have already said, that the subject of this lecture\nremoves all presumption against the latter view; and I now proceed to show\nhow God can exercise a special providence over the world, so as to meet\nthe case of every individual, whether for blessing or punishment, and\nthat, too, without miracles.\n\nWhoever believes that geology discloses stupendous miracles of creation,\nat various epochs, will not doubt that all presumption against miraculous\nagency at any other time is thus removed. For we are thus shown that the\nlaw of miracles forms a part of the divine plan in the government of the\nworld. But this does not prove the same to be the fact in respect to a law\nof special providence.\n\nIt is indeed true that geology gives us no distinct examples of special\nprovidence, in the sense which we have attached to that term in the\npresent lecture. But it does furnish a multitude of instances in which\nchanges of physical condition in the earth were met by most wisely adapted\nchanges of organic nature. And even though these changes were the result\nof miraculous agency, they disclose this principle of the divine\ngovernment, viz., that peculiarities of condition are to be met by special\narrangements, so that every exigency shall be provided for in the manner\ninfinite wisdom sees to be best. Now, this principle constitutes the\nessence of special providence; and, therefore, geology, in showing its\npast operation in the world's early organic history, affords a presumption\nthat the same unchanging God may still employ it in his natural and moral\ngovernment.\n\nBut does not this principle of special adaptation to individual exigencies\ndemand miraculous agency in all cases? Can the wants of individuals be met\nin any other way than by miracles, or by the ordinary and settled laws of\nnature? I maintain that there are other modes in which this can be done;\nin which, in fact, every case requiring special interference can be met\nexactly and fully.\n\n_This can be done, in the first place, by a divine influence exerted upon\nthe human mind, unperceived by the individual._\n\nIf it were perceived, it would constitute a miracle. But can we doubt that\nthe Author of mind should be able to influence it directly and indirectly,\nunperceived by the man so acted upon? Even man can do this to his fellow;\nand shall such a power be denied to God?\n\nNow, in many cases,--I do not say all,--it only needs that the minds of\nothers should be inclined to do so and so towards a man, in order to place\nhim in circumstances most unlike those that would have surrounded him\nwithout such an influence. Even the very elements, being to some extent\nunder human control, can thus be made subservient, or adverse, to an\nindividual; and, indeed, by a change in the feelings and conduct of others\ntowards us, by an unseen influence upon their minds, our whole outward\ncondition may be changed. In this way, therefore, can God, in many\ninstances, confer blessings on the virtuous, or execute punishment upon\nthe wicked, or give special answers to special prayer; and yet there\nshall be no miracle about it, nor even the slightest violation of a law of\nmatter or of mind. The result may seem to us only the natural effect of\nthose laws, and yet the divine influence may have modified the effect to\nany extent.\n\n_In the second place, God can so modify the second causes of events out of\nour sight, as to change wholly, or in part, the final result, and yet not\ndisturb the usual order of nature within sight, so that there shall be no\nmiracle._\n\nA miracle requires that the usual order of nature, as man sees it, be\ninterrupted, or some force superadded to her agency. But if such change\ntake place out of our sight, it might not disturb that order within sight;\nand, therefore, to us it would be no miracle.\n\nThe mode in which this can be done depends upon the fact that in nature we\noften find several causes, essential to produce an effect, connected\ntogether, as it were, in a chain; so that each link depends upon that\nwhich precedes it. Thus the power of vision depends upon the optic nerve,\nin the bottom of the eye. But this would be useless, were not the coats\nand humors of the eye of a certain consistence and curvature, in order to\nbring the rays together to form an image on the retina. Again, these coats\nand humors depend upon light, and light depends for its transmission,\nprobably, upon that exceedingly elastic medium called the _luminiferous\nether_. This is as far back as we can trace the series of causes concerned\nin producing vision. And yet this elastic ether may depend upon something\nelse, and this cause of the movement of the ether upon another cause; and\nwe know not how long the chain may be before we reach the great First\nCause. Now, if any one of this series of second causes be modified, the\neffect will be a modification of the final result. This supposed\nmodification may take place in that part of the chain of causes within our\nview, or in that part concealed from us. If it took place within sight, it\nwould constitute a miracle; because the regular sequence of cause and\neffect would be broken off, or an unnatural power be imparted to the cause\nproducing the ultimate effect. If the modification took place in that part\nof the chain of second causes out of our sight, the final effect would be\nno miracle; because it would be brought about by natural laws, and these\nwould perfectly explain it. Nevertheless, this ultimate effect would be\ndifferent from what it would be if God had not touched and modified that\nlink of causation which lies out of our sight, back among the secret\nagencies of his will. And I see not but in this way he might modify the\nultimate effect as much as he pleased, and still preserve the unvarying\nconstancy of nature. For in all these cases we should see only the links\nof the chain of causes nearest to us; and, provided they operated in their\nusual order, how could we know that any change had taken place in the\nregion beyond our knowledge? If the whole chain of causation were open to\nour inspection, then, indeed, would the transaction be an obvious miracle;\nbut now we see nothing but the unchanging operation of natural laws.\n\nTo illustrate this principle, let us imagine a few examples. Suppose the\nland visited by drought, and its pious inhabitants assemble to pray for\nrain. We know very well that the causes on which a storm of rain depend\nare very complicated. How easy for the divine Being, in answer to those\nprayers, to modify one or more of these secret agencies of meteorological\nchange, that are concealed from our sight, so as to bring together the\nvapors over the land and condense them into rain! And yet that storm shall\nhave nothing about it unusual, and it results from the same laws which we\nhave before seen to be in operation. Still, it may have been the result of\na special agency exerted by Jehovah in answer to prayer, yet in such a\nmanner that no known law of nature is infringed upon, or even rendered\nmore powerful in its action.\n\nEqually intricate and complicated are the causes of disease, and\nespecially of those pestilences that sometimes march over a whole\ncontinent, with the angel of death in their train; and alike easy is it\nfor God, in answer to earnest prayer, to avert their progress, or to\ncripple their power, or turn them aside from a particular district,\nwithout the least interference with the visible connection of cause and\neffect.\n\nThe beloved father of a family lies upon a bed of sickness, and disease is\nfast gaining upon the powers of life. His numerous and desolate family, in\nspite of the cold suggestion that it will be of no avail, will earnestly\nbeseech the Being in whose hands is the power of disease, to arrest the\nfatal malady. And could not their Father in heaven, in the way I have\npointed out, give them their request, and yet their parent's recovery be\nthe natural result of careful nursing and medical skill? imposing,\nhowever, upon that family as great an obligation as if a manifest miracle\nhad been wrought to save him.\n\nThe widow's only son, in spite of her counsels and entreaties, becomes a\nvagabond upon the seas, and, at length, one of the crew of the battle\nship. The perils of the deep and of vicious companions are enough to make\nthat widow a daily and most earnest suppliant at the mercy-seat of her\nheavenly Father, for his protection and salvation. But, at length, war\nbreaks out, and the perils of battle render his fate more doubtful. Still,\nfaith in God buoys up her heart, and she cannot abandon the hope of yet\nseeing her son returned, reformed, and becoming a useful man. And at\nlength, rescued from the storm and shipwreck, and the carnage of battle,\nand the yet more dangerous snares of sin, that youth returns, a renovated\nman, and cheers that mother's setting sun by an eminently useful life.\nNow, all this may have happened simply by the operation of natural laws.\nBut it may also have been the result of divine interference in answer to\nprayer; and hard will you find it to convince that rejoicing mother that\nthe hand of God's extraordinary providence was not in it.\n\nThe devoted missionary, at the promptings of a voice within, quits a land\nof safety and peace, and finds himself in the midst of dangers and\nsufferings of almost every name; _in perils of waters, in perils of\nrobbers, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in weariness,\nin watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and\nnakedness_. The furnace of persecution is heated, and he performs his\nduties with his life constantly in his hand. But he uses no weapon save\nfaith and prayer. He feels that \"he is immortal till his work is done.\"\nAnd, in fact, he outlives all his dangers, and, in venerable old age,\nsurrounded by the fruits of his labor,--a reformed and affectionate\npeople,--he passes quietly into the abodes of the blessed. Here, again,\nwhy should we hesitate to refer his protection and deliverance to the\nspecial interposition of his heavenly Father, in the manner I have pointed\nout?\n\nOn the other hand, the history of dreadfully wicked men is full of\nterrible examples of calamity and suffering, as the consequence of their\nsins. True, the evil came upon them apparently by the operation of natural\nlaws; but shall we hence infer that God in no case has so modified these\nlaws, by an agency among the hidden causes of events, as to make the\nresult certain? He certainly could do this; and to say that he never has\ndone it, is to remove one of the most powerful restraints that operate\nupon the wicked.\n\nIn several examples recorded in the Bible, both of deliverance for the\nvirtuous and of punishment for the wicked, so many natural agencies are\nconcerned, that we are left in doubt whether the events are to be regarded\nas miraculous or not. Let the deluge, the destruction of Sodom, and the\npassage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, serve as examples. In the\nfirst, we find the flood imputed to a forty days' rain and the overflowing\nof the ocean; and its reduction to a wind. In the destruction of the\ncities of the plain, the phenomena described correspond very well with the\neffects of volcanic agency; and we find accordingly that the region where\nthose cities stood shows marks of that agency. In the passage of the Red\nSea, the removal of the waters, to allow the Israelites to pass, is\nimputed to a strong east wind all night. Nevertheless, the pillar of a\ncloud by day and the pillar of fire by night were a manifest and standing\nmiracle in this transaction.\n\nNow, may it not be that, in all these cases, so far as natural agencies\nwere concerned, they were made to conspire with the miraculous in the\nmanner which I have described, viz., by such a modification of some of the\nremote causes by which they were brought into action, as exactly to answer\nthe divine purpose in the catastrophe of the deluge, of Sodom, and in the\npassage of the Red Sea?\n\n_A third mode by which the purposes of special providence can be brought\nabout without miracles is by such an adjustment of the direct and lateral\ninfluences on which events depend, that the time and manner of their\noccurrence shall exactly meet every exigency._\n\nAlthough it expresses a truth to represent the second causes of events as\nconstituting the links of a chain, it is not the whole truth. For, in\nfact, those causes are connected together in the form of a network, or,\nmore exactly still, by a sphere filled with interlocked meshes; or, to\nspeak more mathematically, the forces by which events are produced are\nboth direct and indirect. It would be easy to calculate the effect of a\nsingle direct force; but if, in its progress, it meets with a multitude of\noblique impulses, striking it at every possible angle, what human\nmathematics can make out the final resultant? Yet, in fact, such is the\nhistory of almost every event. The lateral influences, which meet and\nmodify the direct force, are so numerous, and unexpected often, that men\nare amazed at the result, sometimes as unexpected as a miracle. \"When an\nindividual,\" says Isaac Taylor, \"receives an answer to his prayer, the\ninterposition may be made, not in the line which he himself is describing,\nbut in one of those which are to meet him on his path; and at a point,\ntherefore, where, even though the visible constancy of nature should be\nviolated, yet, as being at the time beyond the sphere of his observation,\nit is a violation not visible to him.\" \"And herein is especially\nmanifested the perfection of divine wisdom, that the most surprising\nconjunctions of events are brought about by the simplest means, and in a\nmanner that is perfectly in harmony with the ordinary course of human\naffairs. This is, in fact, the great miracle of providence, that no\nmiracles are needed to accomplish its purposes.\"--_Nat. History of\nEnthusiasm_, p. 128.\n\nThis complication of causes does not merely give variety to the works and\noperations of nature, but it enables God to produce effects which could\nnever have resulted from each law acting singly; nor is there a scarcely\nconceivable limit to these modifications. Indeed, in this way can\nProvidence accomplish all his beneficent purposes, and meet every\nindividual case, just as infinite wisdom would have it met. \"By this\nagency,\" says M'Cosh, \"God can at one time increase, and at another time\nlessen, or completely nullify, the spontaneous efforts of the fixed\nproperties of matter. Now he can make the most powerful agents in\nnature--such as wind, fire, and disease--coincide and cooperate to produce\neffects of such a tremendous magnitude as none of them separately could\naccomplish; and again, he can arrest their influence by counteracting\nagencies, or, rather, by making them counteract each other. He can, for\ninstance, by a concurrence of natural laws, bring a person, who is in the\nenjoyment of health at present, to the very borders of death, an hour or\nan instant hence; and he can, by a like means, suddenly restore the same\nor another individual to health, after he has been on the very verge of\nthe grave. By the confluence of two or more streams, he can bring agencies\nof tremendous potency to bear upon the production of a given effect, such\nas a war, a pestilence, or a revolution; and, on the other hand, by\ndrawing aside the stream into another channel, he can arrest, at any given\ninstant, the awful effects that would otherwise follow from these\nagencies, and save an individual, a family, or a nation, from the evils\nwhich seem ready to burst upon them.\n\n\"Guided by these principles and guarded by sound sense, the inquiring mind\nwill discover many and wonderful designed connections between the various\nevents of divine providence. Read in the spirit of faith, striking\ncoincidences will every where manifest themselves. What singular unions of\ntwo streams at the proper place to help on the exertions of the great and\ngood! What curious intersections of cords to catch the wicked as in a\nnet, when they are prowling as wild beasts! By strange but most apposite\ncorrespondences, human strength, when set against the will of God, is made\nto waste away under God's indignation burning against it, as, in heathen\nstory, Meleager wasted away as the stick burned which his mother held in\nthe fire.\"--_Method of the Divine Government_, pp. 176, 203.\n\nIn many cases, the lateral streams of influence that flow in and bring\nunexpected relief to the pious man, and unexpected punishment to the\nwicked, or a marked answer to prayer, seem to the individuals little short\nof miraculous. Yet, after all, they can see no violation of the natural\norder of cause and effect. But the wonder is, how the modifying influence\nshould come in just at the right moment. It may, indeed, have received a\ncommission to do this very thing from the immediate impulse of Jehovah;\nyet, being unperceived by us, it is no miracle. Or the whole plan may have\nbeen so arranged at the beginning that its development will meet every\ncase of special providence exactly. Which of these views may be most\naccordant with truth, may admit of discussion. Yet we think that all the\nmodes that have been pointed out, by which miraculous and special\nprovidences are brought about, may be referred to one general proposition,\nwhich we now proceed to state.\n\n_In the fourth place, the plan of the universe in the divine mind, at the\nbeginning, must have embraced every case of miracles and of special\nprovidence._\n\nFrom the nature of the divine attributes we infer with certainty that\nevery event occurring in the universe must have entered into the original\nplan of creation in the mind of God. Surely no one will deny that he must\nhave foreseen the operation of every law which he established, and,\nconsequently, every event which it would produce. But there must be some\nground for foreknowledge to rest upon; otherwise it is conjecture, not\nknowledge. And what could that basis be but the divine plan?\n\nEqually clear is it that, whatever plans existed in the mind of God, when\nhe brought the universe into existence, must always have been there. For\nto suppose that there was a point of duration when the plan was first\nconceived, would imply new knowledge in one confessedly omniscient; and\nthat destroys the idea of omniscience.\n\nSimilar reasoning from the nature of the divine attributes leads us to the\nconclusion that God always acts according to law. That he does this in the\nordinary operations of nature, all admit. But even when he introduces a\nmiracle,--perhaps by a counteraction of ordinary laws,--he may still act\nby some rule; so that, were precisely the same circumstances to occur\nagain, the same miracle would be repeated. Beforehand, we could not say\nwhether God would conduct the affairs of the universe by one unvarying\nsystem of natural laws, or occasionally interfere with the regular\nsequence of cause and effect by miracle. But though the latter course\nshould be adopted, as we have reason to think it is, even the special\ninterference must be according to law; so that, in fact, there is a law of\nmiracles as well as of common events. Again, if God sometimes alters one\nor more of the links out of sight, in a chain of second causes, in order\nto meet a providential exigency, or if he modifies for the same purpose\nsome of the oblique influences by which events are affected, all this must\nbe done by rule; that is, by law. Indeed, to suppose him ever to act\nwithout law, is to represent him as less wise than men, who, if\njudicious, are always governed by settled principles, which produce the\nsame conduct in the same circumstances.\n\nFrom this reasoning we may safely infer two things: first, that the laws\nregulating miracles and special providences are as fixed and certain as\nthose of ordinary events; and secondly, that those laws must have formed a\npart of the plan of creation originally existing in the divine mind. And\nhence, thirdly, we must admit that every case of miracle and special\nprovidence must have entered into that plan.\n\nWhen he formed it, he foresaw every possible event that would result from\nits operation to the end of the world. He saw distinctly the condition of\nevery individual of the human family, from the beginning to the close of\nlife; all his dangers and trials, his sufferings and his sins; and he knew\njust when and where every prayer would be offered up. Nor can it be any\nmore doubtful that, with infinite wisdom to guide him, and infinite power\nto execute his will, God could so have arranged and constituted the laws\nof nature, as to meet exactly every case that should ever occur, just in\nthe way he would wish to have it met. Those laws might have been so framed\nand disposed that, after running on in one unvarying course for ages, a\nnew one might come in, or the old ones be modified, and at once produce\neffects quite different, and then the first laws resume again their usual\ncourse. And the new or modified law might be made to produce its\nextraordinary or peculiar effects just at the moment when some miracle or\nspecial providence would be needed. Thus what would be to us a special or\nmiraculous interposition of divine power, might be the foreseen and\nforeordained result of God's original purpose. And if we can conceive how\nsuch an effect could be produced once, we cannot doubt that infinite\nwisdom and power could in like manner meet every possible case in which\nwhat we call special and miraculous providence would be needed. With our\nlimited powers, we are obliged, after constructing a complicated machine,\nto put it into operation before we can judge certainly of its effects; and\nthen, if our wishes are not met, we must alter the parts, or in some other\nway meet the new cases that occur; and hence we find it difficult to\nconceive how it can be otherwise with God. But he saw the operation of the\nvast machine of the universe just as clearly at the beginning as at any\nsubsequent period. He, therefore, can do at the beginning what we can do\nonly after experience, viz., adapt the parts to every variety of\ncircumstances.\n\nIf I mistake not, we are indebted to Bishop Butler for the germ of these\nviews; but Professor Babbage has illustrated them by reference to an\nextraordinary machine of his own invention, called \"The Calculating\nEngine.\" It is adapted to perform the most extensive and complicated\nnumerical calculations, of course with absolute certainty, because its\nparts are arranged by certain laws. And he finds that precisely such\neffects, on a small scale, can be produced by this machine, as have been\nimputed above to the divine agency in creation. It is moved by a weight\nand a wheel which turns at a short interval around its axis, and prints a\nseries of natural numbers,--1, 2, 3, 4, 5, &c.,--each exceeding its\nantecedent by unity. \"Now, reader, let me ask you,\" says Professor\nBabbage, \"how long you will have counted before you are firmly convinced\nthat the engine, supposing its adjustments to remain unaltered, will\ncontinue, whilst its motion is maintained, to produce the same series of\nnatural numbers. Some minds, perhaps, are so constituted that, after\npassing the first hundred terms, they will be satisfied that they are\nacquainted with the law. After seeing five hundred terms, few will doubt;\nand after the fifty thousandth term, the propensity to believe the\nsucceeding term will be fifty thousand and one, will be almost\nirresistible. That term will be fifty thousand and one; the same regular\nsuccession will continue; the five millionth and the fifty millionth term\nwill appear in their expected order, and one unbroken chain of numbers\nwill pass before you, from one up to one hundred millions. True to the\nvast induction which has thus been made, the next succeeding term will be\none hundred millions and one; but after that, the next number presented by\nthe rim of the wheel, instead of being one hundred millions and two, is\none hundred millions ten thousand and two.\n\n\"The law which seemed to govern this series fails at the one hundred\nmillion and second term. That term is larger than we expected by ten\nthousand. The next term is larger than was anticipated by thirty thousand.\nIf we still continue to observe the numbers presented by the wheel, we\nshall find that for a hundred, or even for a thousand terms, they continue\nto follow the new law relating to the triangular numbers; but after\nwatching them for twenty-seven hundred and sixty-one terms, we find that\nthis law fails in the case of the twenty-seven hundred and sixty-second\nterm. If we continue to observe, another law then comes into action. This\nwill continue through fourteen hundred and thirty terms, when a new law is\nagain introduced, which extends over about nine hundred and fifty terms;\nand this, too, like all its predecessors, fails, and gives place to other\nlaws, which appear at different intervals. It is also possible so to\narrange the engine, that at any periods, however remote, the first law\nshall be interrupted for one or more times, and be superseded by any\nother laws, after which the original law shall be again produced, and no\nother deviation shall ever take place.\n\n\"Now, it must be remarked that the law that each number presented by the\nengine is greater by unity than the preceding number, which law the\nobserver had deduced from an induction of a hundred million of instances,\nwas not the true law that regulated its action; and that the occurrence of\nthe number one hundred million ten thousand and two at the one hundred\nmillion and second term was as necessary a consequence of the original\nadjustment as was the regular succession of any one of the intermediate\nnumbers to its immediate antecedent. The same remark applies to the next\napparent deviation from the new law, which was founded on an induction of\ntwo thousand seven hundred and sixty-one terms; and to all the succeeding\nlaws, with this limitation only, that whilst their consecutive\nintroduction at various definite intervals is a necessary consequence of\nthe mechanical structure of the engine, our knowledge of analysis does not\nyet enable us to predict the periods at which the more distant laws will\nbe introduced.\"--_Ninth Bridgewater Treatise._\n\nThe application of these statements to the doctrine of special as well as\nof miraculous providence is very obvious. If human ingenuity can construct\na machine which shall exhibit the introduction of new laws, after the old\nones had been established by an induction of a hundred million of\nexamples, and these new ones be succeeded by others, how much easier for\nthe infinite God to construct the vast and more complicated machine of the\nuniverse, so that new laws, or modifications of the old ones, shall be\nintroduced at various periods of its history, to meet every exigency! How\neasy for him so to adjust this machine at the beginning, that the new laws\nand new modes of action should be introduced, precisely at those points\nwhere a special providence would be desirable, to reward the virtuous and\nto punish the wicked, and then the old law again assume its dominion! And\nhow easily, in this way, could the case of every individual be met, from\nthe beginning to the end of the world! I mean, how easy would this work be\nto infinite wisdom and power!\n\nBut if all events, miraculous as well as common, may depend upon unbending\nlaw, how does such a view differ from the one I am now opposing, viz.,\nthat the constancy of nature's laws precludes the idea of any special\ninterference on the part of God, in human affairs? The main point of\ndifference, I reply, is, that the advocates of the latter view will not\nadmit any such thing at the present day as special interference, on the\npart of the Deity, with nature. They admit only uniform and ordinary laws,\nwhich they suppose are never interrupted. This I deny; and endeavor to\nshow, not only that the contrary may be a fact, but that God purposed it\noriginally, and determined the laws by which it might be accomplished. The\nfact that he did this beforehand, even from eternity, no more precludes\nhis agency, than the special interference of a father to help his child\nthrough a dangerous pass is disproved, because he foresaw the danger and\nprovided the means of defence even before the child was born. If the\nfather was actually with the child, as he went through the danger, and\nheld out to him the requisite help, what difference could it make, though\nthe father purposed to do so a long time previously? And if we admit that\nGod's efficiency alone gives power to the ordinary laws of nature, we\nshall admit that in every special law he is as really present with his\nenergy, as a father who should lead his child by the hand through the\ndangerous path. So that, practically at least, the difference between\nthese two views of the subject is very great; the one removing God far\naway, and putting law in his place; and the other bringing him near, and\nmaking him the actual and constant agent in every event. The one view is\npractical atheism, although often adopted by religious men; the other is\npractical Christianity.\n\nBy the principles of physical science, then, the scriptural doctrines of\nmiraculous and special providence are proved to be in accordance with\nphilosophy. The miracles of revelation are shown to have been preceded by\nthe miracles of geology; and are, therefore, in conformity with the\nprinciples of the divine government. The modifications which God can make\nin the causes of events out of human view, or the changes which he can\nproduce by lateral influences upon the final result,--all, it may be, in\nconformity to an eternal plan, reaching the minutest of human\naffairs,--enable him to execute every purpose of special providence so as\nto satisfy every exigency.\n\nThe sceptic may say, that we cannot prove by facts that God does so modify\nand arrange the laws and operations of nature as to adapt his dealings to\nthe case of individuals. But, on the other hand, neither can he show that\nGod does not thus interfere with nature's uniformity. It is enough to show\nthat he can do it without a miracle, in order to establish the doctrine of\nspecial providence. How often he exercises this power, we cannot know; but\nwe may be sure as often as is desirable.\n\nA most important application of these principles may be made to the\nsubject of prayer. For in answering prayer, God is, in fact, merely\nexecuting some of the purposes of his special providence; and it is\ngratifying to the pious heart to see how he can give an answer to the\nhumblest petitioner. No matter though all the laws of nature seem in the\nway of an answer,--God can so modify their action as to conform them to\nthe case of every petitioner. War, famine, and pestilence may all be upon\nus, yet humble prayer may turn them all aside, and every other physical\nevil; and that without a miracle, if best for us and for the universe.\nTell a man that the only effect of prayer is its reflex influence upon\nhimself, in leading him to conform more strictly to nature's laws, and you\nsend a paralysis and a death chill into all his moral sensibilities.\nIndeed, he cannot pray; but tell him that God will be influenced, as is\nany earthly friend, by his supplications, and his heart beats full and\nstrong, the current of life goes bounding through his whole system, the\nglow of health mantles his cheek, and all his senses are roused into\nintense and delightful action.\n\nThe sad influence of a perversion and misunderstanding of the doctrine of\nnature's constancy upon the youthful mind is well exhibited by a late able\nwriter. \"Early trained to it under the domestic roof,\" says M'Cosh, \"the\nperson regularly engaged in prayer during childhood and opening manhood.\nBut as he became introduced to general society, and began to feel his\nindependence of the guardians of his youth, he was tempted to look upon\nthe father's commands, in this respect, as proceeding from sourness and\nsternness, and the mother's advice as originating in an amiable weakness\nand timidity. He is now careless in the performance of acts which in time\npast had been punctually attended to. How short, how hurried, how cold are\nthe prayers which he now utters! Then there come to be mornings on which\nhe is snatched away to some very important or enticing work without\nengaging in his customary devotions. There are evenings, too, following\ndays of mad excitement or sinful pleasure, in which he feels utterly\nindisposed to go into the presence of God, and to be left alone with him.\nHe feels that there is an utter incongruity between the ball-room, or the\ntheatre, which he has just left, and the throne of grace, to which he\nshould now go. What can he say to God, when he would pray to him? Confess\nhis sins? No; he does not at present feel the act to be sinful. Thank God\nfor giving him access to such follies? He has his doubts whether God\napproves of all that has been done. But he may ask God's blessing? No; he\nis scarcely disposed to acknowledge that he needs a blessing, or he doubts\nwhether the blessing would be given. The practical conclusion to which he\ncomes is, that it may be as consistent in him to betake himself to sleep\nwithout offering to God what he feels would only be a mockery. What is he\nto do the following morning? It is a critical time. Confess his error? No;\ncherishing as he does the recollection of the gay scene in which he\nmingled, and with the taste and relish of it yet upon his palate, he is\nnot prepared to acknowledge his folly. Morning and evening now go and\nreturn, and bring new gifts from God, and new manifestations of his\ngoodness; but no acknowledgment of the divine bounty on the part of him\nwho is yet ever receiving it. No doubt there are times when he is prompted\nto prayer by powerful feelings, called up by outward trials or inward\nconvictions; but ever when the storms of human life would drive him to the\nshore, there is a tide beating him back. His course continues to be a very\nvacillating one--now seeming to approach to God, and anon driven farther\nfrom him, till he obtains from books, or from lectures, a smattering of\nhalf-understood science. He now learns that all things are governed by\nlaws, regular and fixed, over which the breath of prayer can exert as\nlittle influence, as they move on in their allotted course, as the passing\nbreeze of the earth over the sun in his circuit. False philosophy has now\ncome to the aid of guilty feelings, and hardens their cold waters into an\nicicle lying at his very heart, cooling all his ardor, and damping all his\nenthusiasm. He looks back, at times, no doubt, to the simple faith of his\nchildhood with a sigh; but it is as to a pleasing dream, or illusion, from\nwhich he has been awakened, and into which, the spell being broken, he can\nnever again fall.\"--_Method of the Divine Government_, p. 224.\n\nO, what a change would this world exhibit, were the whole Christian church\nto exercise full faith in God's ability to answer prayer without a\nmiracle, only to the extent pointed out by philosophy, to say nothing of\nthe Bible; for, in fact, a large proportion of that church, confounded by\nthe specious argument derived from nature's constancy, have virtually\nyielded this most important principle to the demands of scepticism. When\nnatural evils, such as war, famine, drought, and pestilence, came upon our\nforefathers, they, taking the Bible for their guide, observed days of\nfasting and prayer for their removal. But how seldom do their descendants\nfollow their example! And yet even physical science testifies that the\nfathers acted in conformity to the true principles of philosophy. Would\nthat the Christian church would consent to be led back to the Bible\ndoctrine on this subject by philosophy.\n\nThat same philosophy, also, should lead the good man, when struggling\nthrough difficulties, to exercise unshaken confidence in the divine\nprotection, even though all nature's laws seem arrayed against him; for at\nthe unseen touch of God's efficiency, the iron bars of law shall melt away\nlike wax, and deliverance be given in the midst of appalling dangers, if\nbest for the man and for the universe; and if not best, he will not desire\nit.\n\nScience, too, bids the wicked man not to fancy that the constancy of\nnature will shield him from the infliction of merited and special\npunishment, should God choose to make bare the rod of his justice; for the\nblow may come as certainly in the course of nature as against it.\n\nLet modern Christian theology, then, receive meekly the rebuke\nadministered on this important point by physical science. For how lame and\nhalting a defence of the Scripture doctrine of special providence and\nprayer has that theology been able to make! How few of our systems of\ntheology contain a manful vindication of truths so important! Let not the\nChristian divine, therefore, refuse the aid thus offered by physical\nscience. Let him no longer indulge groundless jealousies against true\nphilosophy, as if adverse to religion. Especially let him not spurn the\naid of geology, which alone, of all the sciences, discloses stupendous\nmiracles of creation in early times, and thus removes all presumption\nagainst the miracles of Christianity and special providence at any time.\n\nIt is, indeed, an instructive fact, that a science which has been thought\nso full of danger to Christianity should thus early be found vindicating\nsome of the most peculiar and long-contested doctrines of revelation. And\nyet it ought not to surprise us, for geology is as really the work of God\nas revelation. And though, when ill understood and perverted, she may have\nseemed recreant to her celestial origin, yet the more fully her\nproportions are developed, and her features brought into daylight, the\nmore clearly do we recognize her alliance to every thing pure and noble in\nthe universe. \"And surely,\" says a late writer, \"it must be gratifying\nthus to see a science, formerly classed, and not perhaps unjustly, amongst\nthe most pernicious to faith, once more become her handmaid; to see her\nnow, after so many years of wandering from theory to theory, or rather\nfrom vision to vision, return once more to the home where she was born,\nand to the altar at which she made her first simple offerings; no longer,\nas she first went forth, a wilful, dreamy, empty-handed child, but with a\nmatronly dignity, and a priest-like step, and a bosom full of well-earned\ngifts, to pile upon its sacred hearth. For it was religion which gave\ngeology birth, and to the sanctuary she hath once more\nreturned.\"--_Wiseman's Lectures on Science and Revealed Religion_, p. 192,\nAm. ed.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XI.\n\nTHE FUTURE CONDITION AND DESTINY OF THE EARTH.\n\n\nMan has a stronger desire to penetrate the future than the past. And yet\nthe details of most future events are wisely concealed from him. There are\ntwo, and only two, sources of evidence from which he can obtain some\nglimpses of what will be hereafter. The one is revelation, the other\nanalogy. So far as God has thought proper to reveal the future, our\ninformation is precise and certain. But it does not embrace a multitude of\nevents about which we have strong curiosity. By analogy is meant a\nprediction of the future from the past. On the principle that nature is\nconstant, we infer what will be from what has been. If, however, new laws\nare hereafter to come into operation, or if present agencies will then\noperate very differently from what they now do, it is obvious that analogy\ncan be only an imperfect guide. Still, in respect to many important\nevents, its conclusions are infallible. Judging, for instance, from the\npast, we are absolutely certain that no living thing will escape the great\nlaw of dissolution, which, thus far, apart from the few exceptions made\nknown to us by revelation, has been universal.\n\nThe future changes in the condition of the earth, as they are taught us by\nrevelation and analogy, or, rather, by geology, will form the subject of\nmy present lecture. And my first object will be, to ascertain, if\npossible, precisely what the Bible teaches us concerning these changes.\n\nWe find in the Scriptures several descriptions, more or less definite, of\nthe changes which this globe will hereafter undergo. Some of them,\nhowever, are couched in the figurative language of prophecy, and others\nare incidental allusions; and concerning the precise meaning of such\ndescriptions, there will, of course, be a diversity of opinion.\n\nThere are, however, some passages on this subject as literal and as\nprecise in their meaning as language can be. Now, it is one of the rules\nfor interpreting language, that, where a work contains several accounts of\nthe same event, the description which is most simple and literal ought to\nbe made the index for obtaining the meaning of those passages which are\nfigurative, or, on any account, obscure. I shall, therefore, select the\npassage of Scripture which all acknowledge to be most plain and definite,\nrespecting the future destruction of the earth, and the new heavens and\nearth that are to succeed, and first inquire into its precise meaning;\nafter which, we shall be better prepared to ascertain what modification of\nthat meaning other passages of sacred writ demand.\n\nIt needs but a cursory examination of the Bible to convince any one that\nthe description in the Second Epistle of Peter of the future destruction\nand renovation of the earth and heavens, is eminently the passage first to\nbe examined, because the fullest and clearest on this subject. It is the\napostle's object directly and literally to describe these great changes,\napart from all embellishments of language.\n\n_There shall come_, says he, _in the last days, scoffers, walking after\ntheir own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since\nthe fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the\nbeginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that\nby the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of\nthe water and in the water; whereby the world that then was, being\noverflowed with water, perished. But the heavens and the earth, which are\nnow, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire, against the\nday of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not\nignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand\nyears, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning\nhis promise, as some men count slackness, but is long suffering to\nus-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to\nrepentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in\nthe which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements\nshall melt with fervent heat; the earth, also, and the works that are\ntherein, shall be burned up. Seeing, then, that all these things shall be\ndissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation\nand godliness? Looking for, and hasting unto the coming of the day of God,\nwherein the heavens, being on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements\nshall melt with fervent heat. Nevertheless, we, according to his promise,\nlook for new heavens, and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness._\n\nIt would require too much time, and, moreover, is not necessary to the\nobject I have in view, to enter into minute verbal criticism upon this\npassage. I will only remark that the phrase translated _the earth and the\nworks that are therein_, might with equal propriety be rendered \"the earth\nand the works that are _thereon_;\" and yet the difference of meaning\nbetween the two modes of expression is of no great importance. Again, by\nthe term _heavens_, in this passage, we are evidently to understand the\natmosphere, or region immediately surrounding the earth; as in the first\nchapter of Genesis, where it is said that _God called the firmament\nheavens_; the plural form being used in the Hebrew, though not in the\nEnglish translation.\n\nWhat, now, by a fair exegesis, is taught in this passage concerning the\ndestruction and renovation of the world? The following train of remark may\nconduct us to the true answer to this inquiry:--\n\nIn the first place, this passage is to be understood literally. It would\nseem as if it could hardly be necessary to present any formal proof of\nthis position to any person of common sense, who had read the passage. But\nthe fact is, that men of no mean reputation as commentators have\nmaintained that the whole of it is only a vivid figurative prophecy of the\ndestruction of Jerusalem. Others suppose the new heavens and new earth\nhere described to exist before the conflagration of the world. But these\nnew heavens and earth are represented as the residence of the righteous,\nafter the burning and melting of the earth, which, according to other\nparts of Scripture, is to take place at the end of the world, or at the\ngeneral judgment. How strange that, in order to sustain a favorite theory,\nable men should thus invert the obvious order of these great events, so\nclearly described in the Bible! Still more absurd is it to attempt to\nfasten a figurative character upon this most simple statement of\ninspiration. It is, indeed, true, that the prophets have sometimes set\nforth great political and moral changes, the downfall of empires, or of\ndistinguished men, by the destruction of the heavens and the earth, and\nthe growing pale and darkening of the sun and moon. But in all these cases\nthe figurative character of the description is most obvious; while in the\npassage from Peter its literal character is equally obvious. Take, for\nexample, this statement--_By the word of God the heavens were of old, and\nthe earth, standing out of the water and in the water; whereby the world\nthat then was, being overflowed with water, perished. But the heavens and\nthe earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved\nunto fire, against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men._\n\nI believe no one has ever doubted that the destruction of the world by\nwater, here described, refers to Noah's deluge. Now, how absurd to admit\nthat this is a literal description of that event, and then to maintain the\nremainder of the sentence, which declares the future destruction of that\nsame world by fire, to be figurative in the highest degree! For if this\ndestruction mean only the destruction of Jerusalem, or any other great\npolitical or moral revolution, the language is one of the boldest figures\nwhich can be framed. Who, that knows any thing of the laws of language,\ndoes not see the supreme absurdity of thus coupling in the same sentence\nthe most simple and certain literality with the strongest of all figures?\nWhat mark is given us, by which we may know where the boundary is between\nthe literal and the metaphorical sense? From what part of the Bible, or\nfrom what uninspired author, can a parallel example be adduced? What but\nthe strongest necessity, the most decided _exigentia loci_, would justify\nsuch an anomalous interpretation of any author? Nay, I do not believe any\nnecessity could justify it. It would be more reasonable to infer that the\npassage had no meaning, or an absurd one. But surely no such necessity\nexists in the present case. Understood literally, the passage teaches only\nwhat is often expressed, though less fully, in many other parts of\nScripture; and even though some of these other passages should be involved\nin a degree of obscurity,--and I am not disposed to deny that some\nobscurity rests upon one or two of them,--it would be no good reason for\ntransforming so plain a description into a highly-wrought figurative\nrepresentation; especially when by no ingenuity can we thus alter more\nthan one part of the sentence. I conclude, therefore, that, if any part of\nthe Bible is literal, we are thus to consider this chapter of Peter.\n\nIn the second place, this passage does not teach that the earth will be\nannihilated.\n\nThe prevailing opinion in this country, probably, has been, and still is,\nthat the destruction of the world described by Peter will amount to\nannihilation--that the matter of the globe will cease to be. But in all\nages there have been many who believe that the destruction will be only\nthe ruin of the present economy of the world, but not its utter\nextinction. And surely Peter's description does not imply annihilation of\nthe matter of the globe. He makes fire the agent of the destruction, and,\nin order to ascertain the extent of the ruin that will follow, we have\nonly to inquire what effect combustion will have upon matter. The common\nopinion is, that intense combustion actually destroys or annihilates\nmatter, because it is thereby dissipated. But the chemist knows that not\none particle of matter has ever been thus deprived of existence; that fire\nonly changes the form of matter, but never annihilates it. When solid\nmatter is changed into gas, as in most cases of combustion, it seems to be\nannihilated, because it disappears; but it has only assumed a new form,\nand exists as really as before. Since, therefore, biblical and scientific\ntruth must agree, we may be sure that the apostle never meant to teach\nthat the matter of the globe would cease to be, through the action of fire\nupon it; nor is there any thing in his language that implies such a\nresult, but most obviously the reverse.\n\nIf these things be so, then, in the third place, we may infer that Peter\ndid not mean to teach that the matter of the globe would be in the least\ndiminished by the final conflagration. I doubt not the sufficiency of\ndivine power partially or wholly to annihilate the material universe. But\nheat, however intense, has no tendency to do this; it only gives matter a\nnew form. And heat is the only agency which the apostle represents as\nemployed. In short, we have no evidence, either from science or\nrevelation, that the minutest atom of matter has ever been destroyed since\nthe original creation; nor have we any more evidence that any of it ever\nwill be reduced to the nothingness from which it sprang. The prevalent\nideas upon this subject all result from erroneous notions of the effect of\nintense heat.\n\nIn the fourth place, the passage under consideration teaches us that\nwhatever upon or within the earth is capable of combustion will undergo\nthat change, and that the entire globe will be melted.\n\nThe language of Peter has always seemed to me extremely interesting. He\nsays that _the heavens_ [or atmosphere] _will pass away with a great\nnoise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth, also, and\nthe works that are therein, shall be burned up; looking for, and hasting\nunto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens, being on fire,\nshall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat_.\n\nThis language approaches nearer to an anticipation of the scientific\ndiscoveries of modern times than any other part of Scripture. And yet, at\nthe time it was written, it would not have enabled any one to understand\nthe chemistry of the great changes which it describes. But, now that their\nchemistry is understood, we perceive that the language is adapted to it,\nin a manner which no uninspired writer would have done. The atmosphere is\nrepresented as passing away with a great noise--an effect which the\nchemist would predict by the union of its oxygen with the hydrogen and\nother gases liberated by the intense heat. Yet what uninspired writer of\nthe first century would have imagined such a result?\n\nAgain, when we consider the notions which then prevailed, and which are\nstill widely diffused, why should the apostle add to the simple statement\nthat the earth would be burnt up, the declaration that its elements would\nbe melted? For the impression was, that the combustion would entirely\ndestroy the matter of the globe. But the chemist finds that the greater\npart of the earth has already been oxidized, or burnt, and on this matter\nthe only effect of the heat, unless intense enough to dissipate it, would\nbe to melt it. If, therefore, the apostle had said only that the world\nwould be burnt up, the sceptical chemist would have inferred that he had\nmade a mistake through ignorance of chemistry. But he cannot now draw such\nan inference; for the apostle's language clearly implies that only the\ncombustible matter of the globe will be burnt, while the elements, or\nfirst principles of things, will be melted; so that the final result will\nbe an entire liquid, fiery globe. Such a wonderful adaptation of his\ndescription to modern science could not surely have resulted from human\nsagacity, but must be the fruit of divine inspiration.\n\nAnd this adaptation is the more wonderful when we find it running through\nthe whole Bible wherever the sacred writers come in contact with\nscientific subjects. In this respect, the Bible differs from every other\nsystem of religion professedly from heaven.\n\nWhenever other systems have treated of the works of nature, they have\nsanctioned some error, and thus put into the hands of modern science the\nmeans of detecting the imposture. The Vedas of India adopt the absurd\nnotions of an ignorant and polytheistic age respecting astronomy, and the\nKoran adopts as infallible truth the absurdities of the Ptolemaic system.\nBut hitherto the Bible has never been proved to come into collision with\nany scientific discovery, although many of its books were written in the\nrudest and most ignorant ages. It does not, indeed, anticipate scientific\ndiscovery. But the remarkable adaptation of its language to such\ndiscoveries, when they are made, seems to me a more striking mark of its\ndivine origin than if it had contained a revelation of the whole system of\nmodern science.\n\nIn the fifth place, the passage under consideration teaches that this\nearth will be renovated by the final conflagration, and become the abode\nof the righteous. After describing the day of God, _wherein the heavens,\nbeing on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with\nfervent heat_, Peter adds, _Nevertheless, we, according to his promise,\nlook for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness._\nNow, the apostle does not here, in so many words, declare that the new\nheavens and earth will be the present world and its atmosphere, purified\nand renovated by fire. But it is certainly a natural inference that such\nwas his meaning. For if he intended some other remote and quite different\nplace, why should he call it _earth_, and, especially, why should he\nsurround it with an atmosphere? The natural and most obvious meaning of\nthe passage surely is, that the future residence of the righteous will be\nthis present terraqueous globe, after its entire organic and combustible\nmatter shall have been destroyed, and its whole mass reduced by heat to a\nliquid state, and then a new economy reared up on its surface, not adapted\nto sinful, but to sinless beings, and, therefore, quite different from\nits present condition--probably more perfect, but still the same earth and\nsurrounding heavens.\n\nThere are, indeed, some difficulties in the way of such a meaning to this\npassage, and objections to a material heaven; and these I shall notice in\nthe proper place. But I have given what seems to me the natural and\nobvious meaning of the passage.\n\nSuch, as I conceive, are the fair inferences from the apostle's\ndescription of the end of the world. Let us now inquire whether any other\npassages of Scripture require us to modify this meaning.\n\nThe idea of a future destruction of the world by fire is recognized in\nvarious places, both in the Old and New Testaments. Christ speaks more\nthan once of heaven and earth as passing away. Paul speaks of Christ as\ndescending, at the end of the world, in flaming fire. And the Psalmist\ndescribes the destruction of the heavens and the earth as a renovation.\n_They shall perish,_ says he, _but thou_ [God] _shalt endure; yea, all of\nthem shall wax old like a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou change\nthem, and they shall be changed._ In Revelation, after the apostle had\ngiven a vivid description of the final judgment and its retributions, he\nsays, _And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and\nthe first earth were passed away, and there was no more sea._ He then\nproceeds to give a minute and glowing description of what he calls the New\nJerusalem, coming down from God, out of heaven. It is scarcely possible to\nunderstand the whole of this description as literally true. We must rather\nregard it as a figurative representation of the heavenly state. And hence\nthe first verse, which speaks of the new heavens and the new earth, in\nalmost the same language which Peter uses, may be also figurative,\nindicating merely a more exalted condition than the present world. Hence,\nI would not use this passage to sustain the interpretation given of the\nliteral description by Peter. And yet it is by no means improbable that\nthe figurative language of John may have for its basis the same truths\nwhich are taught by Peter. Nor ought we to infer, because a figure is\nbuilt upon that basis in the apocalyptic vision, that the simple\nstatements of Peter are metaphorical.\n\nIn the passage quoted from Peter, it is said, _Nevertheless, we, according\nto his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth\nrighteousness._ Most writers have supposed the apostle to refer either to\nthe promise made to Abraham, that his seed should inherit the land, or to\na prophecy in Isaiah, which says, _Behold, I create new heavens, and a new\nearth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into mind. But be\nyou glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold, I create\nJerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in\nJerusalem, and joy in my people; and the voice of weeping shall be no more\nheard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an\ninfant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days; for the\nchild shall die a hundred years old; but the sinner, being a hundred years\nold, shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and\nthey shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not\nbuild, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat; for as\nthe days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long\nenjoy the works of their hands. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,\nand the lion shall eat straw like the bullock; and dust shall be the\nserpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain,\nsaith the Lord._\n\nNow, it seems highly probable that the new heavens and earth, here\ndescribed, represent a state of things on the present earth before the day\nof judgment, and not a heavenly and immortal state; for sin and death are\nspoken of as existing in it; both which, we are assured, will be excluded\nfrom heaven. Hence able biblical writers refer this prophecy to the\nmillennial state, or the period when there will be a general prevalence of\nChristianity. In this they are probably correct. But some of these\nwriters, as Low and Whitby, proceed a step farther, and infer that Peter's\ndescription of the new heavens and new earth belong also to the millennial\nperiod; first, because they presume that the apostle referred to this\npromise in Isaiah; and secondly, because he uses the same terms, namely,\n\"new heavens and new earth.\" But are these grounds sufficient to justify\nso important a conclusion? How common it is to find the same words and\nphrases in the Bible applied by different writers to different subjects,\nespecially by the prophets! Even if we can suppose Peter to place the new\nheavens and the new earth before the judgment, in despite of his plain\ndeclaration to the contrary, yet there are few who will doubt that the new\nheavens and earth described in revelation are subsequent to the judgment\nday, so vividly described in the verses immediately preceding.\n\nAnd as to the promise referred to by Peter, if he really describes the\nheavenly state, surely it may be found in a multitude of places; wherever,\nindeed, immortal life and blessedness are offered to faith and obedience.\nIsaiah, therefore, may be giving a figurative description of a glorious\nstate of the church in this world, under the terms \"new heavens and new\nearth,\" emblematical of those real new heavens and new earth beyond the\ngrave, described by Peter. And hence, it seems to me, the language of the\nprophet should not be allowed to set aside, or modify, the plain meaning\nof the apostle.\n\nI shall quote only one other passage of the Bible on this subject. I refer\nto that difficult text in Romans, which represents the whole creation as\ngroaning and travailing together in pain until now; and that it will be\ndelivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the\nchildren of God.\n\nI have stated in a former lecture, that Tholuck, the distinguished German\ntheologian, considers this a description of the present bound and fettered\ncondition of all nature, and that the deliverance refers to the future\nrenovation of the earth. Such an exposition chimes in perfectly with the\nviews on this subject which have long and extensively prevailed in\nGermany. And it certainly does give a consistent meaning to a passage\nwhich has been to commentators a perfect labyrinth of difficulties. If\nthis be not its meaning, then I may safely say that its meaning has not\nyet been found out.\n\nIn view, then, of all the important passages of Scripture concerning the\nfuture destruction and renovation of the earth, I think we may fairly\nconclude that none of them require us to modify the natural and obvious\nmeaning of Peter which has been given. In general, they all coincide with\nthe views presented by that apostle; or if, in any case, there is a slight\napparent difference, the figurative character of all other statements\nbesides his require us to receive his views as the true standard, and to\nmodify the meaning of the others. We may, therefore, conclude that the\nBible does plainly and distinctly teach us that this earth will hereafter\nbe burned up; in other words, that all upon or within it, capable of\ncombustion, will be consumed, and the entire mass, the elements, without\nthe loss of one particle of the matter now existing, will be melted; and\nthen, that the world, thus purified from the contamination of sin, and\nsurrounded by a new atmosphere, or heavens, and adapted in all respects\nto the nature and wants of spiritual and sinless beings, will become the\nresidence of the righteous. Of the precise nature of that new\ndispensation, and of the mode of existence there, the Scriptures are\nindeed silent. But that, like the present world, it will be\nmaterial,--that there will be a solid globe, and a transparent expanse\naround it,--seems most clearly indicated in the sacred record.\n\nThe wide-spread opinion that heaven will be a sort of airy Elysium, where\nthe present laws of nature will be unknown, and where matter, if it exist,\ncan exist only in its most attenuated form, is a notion to which the Bible\nis a stranger.\n\nThe resurrection of the body, as well as the language of Peter, most\nclearly show us that the future world will be a solid, material world,\npurified indeed, and beautified, but retaining its materialism.\n\nLet us now see whether, in coming to these conclusions from Scripture\nlanguage, we are influenced by scientific considerations, or whether many\ndiscerning minds have not, in all ages, attached a similar meaning to the\ninspired record.\n\nAmong all nations, the history of whose opinions have come down to us, and\nespecially among the Greeks, the belief has prevailed that a catastrophe\nby fire awaited the earth, corresponding to, or rather the counterpart of,\na previous destruction by water. These catastrophes they denominated the\n_cataclysm_, or destruction by water, and the _ecpyrosis_, or destruction\nby fire. The ruin was supposed to be followed, in each case, by the\nregeneration of the earth in an improved form, which gradually\ndeteriorated; the first age after the catastrophe, constituting the golden\nage; the next, the silver age; and so on to the iron age, which preceded\nanother cataclysm, or ecpyrosis. The intervals between these convulsions\nwere regarded as of various lengths, but all of them of great duration.\n\nThese opinions the Greeks derived from the Egyptians.\n\nThe belief in the future conflagration of the world also prevailed among\nthe ancient Jews. Philo says that \"the earth, after this purification,\nshall appear new again, even as it was after its first creation.\"--_De\nVita Mosis_, tom. ii.--Among the Jews, these ideas may have been, in part,\nderived from the Old Testament; though its language, as we have seen, is\nfar less explicit on this subject than the New Testament. That\ndistinguished Christian writers, in all ages since the advent of Christ,\nhave understood the language of Peter as we have explained it, would be\neasy to show. I have room, however, to quote only the opinions of a few\ndistinguished modern writers.\n\nDr. Knapp, one of the most scientific and judicious of theologians, thus\nremarks upon the passage of Peter already examined: \"It cannot be thought\nthat what is here said respecting the burning of the world is to be\nunderstood figuratively, as Wettstein supposes; because the fire is here\ntoo directly opposed to the literal water of the flood to be so\nunderstood. It is the object of Peter to refute the boast of scoffers,\nthat all things had remained unchanged from the beginning, and that,\ntherefore, no day of judgment and no end of the world could be expected.\nAnd so he says that originally, at the time of the creation, the whole\nearth was covered and overflowed with water, (Gen. i.,) and that from\nhence the dry land appeared; and the same was true at the time of Noah's\nflood. But there is yet to come a great fire revolution. The heavens and\nthe earth (the earth with its atmosphere) are reserved, or kept in store,\nfor the fire, until the day of judgment, (v. 10.) At that time the heavens\nwill pass away with a great noise, and the elements will be dissolved by\nfervent heat, and every thing upon the earth will be burnt up. The same\nthing is taught in verse 12. But in verse 13 Peter gives the design of\nthis revolution. It will not be annihilation, but we expect a new heavens\nand a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, _i. e._, an entirely new,\naltered, and beautiful abode for man, to be built from the ruins of his\nformer dwelling-place, as the future habitation of the pious, (Rev. xxi.\n1.) This will be very much in the same way as a more perfect and an\nimmortal body will be reared from the body which we now\npossess.\"--_Theology_, vol. ii. p. 649.\n\nFrom Dr. Chalmers my extracts will be longer than are necessary to show\nhis opinion upon this subject, because he felicitously refutes certain\nerroneous ideas, widely prevalent, respecting matter, and spirit. \"We know\nhistorically,\" says he, \"that earth, that a solid, material earth, may\nform the dwelling of sinless creatures, in full converse and friendship\nwith the Being who made them.\" \"Man, at the first, had for his place this\nworld, and, at the same time, for his privilege an unclouded fellowship\nwith God, and for his prospect an immortality, which death was neither to\nintercept nor put an end to. He was terrestrial in respect to condition,\nand yet celestial, both in respect of character and enjoyments.\n\n\"The common imagination that we have of paradise on the other side of\ndeath, is that of a lofty aerial region, where the inmates float in ether,\nor are mysteriously suspended upon nothing; where all the warm and\nsensible accompaniments, which give such an expression of strength, and\nlife, and coloring to our present habitation, are attenuated into a sort\nof spiritual element, that is meagre and imperceptible, and utterly\nuninviting to the eye of mortals here below; where every vestige of\nmaterialism is done away, and nothing left but certain unearthly scenes,\nthat have no power of allurement, and certain unearthly ecstasies with\nwhich it is felt impossible to sympathize. The holders of this imagination\nforget all the while that there is no necessary connection between\nmaterialism and sin; that the world which we now inhabit had all the\nsolidity and amplitude of its present materialism before sin entered into\nit; that God, so far, on that account, from looking slightly upon it,\nafter it had received the last touch of his creating hand, reviewed the\nearth, and the waters, and the firmament, and all the green herbage, with\nthe living creatures, and the man whom he had raised in dominion over\nthem, and _he saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was all\nvery good_. They forget that, on the birth of materialism, when it stood\nout in the freshness of those glories which the great Architect of nature\nhad impressed upon it, that _the morning stars sang together, and all the\nsons of God shouted for joy_. They forget the appeals that are every where\nmade in the Bible to his material workmanship, and how, from the face of\nthese visible heavens, and the garniture of this earth which we tread\nupon, the greatness and goodness of God are reflected on the view of his\nworshippers. No, my brethren, the object of the administration we sit\nunder is to extirpate sin, but it is not to sweep away materialism. By the\nconvulsions of the last day it may be shaken and broken down from its\npresent arrangement, and thrown into such fitful agitations as that the\nwhole of its existing framework shall fall to pieces; and with a heat so\nfervent as to melt the most solid elements, may it be utterly dissolved.\nAnd thus may the earth again become without form and void, but without one\nparticle of its substance going into annihilation. Out of the ruins of\nthis second chaos may another heaven and another earth be made to arise,\nand a new materialism, with other aspects of magnificence and beauty,\nemerge from the wreck of this mighty transformation, and the world be\npeopled, as before, with the varieties of material loveliness, and space\nbe again lighted up into a firmament of material splendor.\n\n\"It is, indeed, a homage to that materialism, which many are for expunging\nfrom the future state of the universe altogether, that, ere the immaterial\nsoul of man has reached the ultimate glory and blessedness designed for\nit, it must return and knock at the very grave where lie the mouldered\nremains of the body which it wore, and there inquisition must be made for\nthe flesh, and the sinews, and the bones which the power of corruption\nhas, perhaps centuries before, assimilated to the earth around them, and\nthen the minute atoms must be reassembled into a structure that bears upon\nit the form, and lineaments, and general aspect of a man, and the soul\npasses into this material framework, which is hereafter to be its\nlodging-place forever; and that not as its prison, but as its pleasant and\nbefitting habitation; not to be trammelled, as some would have it, in a\nhold of materialism, but to be therein equipped for the services of\neternity; to walk embodied among the bowers of our second paradise; to\nstand embodied in the presence of our God.\"\n\n\"The glorification of the visible creation,\" says Tholuck, the\ndistinguished German divine, \"is more definitely declared in Rev. xxi. 1,\nalthough it must be borne in mind that a prophetic vision is there\ndescribed. Still more definitely do we find the belief of a transformation\nof the material world declared in 2 Peter, iii. 7-12. The idea that the\nperfected kingdom of Christ is to be transferred to heaven, is properly a\nmodern notion. According to Paul and the Revelation of John, the kingdom\nof God is placed upon the earth, in so far as this itself has part in the\nuniversal transformation. This exposition has been adopted and defended\nby most of the oldest commentators; _e. g._, Chrysostom, Theodoret,\nHieronymus, Augustine, Luther, Koppe, and others. Luther says, in his\nlively way, 'God will make, not the earth only, but the heavens also, much\nmore beautiful than they are at present. At present, we see the world in\nits working clothes; but hereafter it will be arrayed in its Easter and\nWhitsuntide robes.'\"\n\n\"I cannot but feel astonishment,\" says Dr. John Pye Smith, \"that any\nserious and intelligent man should have his mind fettered with the common,\nI might call it the vulgar, notion of a proper destruction of the earth;\nand some seem to extend the notion to the whole solar system, and even the\nentire material universe; applying the idea of an extinction of being, a\nreducing to nothingness. This notion has, indeed, been often used to aid\nimpassioned description in sermons and poetry; and thus it has gained so\nstrong a hold upon the feelings of many pious persons, that they have made\nit an article of their faith. But I confess myself unable to find any\nevidence for it in nature, reason, or Scripture. We can discover nothing\nlike destruction in the matter of the universe as subjected to our senses.\nMasses are disintegrated, forms are changed, compounds are decomposed; but\nnot an atom is annihilated. Neither have we the shadow of reason to assert\nthat mind, the seat of intelligence, ever was, or ever will be, in a\nsingle instance, destroyed. The declaration in Scripture that _the heavens\nand the earth shall flee away, and no more place be found for them_, is\nundoubtedly figurative, and denotes the most momentous changes in the\nscenes of the divine moral government. If it be the purpose of God that\nthe earth shall be subjected to a total conflagration, we perfectly well\nknow that the instruments of such an event lie close at hand, and wait\nonly the divine volition to burst out in a moment. But that would not be a\ndestruction; it would be a mere change of form, and, no doubt, would be\nsubservient to the most glorious results. _We, according to his promise,\nlook for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth\nrighteousness._\"--_Lectures on Geology and Revelation_, p. 161, (4th\nLondon edition.)\n\nSays Dr. Griffin, one of the ablest of the American divines, \"A question\nhere arises, whether the new heavens and new earth will be created out of\nthe ruins of the old; that is, whether the old will be renovated and\nrestored in a more glorious form, or whether the old will be annihilated,\nand the new made out of nothing. The idea of the annihilation of so many\nimmense and glorious bodies, organized with inimitable skill, and\ndeclarative of infinite wisdom, is gloomy and forbidding. Indeed, it is\nscarcely credible that God should annihilate any of his works, much less\nso many and so glorious works. It ought not to be believed without the\nmost decisive proof. On the other hand, it is a most animating thought\nthat this visible creation, which sin has marred, which the polluted\nbreath of men and devils has defiled, and which by sin will be reduced to\nutter ruin, will be restored by our Jesus, will arise from its ruins in\ntenfold splendor, and shine with more illustrious glory than before it was\ndefaced by sin.\n\n\"After a laborious and anxious search on this interesting subject, I must\npronounce the latter to be my decided opinion. And the same, I find, has\nbeen the more common opinion of the Christian fathers, of the divines of\nthe reformation, and of the critics and annotators who have since\nflourished. I could produce on this side a catalogue of names which would\nconvince you that this has certainly been the common opinion of the\nChristian church in every age, as it was also of the Jewish.\n\n\"The words which are employed to express the destruction of the world do\nnot necessarily imply annihilation. Is it said that the world shall\nperish? The same word is used to express the ancient destruction of the\nworld by the flood, when certainly it was not annihilated. Is it said that\nthe world shall have an end, and be no more? This may be understood only\nof the present form and organization of the visible system? Is it said\nthat the heavens and the earth shall be dissolved by fire? But the natural\npower of fire is not to annihilate, but only to dissolve the composition\nand change the form of substances.\"--_Sermons_, vol. ii. p. 450.\n\nWe have now examined the most important testimony respecting the future\ndestruction and renovation of the earth; for inspiration only can\ncertainly determine its future condition. But science may throw some light\nupon the changes through which it is to pass. And I now proceed to inquire\nwhether geology affords us any glimpses of its future condition.\n\nIn the first place, geology shows us that the earth contains within itself\nall the agencies necessary for its future destruction in the manner\npointed out in the Bible.\n\nSome author has remarked that, from the earliest times, there has been a\nloud cry of fire. We have seen that it began with the ancient Egyptians,\nand was continued by the Greeks. But in recent times it has waxed louder\nand far more distinct. The ancient notions about the existence of fire\nwithin the earth were almost entirely conjectural, but within the present\ncentury the matter has been put to the test of experiment. Wherever, in\nEurope and America, the temperature of the air, the waters, and the rocks\nin deep excavations has been ascertained, it has been found higher than\nthe mean temperature of the climate at the surface; and the experiment has\nbeen made in hundreds of places. It is found, too, that the heat increases\nrapidly as we descend below that point in the earth's crust to which the\nsun's heat extends. The mean rate of increase has been stated by the\nBritish Association to be one degree of Fahrenheit for every forty-five\nfeet. At this rate, all known rocks would be melted at the depth of about\nsixty miles. Shall we hence conclude that all the matter of the globe\nbelow this thickness (or, rather, for the sake of round numbers, below one\nhundred miles) is actually in a melted state? Most geologists have not\nseen how such a conclusion is to be avoided. And yet this would leave only\nabout one eight hundredth part of the earth's diameter, and about one\nfourteenth of its contents, or bulk, in a solid state. How easy, then,\nshould God give permission, for this vast internal fiery ocean to break\nthrough its envelope, and so to bury the solid crust that it should all be\nburnt up and melted! It is conceivable that such a result might take place\neven by natural operations. And certainly it would be easy for a special\ndivine agency to accomplish it.\n\nIt may be thought, however, that the igneous fluidity of the internal part\nof the globe is too mighty and improbable a conclusion to be based upon\nthe increase of temperature, observed only to the depth of two or three\nthousand feet. But this is not the only evidence of such a condition of\nthe earth's interior. Three hundred active volcanoes, and still more\nnumerous extinct ones, have opened their mouths and poured forth their\nmolten contents from a great depth, to bear witness to the existence of\nvast masses of melted rock beneath the earth's crust. The globe, too, is\nflattened at the poles, just to the amount it would be by rotation on its\naxis, had it been a liquid mass; and, therefore, there is every\nprobability that it was once liquid; and if so once, its interior is\nprobably still so, because the period for cooling it, when once surrounded\nby a solid crust, must be incalculably long. That this solid crust has\nonce been liquid from heat, is most obvious to all who carefully examine\nit. For the unstratified rocks have certainly once been melted, and most\nof the stratified series were derived from the unstratified. Again, the\norganic remains dug out from the deep-seated strata prove that, when they\nwere alive, the surface, even in high latitudes, must have been subject to\na tropical, or even an ultra-tropical heat; thus showing us that the\ntemperature of the globe has gradually diminished, as we should expect\nfrom the theory of original igneous fluidity. And, finally, no other\nhypothesis but the gradual cooling of the earth's crust, and the powerful\nvolcanic agency that must from time to time have torn and ridged up that\ncrust, will account for the present fractured and overturned condition of\nthe strata, and the elevation of our continent from the ocean's bed. But\nthis supposition does most satisfactorily explain all these phenomena, and\nalso those of earthquakes and volcanoes.\n\nI must acknowledge, however, that all these arguments fail of convincing a\nfew geologists of the doctrine of internal igneous fluidity, to the extent\nabove described. But they all admit that the facts do prove the existence\nof vast oceans of melted matter beneath the earth's crust. Nor do even\nthese geologists doubt but the globe contains within itself the agencies\nrequisite for a universal conflagration. Mr. Lyell says that \"there must\nexist below enormous masses of matter, intensely heated, and in many\ninstances in a constant state of fusion.\" He says, also, \"When we consider\nthe combustible nature of the elements of the earth, so far as they are\nknown to us, the facility with which their compounds may be decomposed and\nmade to enter into new combinations, the quantity of heat which they\nevolve during those processes; when we recollect the expansive power of\nsteam, and that water itself is composed of two gases, which, by their\nunion, produce intense heat; when we call to mind the number of explosive\nand detonating compounds which have been already discovered,--we may be\nallowed to share the astonishment of Pliny, that a single day should pass\nwithout a general conflagration. '_Excedit profecto omnia miracula, ullum\ndiem fuisse quo non cuncta conflagrarent._'\"--Lyell's _Principles of\nGeology_, b. ii. chap. xx. vol. ii.\n\n\"As a consequence of the refrigeration of the centre and crust of the\nglobe,\" says D'Orbigny, \"the withdrawment of matter has produced\nelevations and depressions on the consolidated crust; to which movements,\nin connection with those of the waters, we must impute the complete\ndestruction of the existing fauna. These dislocations have brought about\nat each epoch changes of level in the consolidated beds and in the seas.\nAnd after a period of agitation, more or less prolonged, after each of\nthese geological revolutions, different beings have been created to cover\nanew and enliven the surface of the earth.\"--_Cours Elementaire\nPaleontologie_, p. 148.\n\nAll geologists, then, agree that the elements of the earth's final\nconflagration are contained within its bosom or upon its surface. At\npresent, these elements are so bound down by counteracting agencies, that\nall is quiet and security. But let the fiat of the Almighty go forth for\ntheir liberation, and the scenes of the last day, as described in the\nBible, will commence. The ploughshare of ruin will be driven onward, until\nthis fair world is all ingulfed, and no trace of organic life remains.\nYet to him who realizes that the destruction is only a necessary\npreparation for a brighter world, which will emerge from the ruins of the\npresent; that, when the matter of the globe has been purified, its surface\nshall be covered with new and lovelier forms of beauty, surrounded by a\nstill more bland and balmy atmosphere, and inhabited by sinless and\nimmortal beings,--to him who realizes all this, the desolation will put on\nthe aspect of a glorious transformation.\n\nIn the second place, still deeper will be this impression, when we\nrecollect that similar transmutations have already been experienced by the\nearth with an improvement of its condition. There is no evidence that the\nentire surface of the earth has ever undergone a complete fusion since\norganic life first appeared upon it. But we have reason to think that,\nfrequently, at least, when one race of animals and plants has disappeared\nfrom the earth, it has been the result of violent catastrophes, proceeding\nfrom the elevation or subsidence of continents or chains of mountains.\nSays Agassiz, \"A very remarkable, and perhaps the most surprising fact is,\nthat the appearance of the chains of mountains, and the inequalities of\nthe surface resulting from it, seem to have coincided generally with the\nepochs of the renewal of organized beings.\"--_Ed. Journal of Science_,\nOct. 1842, p. 394.--These vertical movements of such large portions of the\nearth's crust could have resulted only from the direct or indirect agency\nof volcanic power, though the destruction of organic life, which must have\nbeen the consequence, may have resulted as often from aqueous as igneous\ninundations. But usually both agencies were probably concerned, and the\npredominance of one or the other of these agencies is of little\nconsequence to the argument; for if such wide-spread ruin has already\nrepeatedly passed over the earth, a still wider desolation may be\npresumed possible, if only a little wider play shall be given to the\nagents of destruction. Already have the changes of this sort which the\nearth, or portions of it, have undergone, resulted in an improved\ncondition of its surface. In other words, at each successive epoch,\nanimals and plants of a higher and more perfect organization have\nappeared, because the temperature, the air, and the earth's general\ncondition have been better adapted to their happy existence. The amount of\nlimestone seems to have been constantly increasing, and, as a consequence,\nthe fertility of the soil; probably, also, the amount of carbonic acid has\ndiminished in the atmosphere, as animals with lungs have been multiplied.\nIn short, there is a prodigious increase, among the present inhabitants of\nthe globe, of animals and plants possessing complicated and delicate\norganization and loftier intellectual powers, over all former conditions\nof the globe. But we have reason to believe, from the Christian\nScriptures, that the next economy of life which shall be placed upon the\nglobe will far transcend all those that have gone before. Every vestige of\nsin, suffering, decay, and death will disappear. Says the Bible, _There\nshall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be\nany more pain, for the former things are passed away. And there shall in\nno wise enter it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh\nabomination, or maketh a lie._ In short, the change is no other than the\nconversion of this world into heaven. Reasonably, therefore, might we\nanticipate a most thorough destruction of the present world, to prepare\nthe way for the introduction of such a glorious state. The Scriptures\ndescribe that state by the most splendid imagery that can be derived from\nexisting nature. It is represented, figuratively, no doubt, as a splendid\ncity, prepared of God, and let down to the earth. Its twelve foundations\nare all precious stones, its gates pearls, its wall jasper, and its\nstreets pure gold, as it were, transparent glass. The Lord God Almighty\nand the Lamb are the temple of that city. Instead of the sun and the moon,\nthe glory of God enlightens it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. From\nout of their throne proceeds the water of life, clear as crystal, and\nalong its banks grows the tree of life, with its twelve manner of fruits,\nyielding its fruit every month.\n\nHere, then, we have the most splendid and enchanting objects in nature\nbrought before us as representatives of the new heavens and the new earth.\nYet we cannot learn from the Bible, or science, what material dress nature\nwill then put on. We are taught only that it will far exceed, in splendor\nand perfection, the drapery which she now wears. We may be assured that it\nwill be eminently adapted to a spirit that is henceforth to be perfectly\nholy, happy, incorruptible, and immortal. Both revelation and geology\nagree in assuring us that the new earth, which will emerge from the ruins\nof the present, will be improved in its condition; but the particulars of\nthat condition are not described--probably because we could not, in our\npresent state, understand them.\n\nSuch are the views concerning the earth's future destruction and\nrenovation, which appear to me to be taught by a fair interpretation of\nScripture, and which harmonize with the teachings of geology. But we are\nmet here by two formidable difficulties. In the first place, if the\npresent earth is to be burnt up and melted at the last day, it must\nrequire thousands of years before another solid crust shall be formed upon\nits surface, capable of sustaining organic natures which are material. But\nthe Bible represents the righteous, at the day of judgment, as reunited to\ntheir bodies, which they left in the grave, and entering at once into\ntheir residence upon the new earth. Where, then, can we find the\nthousands of years which, by this theory, are essential to prepare this\nresidence for their reception? Into what intermediate place, what new\nHades, shall they pass, until verdure shall clothe the new earth, and more\nthan the primeval beauty of Eden take the place of the volcanic desolation\nwhich must reign over a world just beginning to cool from incandescent\nheat?\n\nI freely acknowledge that this is a serious objection to my theory; and\nperhaps it is insuperable, unless we resort to miraculous interference. It\nwere easy to say, that God can, in a moment, convert a globe of fire into\na paradise of beauty, and make its landscapes smile with charms\ntranscending the bowers of paradise lost. Indeed, the Scriptures represent\nthe New Jerusalem as prepared by God's own hands, and let down at once\nupon the earth to form the metropolitan abode of the righteous.\n\nBut, after all, I am unwilling thus to dispose of the difficulty. For it\nis a clumsy way to meet objections, when we undertake to philosophize upon\nevents, either past, present, or future, to foist in a miracle, in order\nto eke out our hypothesis. We thus make an image of as incoherent parts as\nthat in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, and as easily broken in pieces.\n\nThere is a second mode by which the difficulty under consideration can be\ncompletely obviated, could we only admit the theory on which it rests.\nSome theological writers have maintained that the day of judgment will\noccupy a long period,--thousands and tens of thousands of years\nperhaps,--in order that every individual may experience a literal trial\nbefore the universe for all his conduct on earth, so that the conscience\nof every one in that vast assembly shall approve the final sentence. They\nappeal to various texts of Scripture, where it is strongly stated that\nrigid inquisition will be made on that solemn day into the conduct and\nmotives of every individual. And it may be, indeed, that such descriptions\nare to have a literal fulfilment; and if so, we should have a period long\nenough for the new earth to be recovered by natural means from its\nvolcanic desolation, and to be covered over with new forms of beauty. But\nI confess the theory of such a long period of judgment does not seem to me\nto be sustained by the most approved rules of exegesis, and therefore I am\nunwilling to rest upon it to sustain my own hypothesis.\n\nBut is it not possible that our difficulty of conceiving how the spiritual\nbody can enter at once upon its residence in the new heavens and earth,\nwhile yet the globe is only a shoreless ocean of fire, results from a\nmistaken conception of the nature of the spiritual body? Do we not judge\nof it by our own present bodies, and imagine that it must necessarily\npossess such an organization as would be destroyed by the extremes of heat\nand cold? And are we authorized to draw such an inference? The Scriptures\nhave, indeed, left us very much in the dark as to the specific nature of\nthe future glorified body, which Paul calls a spiritual body. He does not\nmean that it is composed of spirit, for then it would not differ from the\nsoul itself, by which it is to be animated. He certainly means that it is\ncomposed of matter; unless, indeed, there be in the universe a third\nsubstance, distinct both from matter and spirit. But of the existence of\nsuch a substance we have no positive evidence; and, therefore, must\nconclude the spiritual body to be matter; called spiritual, probably,\nbecause eminently adapted to form the immortal residence of pure spirit.\n\nYet we learn from the apostle's description that it is not composed of\nflesh and blood, which, he says, cannot inherit the kingdom of God;\nneither is it capable of decay, like our present bodies. Indeed, the\nillustration which he derives from the decay and germination of a kernel\nof wheat shows us that the future body will be as much unlike the present\nas a stalk of wheat is different from the seed whence it sprang; and, in\nappearance, scarcely any two things are more unlike. Hence we may suppose\nthe resurrection body of the righteous to be as different from that which\nthe soul now animates as matter can be, in its most diverse forms.\n\nNow, the question arises, Do we know of any form of matter in the present\nworld which remains the same at all temperatures, and in all\ncircumstances, which no chemical or mechanical agencies can alter?--a\nsubstance which remains unchanged in the very heart of the ice around the\npoles, and in the focus of a volcano; which remains untouched by the most\npowerful reagents which the chemist can apply, and by the mightiest forces\nwhich the mechanician can bring to bear upon it? It seems to me that\nmodern science does render the existence of such a substance probable,\nthough not cognizable by the senses. It is the luminiferous ether, that\nattenuated medium by which light, and heat, and electricity are\ntransmitted from one part of the universe to another, by undulations of\ninconceivable velocity. This strange fluid, whose existence and action\nseems all but demonstrated by the phenomena of light, heat, and\nelectricity, and perhaps, too, by the resistance experienced by Encke's,\nBiela's, and Halley's comets, must possess the extraordinary\ncharacteristic above pointed out. It must exist and act wherever we find\nlight, heat, or electricity; and where do we not find them? They penetrate\nthrough what has been called empty space; and, therefore, this ether\nexists there, propagating its undulations at the astonishing rate of two\nhundred thousand miles per second. They emanate in constant succession\nfrom every intensely heated focus, such as the sun, the volcano, and the\nchemical furnace; and, therefore, this strange medium is neither\ndissipated nor affected by the strongest known heat. Both light and heat\nare transmitted through ice; and, therefore, this ether cannot be\ncongealed. The same is true of glass, and every transparent substance,\nhowever dense; and even the most solid metals convey heat and electricity\nwith remarkable facility; and, therefore, this ether exists and acts with\nequal facility in the most solid masses as in a vacuum. In short, it seems\nto be independent of chemical or mechanical changes, and to act\nunobstructed in all possible modifications of matter. And, though too\nevanescent to be cognizable by the senses, or the most delicate chemical\nand mechanical tests, it possesses, nevertheless, a most astonishing\nactivity.\n\nNow, I am not going to assert that the spiritual body will be composed of\nthis luminiferous ether. But, since we know not the composition of that\nbody, it is lawful to suppose that such may be its constitution. This is\nsurely possible, and that is all which is essential to my present\nargument.\n\nAdmitting its truth, the following interesting conclusions follow:--\n\nIn the first place, the spiritual body would be unaffected by all possible\nchanges of temperature. It might exist as well in the midst of fire, or of\nice, as in any intermediate temperature. Hence it might pass from one\nextreme of temperature to another, and be at home in them all; and this is\nwhat we might hope for in a future world. Some, indeed, have imagined that\nthe sun will be the future heaven of the righteous; and on this\nsupposition there is no absurdity in the theory. Nor would there be in the\nhypothesis which should locate heaven in solid ice, or in the centre of\nthe earth.\n\nIn the second place, on this supposition, the spiritual body would be\nunharmed by those chemical and mechanical agencies which matter in no\nother form can resist.\n\nThe question has often arisen, how the glorified body, if material, would\nbe able to escape all sources of injury, so as to be immortal as the soul.\nIn this hypothesis, we see how it is possible; for though the whole globe\nshould change its chemical constitution, though worlds should dash upon\nworlds, the spiritual body, though present at the very point where the\nterrible collision took place, would feel no injury; and safe in its\nimmortal habitation, the soul might smile amid \"the wreck of matter and\nthe crush of worlds.\"\n\nIn the third place, on this supposition, the soul might communicate its\nthoughts and receive a knowledge of events and of other minds, through\ndistances inconceivably great, with the speed of lightning. If we suppose\nthe soul, in such a tenement, could transmit its thoughts and desires, and\nreceive impressions, through the luminiferous ether, with only the same\nvelocity as light, it might communicate with other beings upon the sun, at\nthe distance of one hundred million miles, in eight minutes; and such a\npower we may reasonably expect the soul will hereafter possess, whether\nderived from this or some other agency. We cannot believe that, in another\nworld, the soul's communication with the rest of the universe will be as\nlimited as in the present state. On this supposition, she need not wander\nthrough the universe to learn the events transpiring in other spheres, for\nthe intelligence would be borne on the morning's ray or the lightning's\nwing.\n\nFinally, on this supposition, the germ of the future spiritual body may,\neven in this world, be attached to the soul; and it may be this which she\nwill come seeking after on the resurrection morning.\n\nI know not but this wonderful medium, in some unknown form, may attach\nitself to the sleeping dust; and though that dust be scattered upon the\nwinds, or diffused in the waters of the ocean, and transformed into other\nanimal bodies, still that germ may not be lost. The chemist has often been\nperplexed, when he thinks how the bodies of men are decomposed after\ndeath, and how every particle must, in some cases, pass into other bodies;\nhe has been perplexed, I say, to see how the resurrection body should be\nidentified, and especially how those particles could become a part of\ndifferent bodies. Perhaps the hypothesis under consideration may relieve\nthe difficulty. Perhaps, too, it may teach us how the soul exists and\nacts, when separated from the body. It may act through this universal\nmedium, though in a manner less perfect than after it has united itself to\nthe spiritual body raised from the grave.[20]\n\nBut I fear I am venturing too far into the region of conjecture. My only\nobject is, to show that we do know of a substance which might form a\nspiritual body which should be in its element upon the new earth, even\nthough it were in the condition of a fiery ocean. It could not, indeed, be\nan organic body of such a kind as heat would destroy; though I see no\nreason why it may not possess an organism far more delicate and wonderful\nthan that of our present bodies, and yet be unaffected by heat or cold, or\nmechanical or chemical agencies. I do not feel, therefore, that the\nobjection which I am considering is insuperable. It results, I apprehend,\nfrom the false assumption that the spiritual body will be subject to\nthose influences by which our present comparatively gross bodies are so\npowerfully affected.\n\nShall I be pardoned if I say that, in the experiments of an incipient and\nmaltreated science, we have, perhaps, a glimpse of the manner in which the\nsoul will act in the future spiritual body? for if those experiments be\nnot all delusion,--and how can we reasonably infer that experiments so\nmultiplied, so various, and in many cases, when not in the hands of\nitinerant jugglers, so fairly performed,--I say, how can we regard all\nthese as mere trickery? and if not, they are best explained by supposing\nthe soul to act independently of the bodily organs, and through the same\nmedium which we have supposed to constitute the future spiritual body. In\nthis view, mesmerism assumes a most interesting aspect, forming, as it\nwere, a link between the present and the future world. The theory which I\nhave advanced does not, indeed, fall to the ground, though mesmerism\nshould be found a delusion; yet it is but justice to say, that it first\ncame under my eye in that most classical, philosophical, and attractive\nwork, Townsend's \"Facts in Mesmerism.\" A similar view, however, was\npresented several years earlier, in a work by Isaac Taylor, no less\ningenious and profound, the \"Physical Theory of Another Life,\" a work,\nhowever, which makes not the slightest allusion to mesmerism. The author\nsupposes such a state of things as I have imagined in another life to be\nin existence even now. \"The sensation of light,\" says he, \"is now believed\nto result from the vibrations, not the emanations, of an elastic fluid, or\nether; but this same element may be capable of another species of\nvibrations; or the electric or the magnetic fluids may be susceptible of\nsome such vibrations; or an element as universally diffused as light\nthrough the universe may be the medium of sonorous undulations, equally\nrapid and distinct, and serving to connect the most remote regions of the\nuniverse by the conveyance of sounds, just as the most remote are actually\nconnected by the passage of light. Yet the sonorous vibrations of this\nsupposed element may be far too delicate to awaken the ear of man, or, in\nfact, of a kind not perceptible by the human auditory nerve.\" \"We refuse\nto allow that a conjecture of this sort is extravagant, or destitute of\nphilosophical probability; on the contrary, consider it as borne out, in a\npositive sense, by the discoveries of modern science. Might we then rest\nfor a moment upon an animating conception (aided by the actual analogy of\nlight) such as this, viz., that the field of the visible universe is the\ntheatre of a vast social economy, holding rational intercourse at great\ndistances? Let us claim leave to indulge the belief, when we contemplate\nthe starry heavens, that speech, inquiry and response, commands and\npetitions, debate and instruction, are passing to and fro; or shall the\nimagination catch the pealing anthems of praise, at stated seasons,\narising from worshippers in all quarters, and flowing on with thundering\npower, like the noise of many waters, until it meet and shake the courts\nof the central heavens?\"--_Physical Theory of Another Life_, p. 202, 3d\nAm. ed.\n\nThe second objection to the view which I have presented of the future\ndestruction and renovation of the earth, as an abode of the righteous, may\nbe thus stated: Heaven is an unchanging state; but a world which has been\nburned up and melted, even if we might suppose spiritual beings to dwell\nupon it, must undergo still further change. The radiation of its heat\nwould form a crust over its surface; the waters, dissipated into vapor,\nwould be recondensed; volcanic agency would ridge up the crust into\nmountains and valleys; and, in short, geological agencies would at length\nform such a surface, so far as rocks and soil are concerned, as we now\ntread upon. And even though organic beings should not be again placed upon\nit, those changes would proceed, till, perhaps, another and another great\ncatastrophe by fire might pass over it; nor can we say where these\nmutations would end. Can we believe such a world to be heaven?\n\nHere, again, as in the last objection, it appears to me, the main\ndifficulty lies in our judging of the future spiritual body by that\norganism which we now inhabit. Heaven is, indeed, an unchanging state of\nhappiness and holiness. But does it, therefore, follow that there can be\nno change in its material form and aspect? I have already shown that the\nspiritual body may be of such a composition that no change of temperature,\nof place or constitution, in surrounding bodies, can at all affect it. If\nthe soul could be happy in one set of physical circumstances while in such\na tenement, it might be happy in any other circumstances with which we are\nacquainted. But it does not follow that the happiness of the soul might\nnot be increased by the changes of the material world around it. What is\nit on earth that affords the greatest amount of happiness derived from the\nexternal world? It is the immense variety of creation, produced chiefly by\nchemical and mechanical agencies. These changes afford us the most\nstriking exhibitions of the wisdom, power, and benevolence of the Deity,\nwithin our knowledge; and why may not analogous, or still more wonderful\nchanges, and greater variety, give still higher conceptions of the divine\ncharacter to the inhabitants of heaven, and excite a purer and a stronger\nlove? And to study that character will form, I doubt not, the grand\nemployment of heaven. Who can tell what depths of knowledge may there be\nlaid open into the internal constitution of matter, and its combinations,\nand especially its union with spirit! And what surer means of bringing out\nthese developments than change, constant and everlasting change? For who\ncan set limits to those mutations which an infinite God can produce upon\nthe matter of this vast universe? It is easy to see that they may be\nliterally infinite.\n\nOnce more. We have seen that the geological changes which our world has\nhitherto undergone have been an improvement of its condition, and that\neach successive economy has been a brighter exhibition of divine wisdom\nand benevolence: Shall this progress be arrested when the present economy\ncloses? We know that the righteous will forever advance in holiness and\nhappiness. Why may not a part of that increase depend upon their\nintroduction into higher and higher economies through eternal ages? May\nnot this be one of the modes in which new developments of the character of\nGod will open upon them in the world of bliss?\n\nThe Scriptures represent the material aspect of the new heavens and the\nnew earth, when first the righteous enter upon them, to be one of\nsurpassing glory. But why may not other developments await them in the\nround of eternal ages, as their expanding faculties are able to understand\nand appreciate them?\n\nThe greater the variety of new scenes in the material world which shall be\npresented to the mind, such as an infinite Deity shall devise, the more\nintense the happiness of their contemplations; and who can set limits to\nthe permutations which such a being can produce, even upon matter? I can\nform no conjecture as to the nature of those new developments; nor do I\nbelieve they could be understood in our present state. I feel as if those\nformed too low an estimate of the new heavens and the new earth, who\nimagine a repetition there of the most curious organic structures, the\nmost splendid flowers and fruits, and the most enchanting landscapes of\nthe present world: I fancy that scenes far more enchanting, and objects\nfar more glorious, will meet the soul at its first entrance upon the new\nearth, even though to mortal vision it should present only an ocean of\nfire. I imagine a thousand new inlets into the soul--nay, I think of it as\nall eye, all ear, all sensation; now plunging deeper into the\ninfinitesimal parts of matter than the microscope can carry us, and now\nsoaring away, perhaps on the waves of the mysterious ether, far beyond the\nken of the telescope. And if such is the first entrance into heaven, who\ncan conjecture what new fields and new glories shall open before the mind,\nand fill it with ecstasy, as it flies onward without end! But I dare not\nindulge further in these hypothetical, yet fascinating thoughts; yet let\nus never forget, that in a very short time, far shorter than we imagine,\nall the scenes of futurity will be to us a thrilling reality. We shall\nthen know in a moment how much of truth there is in these speculations.\nBut if they all prove false, fully confident am I that the scenes which\nwill open upon us will surpass our liveliest conceptions. The glass\nthrough which we now see darkly will be removed, and face to face shall we\nmeet eternal glories. Then shall we learn that our present bodily organs,\nhowever admirably adapted to our condition here, were in fact clogs upon\nthe soul, intended to fetter its free range, that we might the more richly\nenjoy the liberty of the sons of God, and expatiate in the spiritual body,\n_the building of God, the house not made with hands, eternal in the\nheavens_.\n\nLet us, then, live continually under the influence of the scenes that\nawait us beyond the grave. They will thus become familiar to us and we\nshall appreciate their infinite superiority to the objects that so deeply\ninterest us on earth. We shall be led to look forward even with strong\ndesire, in spite of the repulsive aspect of death, to that state where the\nsoul will be freed from her prison-house of flesh and blood, and can range\nin untiring freedom through the boundless fields of knowledge and\nhappiness that are in prospect. Then shall we learn to despise the low\naims and contracted views of the sensualist, the demagogue, and the\nworldling. High and noble thoughts and aspirations will lift our souls\nabove the murky atmosphere of this world, and, while yet in the body, we\nshall begin to breathe the empyreal air of the new heavens, and to gather\nthe fruits of the tree of life in the new earth, where righteousness only\nshall forever dwell.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XII.\n\nTHE TELEGRAPHIC SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE.\n\n\nIn order to impress some important truth or transaction, men have\nsometimes represented surrounding inanimate objects as looking on and\nwitnessing the scene, or listening to the words, and ready ever afterwards\nto open their mouth to testify to the facts, should man deny them. I know\nof no writings from which to derive so striking an illustration of these\nstrong figurative representations as the sacred Scriptures.\n\nTake, for a first example, the solemn covenant entered into between\nJehovah and the Israelites, in the time of Joshua. To fix the transaction\nas firmly as possible in the minds of the fickle people, _he took a great\nstone and set it up there under an oak that was by the sanctuary of the\nLord. And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a\nwitness unto us. For it hath heard all the words of the Lord which he\nspake unto us. It shall, therefore, be a witness unto you, lest ye deny\nyour God._\n\nIn a second example, the prophet Habakkuk describes the insatiable\nwickedness of the Chaldeans; and addressing the nation as an individual,\nhe says, _Thou hast consulted shame to thy house by cutting off many\npeople, and hast sinned against thy soul. For the stone shall cry out of\nthe wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it._ Such\nabominations had aroused even the most insensible part of creation, the\nvery timber and the stone, to life and indignation.\n\nIn a third example, the whole multitude of Jews had just spread their\ngarments upon the ground for Christ to ride over, they meanwhile crying\nout, _Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord. Peace in\nheaven and glory in the highest._ But some of the Pharisees said, _Master,\nrebuke thy disciples; and he answered and said unto them, If these should\nhold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out._ If man refused to\ndo homage to the King of glory, when he came among them, the rocks, more\nsensible, would break forth in his praises.\n\nThe discoveries of modern science, however, show us that there is a\nliteral sense in which the material creation receives an impression from\nall our words and actions that can never be effaced; and that nature,\nthrough all time, is ever ready to bear testimony of what we have said and\ndone. Men fancy that the wave of oblivion passes over the greater part of\ntheir actions. But physical science shows us that those actions have been\ntransfused into the very texture of the universe, so that no waters can\nwash them out, and no erosions, comminution, or metamorphoses, can\nobliterate them.\n\nThe principle which I advance in its naked form is this: _Our words, our\nactions, and even our thoughts, make an indelible impression on the\nuniverse._ Thrown into a poetic form, this principle converts creation\n\n  Into a vast sounding gallery;\n  Into a vast picture gallery;\n  And into a universal telegraph.\n\nThis proposition I shall endeavor to sustain by an appeal to\nwell-established principles of science. Yet, since some of these\nprinciples are not the most common and familiar, and have not been\napplied, except in part, to this subject, I must be more technical in\ntheir explanation than I could wish, and more minute in the details.\n\nThe grand point, however, on which the whole subject turns, is the\ndoctrine of reaction. By this is meant the mutual or reciprocal action of\ndifferent things upon one another. Thus, if a body fall to the earth, the\nearth reacts upon it, and stops it, or throws it back. If sulphuric acid\nbe poured upon limestone, a mutual action ensues; the acid acts on the\nstone, and the stone reacts upon the acid, and a new compound is produced.\nIf light fall upon a solid body, the body reacts upon the light, which it\nsends back to the eye with an image of itself. These are examples of what\nis meant by reaction, or the reciprocal action of different substances\nupon one another. But it is not every kind of reaction that will prove a\npermanent impression to be made upon the universe by our conduct. Hence we\nmust be more specific.\n\n_In the first place, the principle is proved and illustrated by the\ndoctrine of mechanical reaction._\n\nFrom the principle, long since settled in mechanics, that action and\nreaction are equal, it will follow that every impression which man makes\nby his words, or his movements, upon the air, the waters, or the solid\nearth, will produce a series of changes in each of those elements which\nwill never end. The word which is now going out of my mouth causes\npulsations or waves in the air, and these, though invisible to human eyes,\nexpand in every direction until they have passed around the whole globe,\nand produced a change in the whole atmosphere; nor will a single\ncircumgyration complete the effect; but the sentence which I am now\nuttering shall alter the whole atmosphere through all future time. So\nthat, as Professor Babbage remarks, to whom we are indebted for the first\nmoral application of this mechanical principle, \"the air is one vast\nlibrary, on whose pages are forever written all that man has ever said, or\nwoman whispered.\" Not a word has ever escaped from mortal lips, whether\nfor the defence of virtue or the perversion of the truth, not a cry of\nagony has ever been uttered by the oppressed, not a mandate of cruelty by\nthe oppressor, not a false and flattering word by the deceiver, but it is\nregistered indelibly upon the atmosphere we breathe. And could man command\nthe mathematics of superior minds, every particle of air thus set in\nmotion could be traced through all its changes, with as much precision as\nthe astronomer can point out the path of the heavenly bodies. No matter\nhow many storms have raised the atmosphere into wild commotion, and\nwhirled it into countless forms; no matter how many conflicting waves have\nmixed and crossed one another; the path of each pulsation is definite, and\nsubject to the laws of mathematics. To follow it requires, indeed, a power\nof analysis superior to human; but we can conceive it to be far inferior\nto the divine.\n\nThe same thing is true of the waters. No wave has ever been raised on\ntheir bosom, no keel has ever ploughed their surface, which has not sent\nan influence and a change into every ocean, and modified every wave, that\nhas rolled in upon the farthest shores. As the vessel crosses the deep,\nthe parted waves close in, and every trace of disturbance soon disappears\nfrom human vision. Nevertheless, it is certain that every track thus\nfurrowed in the waters has sent an influence through their entire mass,\nsuch as is calculable by distinct formulae; and it may be that glorified\nminds, by the principles of celestial mathematics, can as easily trace out\nthe paths of the unnumbered vessels that have crossed the waters, as the\nastronomer can the paths of the planets or the comets.\n\nThe solid earth, too, is alike tenacious of every impression we make upon\nit; not a footprint of man or beast is marked upon its surface, that does\nnot permanently change the whole globe. Every one of its countless atoms\nwill retain and exhibit an infinitesimal, but a real, effect through all\ncoming time. It is too minute, indeed, for the cognizance of the human\nsenses. But in a higher sphere there may be inlets of perception acute\nenough to trace it through all its bearings, and thus render every atom of\nthe globe a living witness to the actions of every living being.\n\nIn view of these facts, we cannot regard the glowing language of Babbage\nan exaggeration, when he says, \"The soul of the negro, whose fettered\nbody, surviving the living charnel-house of his infected prison, was\nthrown into the sea to lighten the ship, that his Christian master might\nescape the limited justice at length assigned by civilized man to crimes\nwhose profit had long gilded their atrocity, will need, at the last great\nday of human accounts, no living witness of his earthly agony: when man\nand all his race shall have disappeared from the face of our planet, ask\nevery particle of air still floating over the unpeopled earth, and it will\nrecord the cruel mandate of the tyrant. Interrogate every wave which\nbreaks unimpeded on ten thousand desolate shores, and it will give\nevidence of the last gurgle of the waters which closed over the head of\nhis dying victim. Confront the murderer with every corporeal atom of his\nimmolated slave, and in its still quivering movements he will read the\nprophet's denunciation of the prophet king.\"\n\nThe distinguished mathematical professor from whom I have just quoted\nlimits the effects of this mathematical reaction to this globe and its\natmosphere. But if, as the philosophers now generally admit, there is a\nsubtile and extremely elastic medium pervading all space, why must they\nnot extend to other worlds, yea, to the whole universe? Without an\naccurate acquaintance with the facts, indeed, it will seem a mere\nextravagant imagination to say that our most trivial word or action sends\na thrill throughout the whole material universe; but I see not why sober\nand legitimate science does not conduct us to this conclusion. Nay, still\nfurther, it teaches us that the vibrations and changes which our words and\nactions produce upon the universe shall never cease their action and\nreaction till materialism be no more.\n\nWe venture, then, to push this thought of the ingenious mathematician into\nanother sphere, which he did not enter. The majority, probably, of the\nablest expounders of the Bible have maintained, as previously shown, that\nthe apostle Peter most unequivocally teaches us that the new heavens, or\natmosphere, and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, are merely\nour present earth and atmosphere, melted and burnt by the fires of the\nlast day, and fitted up anew,--a second and a lovelier paradise,--to be\nthe everlasting abode of holiness and happiness. Indeed, to attempt to fix\nany other meaning upon Peter's language makes of it a most absurd jumble\nof literal and figurative expressions, and produces an inversion of\nchronological events. But, admitting the literal meaning of the apostle to\nbe the true one, then those reactions, produced by our words and conduct\nupon the present world, shall not be destroyed by the fires of the last\nday, but reappear in the new economy, and modify the pulsations of the new\nheavens and the new earth through all eternity.\n\nBut even though heaven should be in some other part of the universe, and\nnot this earth refitted, yet, if it be a material residence, why, on the\nprinciples already explained, should it not be reached and affected by\nthose vibrations which the laws of mathematics assure us are now\nspreading from each individual, as a centre, through the whole universe?\nThe conflagration of the earth will alter its chemical constitution, and\nconvert matter into new forms; but the mechanical character of the atoms\nwill not be destroyed; and when they emerge from the final catastrophe, in\nnew and brighter forms, they may still bear and exhibit the impress of\nevery word and every action which they now receive.\n\nSuch representations as these, I am aware, will, upon first thought, seem\nto most minds little better than the dreams of fancy, although founded\nupon the laws of mathematics. For how soon does every trace disappear from\nthe earth of the most terrible convulsions and the mightiest human\nefforts! The shout of countless multitudes, the thunder and the crash of\nbattle, and even the volcano's bellowing, are soon succeeded by unbroken\nsilence; and we cannot discover a trace of any of those countless scenes\nof noise and convulsion that have been acted upon the world's busy stage.\nHow practically absurd, then, to imagine that any influence goes out from\nthe feeble efforts of individuals, that can be recognized, either now or\nhereafter, on the wide field of the universe!\n\nSuch objections as these, however, are based upon the impression, of which\nit is hard to divest ourselves, that our present means of distinguishing\nthe effects of physical forces are as perfect as we can hope for in\neternity. And yet, who will doubt that, when our present gross bodies\nshall be laid aside, the soul, looking forth from a spiritual body, with\nquickened powers and unobstructed vision, shall penetrate a new world in\nthe infinitesimal parts of creation? What absurdity in the supposition\nthat then the minutest movement among the atoms, which can now be\ndiscovered only by the mathematics of quantities infinitely small, may\nthen stand out as distinctly to our inspection as do now the features of\nthe landscape? What absurdity in the supposition that, even now, there are\nfinite minds in the universe who possess this quickened power of\nperception, and, though in distant worlds, do actually know what is\npassing here by the vibrations which our words and actions produce upon\nelastic matter?\n\nThus far I have spoken of the influence of our words and actions only upon\nthe material universe, although the principle with which I started\nincludes thoughts also. But are not actions merely the external\nmanifestation of thoughts and purposes? and, therefore, is not thought the\nefficient agency that impresses the universe? I shall also attempt to show\nthat there are other modes in which the intellect may do this, aside from\nordinary words and actions.\n\nBut I proceed to the second proof of the general principle. _And I derive\nit from what may be called optical reactions; that is, the reaction of\nlight and the substances on which it impinges._ These exert such an\ninfluence upon it, that, when it is thrown back from them, and enters the\norgans of vision, or even a transparent lens, with a screen behind it, it\nproduces an image of those objects; in other words, what we call vision.\n\nNow, it is this fact, in connection with the progressive motion of light,\nthat forms the basis of this branch of the argument. Though light moves\nwith such immense velocity, that, for all practical purposes on earth, it\nis instantaneous, yet, in fact, it does occupy a little more than a second\nfor every two hundred thousand miles which it passes over. Hence a flash\nof lightning occurring on earth would not be visible on the moon till a\nsecond and a quarter afterwards; on the sun, till eight minutes; at the\nplanet Jupiter, when at its greatest distance from us, till fifty-two\nminutes; on Uranus, till two hours; on Neptune, till four hours and a\nquarter; on the star of Vega, of the first magnitude, till forty-five\nyears; on a star of the eighth magnitude, till one hundred and eighty\nyears; and on a star of the twelfth magnitude, till four thousand years;\nand stars of this magnitude are visible through telescopes; nor can we\ndoubt that, with better instruments, stars of far less magnitude might be\nseen; so that we may confidently say that this flash of lightning would\nnot reach the remotest heavenly body till more than six thousand years--a\nperiod equal to that which has elapsed since man's creation.\n\nNow, suppose that, on these different heavenly bodies, beings exist with\norgans of vision sufficiently acute to discern a flash of lightning on\nearth, or, rather, to see all the scenes on that hemisphere of our world\nthat is turned towards them; it is obvious that, on the remotest star, the\nearth would be seen, at this moment, just coming forth from the Creator's\nhand, in all the freshness of Eden's glories, with our first parents in\nthe beauty of innocence and happiness, and all the beasts of the field and\nthe fowls of the air playing around them. On a star of the twelfth\nmagnitude would be seen the world as it showed itself four thousand years\nago; on a star of the eighth magnitude, as it appeared one hundred and\neighty years ago; and so on to the moon, where would be seen the\noccurrences of the present moment. And since there are ten thousand times\nten thousand worlds, scattered through these extremes of distance, is it\nnot clear that, taking them all together, they do at this moment contain a\nvast panorama of the world's entire history, since the hour when the\nmorning stars sang together, and the sons of God shouted for joy on\ncreation's morning?\n\n\"Thus,\" says the unknown author of a little work entitled \"The Stars and\nthe Earth,\" in which these ideas were first developed--\"thus the universe\nencloses the _pictures_ of the past, like an indestructible and\nincorruptible record, containing the purest and the clearest truth; and as\nsound propagates itself in the air, wave after wave, or, to take a still\nclearer example, as thunder and lightning are in reality simultaneous, but\nin the storm the distant thunder follows at the interval of minutes\n[seconds?] after the flash, so, in like manner, according to our ideas,\nthe pictures of every occurrence propagate themselves into the distant\nether, upon the wings of the ray of light; and although they become weaker\nand smaller, yet, in immeasurable distance, they still have color and\nform; and as every thing possessing color and form is visible, so must\nthese pictures also be said to be visible, however impossible it may be\nfor the human eye to perceive it with the hitherto discovered optical\ninstruments.\"\n\nThis last statement of the writer every one will acknowledge is true when\napplied to God; for who will doubt that his eye can take in at a glance\nthat universe which he has made? And to do that is to have before him the\nentire daily history of our globe; nay, probably, also, of every other\nworld. Indeed, such a supposition affords us a lively conception of the\ndivine omniscience, since we have only to suppose this panorama of the\nindefinite past to extend indefinitely into the future, and the infinite\npicture will also be present at this moment before the divine mind.\n\nBut is the supposition an absurdity, that there may be in the universe\ncreated beings, with powers of vision acute enough to take in all these\npictures of our world's history, as they make the circuit of the\nnumberless suns and planets that lie embosomed in boundless space? Suppose\nsuch a being at this moment upon a star of the twelfth magnitude, with an\neye turned toward the earth. He might see the deluge of Noah, just\nsweeping over the surface. Advancing to a nearer star, he would see the\npatriarch Abraham going out, not knowing whither he went. Coming still\nnearer, the vision of the crucified Redeemer would meet his gaze. Coming\nnearer still, he might alight upon worlds where all the revolutions and\nconvulsions of modern times would fall upon his eye. Indeed, there are\nworlds enough and at the right distances, in the vast empyrean, to show\nhim every event in human history.\n\nWe may proceed a step farther, and inquire whether such an exaltation of\nvision as we have supposed may not be hereafter enjoyed by the glorified\nhuman mind when it passes into the spiritual body. We can hardly believe\nsuch a transformation possible. But suppose an individual born blind to\ngrow up to manhood and intelligence without ever having been told any\nthing about vision. Then suppose the oculist to attempt an operation for\nthe restoration of his sight, and, to prepare him for the transition, let\nthe wonders of human vision be described to him, and he be told that, by a\nfew moments of suffering, he can be put in possession of this astonishing\nfaculty; would it not appear as improbable to him as it now does to us, to\nimagine that our vision can be so clarified and exalted, that we can\ndiscern the events which are passing in distant worlds as easily as we now\ndo those immediately around us.\n\nBut if such a power of reading human history, from its panorama spread out\non the face of the universe, be now possessed by unfallen beings in other\nspheres, what idea must they form of the character of man? At one time,\nthey must regard the race as given up to hopeless rebellion, and the\ninflictions of vindictive justice. And then, anon, they would see the\nsceptre of mercy stretched out, and a few faithful soldiers marching under\nthe banner of virtue and fighting the battles of the Lord. Surely they\nwould need a revelation to understand the anomalies and solve the\nparadoxes which passed under their eyes. They would wonder why a world so\nfilled with tokens of divine goodness, yet so disfigured by wickedness in\nevery form, had not long since been struck from its orbit by the hand of\ndivine justice.\n\nThus far, in the present argument, I have been following, for the most\npart, in the track marked out by others. But I now venture to advance into\nregions hitherto untrodden for any such purpose; yet I trust that the\nlight which we may find to guide our steps may not prove the bewildering\ngleam of an _ignis fatuus_, but the lamp of true science.\n\n_My third argument is based upon electric reactions._\n\nWhatever may be the true nature of electricity, it is convenient, and\nprobably leads to no error, to speak of it as a fluid, or rather two\nfluids. For we find two kinds of electricity, denominated positive and\nnegative; and it is a general fact, that, when a body is brought into one\nelectrical state, it throws other bodies around it into the opposite\nstate, by a power called induction. Those bodies, whose electrical\ncondition has been thus altered, will act on others lying in a remoter\ncircle, and these upon others, and so on, we cannot tell how widely, for\nwe have reason to suppose that electricity is a power that extends through\nall nature. It can hardly be doubted that is the force which constitutes\nwhat we call chemical affinity by which the constituent parts of all\ncompound bodies are held together; and in those stony and metallic masses,\nthat occasionally fall from the heavens, we have proof that this same\npower holds sway in other worlds; for the most reasonable supposition is,\nthat these meteors move like the planets through the regions of celestial\nspace, and give us some idea of the constitution of planetary worlds. If\nso, the same chemical laws, and, of course, the same chemical forces,\nprevail there as in our planet. Indeed, the uniformity of nature would\nlead us to such a conclusion were there no facts like those of meteors to\nteach it directly. It follows, from these principles, that, whenever we\nchange the electrical condition of bodies around us, we start a movement\nto whose onward march we can assign no limits but the material universe.\nThese waves of influence consist of a series of attractions and\nrepulsions, and are independent of the mechanical reactions already\nconsidered, which are produced by onward impulses alone.\n\nNow, a change in the electric condition of bodies is produced often by the\nslightest mechanical, chemical, thermal, physiological, and probably even\nmental change in man. The usual way of exciting currents of electricity is\nby friction. But chemical action, as in the galvanic battery, produces a\nstill more energetic and uninterrupted current. The slightest change of\ntemperature, also, may disturb the electric equilibrium perceptibly. It\nhas been of late ascertained, likewise, that a change of physiological\ncondition--that is, a change as to healthy and normal action--affects the\nelectricity of the parts of the system, and consequently of surrounding\nbodies. Substitute a man in the place of a galvanic battery, making his\ntwo hands the electrodes, and there will go out from him an electric\ncurrent, that shall sensibly deflect the needle of a galvanometer, an\ninstrument employed for showing the presence of small portions of\nelectricity.\n\nNay, further, it seems to be most probably established as a fact in\nscience, that a man, in the condition above specified, by a simple act of\nhis will upon his muscles, by which those of one arm only shall be\nbraced, will thereby send an electrical current of one sort through the\ngalvanometer, while a like volition, which shall brace the muscles of the\nother arm will set in motion an opposite current.\n\nIt is also ascertained, that of the two sorts of nerves which supply every\nmuscle, the nerve of sensibility is a positive pole of a Voltaic circuit,\nwhile the nerve of motion, or the muscle into which it passes, is a\nnegative pole. So that the sensor nerves act as electric telegraphs to\ncarry the sensations to the brain, and inform it what is needed, while the\nmotor nerves bring back the volition to the muscles--the brain acting as a\ngalvanic battery, very much like the electric organs of certain fishes.\n\nFrom these statements it clearly follows, that, besides the mechanical\neffects produced by our actions, there is also an electric influence\nexcited and propagated by almost every muscular effort, every chemical\nchange within us, every variation in the state of health, or vigor, and\nespecially by every mental effort; for no thought, probably, can pass\nthrough the mind which does not alter the physiological, chemical, and\nelectric condition of the brain, and consequently of the whole system. The\nstronger the emotion, the greater the change; so that those great mental\nefforts, and those great decisions of the will, which bring along\nimportant moral effects, do also make the strongest impression upon the\nmaterial universe. We cannot say how widely, by means of electric force,\nthey reach; but if so subtile a power does, as we have reason to suppose,\npermeate all space, and all solid matter, there may be no spot in the\nwhole universe where the knowledge of our most secret thoughts and\npurposes, as well as our most trivial outward act, may not be transmitted\non the lightning's wing; and it may be, that, out of this darkened world,\nthere may not be found any spot where beings do not exist with\nsensibilities keen enough to learn, through electric changes, what we are\ndoing and thinking.\n\nIf there be no absurdity in supposing that even the mechanical influence\nof our actions may be felt throughout the universe, still less is it\nabsurd to infer the same results from electric agencies.\n\nIt would seem, from recent discoveries, that electricity has a more\nintimate connection with mental operations than any other physical force.\nIf not identical with the nervous influence, it seems to be employed by\nthe mind to accompany that influence to every part of the system; and the\ngreater the mental excitement, the more energetic the electric movement.\nIt seems to us a marvellous discovery, which enables man to convey and\nregister his thoughts at the distance of thousands of miles by the\nelectric wires. Should it excite any higher wonder to be told, that, by\nmeans of this same power, all our thoughts are transmitted to every part\nof the universe, and can be read there by the neuter perceptions of other\nbeings as easily as we can read the types or hieroglyphics of the electric\ntelegraph? Yet what a startling thought is it, that the most secret\nworkings of our minds and hearts are momentarily spread out in legible\ncharacters over the whole material universe! nay, that they are so woven\ninto the texture of the universe, that they will constitute a part of its\nweb and woof forever! To believe and realize this is difficult; to deny it\nis to go in the face of physical science. How many things we do believe\nthat are sustained by evidence far less substantial!\n\n_My fourth argument in support of the general principle is based upon\nodylic reaction._\n\nAnd what is odylic reaction? What is odyle? you will doubtless inquire.\nIt is, indeed, a branch of science emphatically new. I know of no account\nof it, save what appears in a late work, of nearly five hundred pages, by\nBaron Reichenbach, of Vienna, entitled \"Researches on Magnetism,\nElectricity, Heat, Light, Crystallization, and Chemical Attraction, in\ntheir Relations to the Vital Force,\" translated by William Gregory,\nprofessor of chemistry in the University of Edinburgh. This writer\nendeavors to show, by a great number of experiments, that there exists in\nall bodies, and throughout the universe, a peculiar principle, analogous\nto magnetism, electricity, light, and heat, yet distinct from them all, to\nwhich he gives the name of _odyle_. It is most manifest in powerful\nmagnets; next in crystals, and exists in the human body, the sun, moon,\nstars, heat, electricity, chemical action, and, in fact, the whole\nmaterial universe. Those who are most sensitive to this influence are\npersons of feeble health, especially somnambulists; but it is found that\nabout one third of individuals, taken promiscuously, and many in good\nhealth, are sensible of it; and it was by a series of observations on\npersons of all classes and conditions for years, that the facts have been\nelicited. The inquiry seems to have been conducted with great fairness and\nscientific skill, and the author has the confidence of several of the most\ndistinguished scientific men in Europe. If there be no mistake in the\nresults, they promise to explain philosophically many popular\nsuperstitions, and also the phenomena of mesmerism, without a resort to\nsuperhuman agency, either satanic or angelic. They yield, also, an\ninteresting support to the principle of this lecture. Says Baron\nReichenbach, \"There is nothing in these observations [which he had just\ndetailed] that, after the contents of the preceding treatises, can much\nsurprise us; but they are certainly a fine additional confirmation of what\nhas been stated in regard to the sun and moon, and also of the fact that\nthe whole material universe, even beyond our earth, acts on us with the\nvery same kind of influence which resides in all terrestrial objects; and\nlastly, it shows that we stand in a connection of mutual influence,\nhitherto unsuspected, with the universe; so that, in fact, the stars are\nnot altogether devoid of action on our sublunary, perhaps even on our\npractical, world, and on the mental processes of some heads.\"--P. 162.\n\nBy the experiments here referred to by this author, he had endeavored to\nshow, that even the light of the stars exerted an odylic influence upon\nthe human system; that is, certain effects independent altogether of their\nlight; and if there be no mistake in the experiments, they certainly do\nshow this. Such a fact almost realizes the suggestions already made, that\nbeings in other spheres may possess such an exaltation of sensibilities as\nto be able to learn what is going on in this world, and that it is easy to\nconceive how our sensorium may be raised to the same exalted pitch.\n\n_My fifth argument, illustrative of the general principle, is based upon\nchemical reaction._\n\nMechanical reaction changes the form and position of bodies; chemical\nreaction alters their constitution. By the decomposition of some\ncompounds, the elements are obtained for forming others; and such changes\nare going on around us and within us in great numbers unperceived. In the\nworlds above us, and in the earth beneath us, from its circumference to\nits centre, the transmutations of chemistry are in progress, and many of\nthem are modified by the agency of man; so that here is another channel\nthrough which human actions exert an influence upon the material universe,\nand to an extent which we cannot measure. Let us look at some of the modes\nin which this is done.\n\nTake, in the first place, the facts respecting photography, or the art of\nobtaining sketches of objects by means of the action of light. This is\nstrictly a chemical process. In a beam of light, that comes to us from the\nsun, we find not only rays of light and heat, but chemical rays, which act\nupon some bodies to change their constitution. When these rays are\nreflected from a human countenance, and fall upon a silvered plate, that\nhas been coated with iodine and bromine, they leave an impression, which\nis fixed and brought out as a portrait by the vapor of mercury and some\nother agents. Here the chemical changes produced by these rays are\nexceedingly perfect; but they produce effects upon many other substances,\nartificially or naturally prepared; such as paper, for instance, immersed\nin a solution of bichromate of potash, or upon vegetation, whose green\ncolor is probably the result of this action, (as is obvious from the fact\nthat plants growing in the dark are destitute of color.) Indeed, a large\npart of the changes of color in nature depend upon these invisible rays.\n\nIt seems, then, that this photographic influence pervades all nature; nor\ncan we say where it stops. We do not know but it may imprint upon the\nworld around us our features, as they are modified by various passions,\nand thus fill nature with daguerreotype impressions of all our actions\nthat are performed in daylight. It may be, too, that there are tests by\nwhich nature, more skilfully than any human photographist, can bring out\nand fix those portraits, so that acuter senses than ours shall see them,\nas on a great canvas, spread over the material universe. Perhaps, too,\nthey may never fade from that canvas, but become specimens in the great\npicture gallery of eternity.\n\nThe thought may perhaps cross some mind, that, though those human actions\nwhich are performed in sunlight may be imprinted upon the universe, yet no\ndeed of darkness can thus reveal its author, and remain an eternal stigma\nupon his name. But there is another phase to this subject. What is the\nevidence that the chemical rays of a sunbeam are rays of light? We know\nthat they are unequally diffused through the spectrum, being most\nenergetic at its violet extremity; but there is no proof that they are\nvisible. They may, like heat, exert their appropriate influence, which\nseems to be mainly that of deoxidation, and yet not be colorific. If so,\nwe might expect them to operate in the dark; and experiment proves that\nthey do. An engraving on paper, placed between an iodized silver plate and\nan amalgamated copper plate, was left in the dark for fifteen hours. On\nexposing the amalgamated plate to the vapor of mercury, \"a very nice\nimpression of the engraving was brought out--it having been effected\nthrough the thickness of the paper.\"--Mr. Hunt, _\"On the Changes which\nBodies are capable of undergoing in Darkness,\" Phil. Mag._ vol. xxii. p.\n277.--Many like experiments prove the existence; among bodies, of a power\nanalogous to, if not identical with, that which accompanies light, and is\nthe basis of the photographic process. Some philosophers do not regard\nthem as identical. But this is of little consequence in my present\nargument. For all agree that there is a power in nature capable of\nimpressing the outlines of some objects upon others in total darkness.\n\nIn respect to such cases, there are one or two facts deserving of special\nnotice. And, first. We must not infer, because man has yet been able to\nbring out to human view but a few examples of this sort, that they are,\ntherefore, few in nature. Rather should the discovery of a few lead to the\nconclusion that nature may be full of them, and that a more delicate and\nrefined chemistry may yet disclose them. For the few known cases give us a\nglimpse of a recondite law of nature, which most likely pervades creation.\nSome regard these dark rays as neither light, nor heat, nor chemical rays,\nbut a new element; but, whatever its nature, no reason can be given why it\nshould operate only in a few cases, and those of artificial preparation.\nMore probably, through this influence, all bodies brought into contact, or\nproximity, impress their images upon one another; and the time may come,\nwhen, touched by a more subtile chemistry than man now wields, these\nimages shall take a place among obvious and permanent things in the\nuniverse, to the honor and glory of some, but to the amazement and\neverlasting contempt of more.\n\nOf more, I say; for wickedness has oftener sought the concealment of\ndarkness than modest virtue. The foulest enormities of human conduct have\nalways striven to cover themselves with the shroud of night. The thief,\nthe counterfeiter, the assassin, the robber, the murderer, and the\nseducer, feel comparatively safe in the midnight darkness, because no\nhuman eye can scrutinize their actions. But what if it should turn out\nthat sable night, to speak paradoxically, is an unerring photographist!\nWhat if wicked men, as they open their eyes from the sleep of death, in\nanother world, should find the universe hung round with faithful pictures\nof their earthly enormities, which they had supposed forever lost in the\noblivion of night! What scenes for them to gaze at forever! They may now,\nindeed, smile incredulously at such a suggestion; but the disclosures of\nchemistry may well make them tremble. Analogy does make it a scientific\nprobability that every action of man, however deep the darkness in which\nit was performed, has imprinted its image upon nature, and that there may\nbe tests which shall draw it into daylight, and make it permanent so long\nas materialism endures.\n\nThere is another chemical principle, called _catalysis_, through which\nhuman actions may make powerful and permanent impressions on the universe,\nand that, too, unperceived by man. In some cases, the mere presence of a\ncertain agent, in a small quantity, will produce extensive changes of\nconstitution in other bodies, while the agent itself remains unaltered.\nThus a strip of platinum will determine the union of oxygen and hydrogen\nin the platinum lamp; and sulphuric acid, in a solution of starch, will\nchange it first into gum, and then into sugar; while neither the platinum\nnor the acid experiences any change. These are called _catalytic_ changes.\nMore often, however, the catalytic agent is itself in the process of\nchange, and it produces an analogous change in other bodies. A familiar\nexample is yeast, or ferment. This substance contains a principle called\n_diastase_, one part of which is capable of converting two thousand parts\nof starch into sugar; and this is what is done in the familiar process of\nfermentation, when we always see verified the scriptural declaration, _A\nlittle leaven leaveneth the whole lump._\n\nThe precise manner in which the diastase operates in these cases we may\nnot be able to explain. The particles of the diastase, being themselves in\nmotion, possess the power of putting in motion the particles of other\nbodies; and these, again, operate upon others, and so on, often to an\nastonishing extent. In the case of the platinum and the acid, however, no\nchange takes place in their molecules, and we can only state it, as an\nunexplained fact, that they do produce changes in other bodies.\n\nWe have other examples of catalytic influences in nature, exhibiting an\nagency still more subtile and energetic. I refer to contagious and\nepidemic diseases in animals and plants. An influence goes abroad, and\nseems to be propagated through the atmosphere, traversing whole\ncontinents, and crossing wide oceans, powerful and deadly in its effects,\nyet inappreciable by the most delicate mechanical or chemical tests. But\nthe phenomena admit of explanation by supposing a movement, either in the\nparticles of the atmosphere, or of the still more subtile and elastic\nmedium that pervades all space; a movement started at a particular spot,\nas the cholera in India, and the small-pox or some epidemic from some\nfocus, and communicating an unhealthy movement from atom to atom, till it\nhas encircled the earth and mowed down its hecatombs.\n\nNow, when we look at such facts, who can suppose it improbable that man,\nwho can hardly lift a finger without producing some chemical change,\nshould start some of these movements, that may reach far beyond his\nimagination? And here, as in the cases that have preceded, we must not\nestimate the actual change in the constitution of bodies by the apparent;\nfor we know that multitudes of such changes are passing within us and\naround us, without our cognizance; and yet there may be chemical eyes in\nthe universe quick enough to see them all, and to follow them onward to\nthe final result; for there must be a final resultant of all such forces;\nnor can we doubt that, some time or other, and to some beings, if not to\nourselves, it will be manifest. Here, then, is another mode in which a\nchemical influence may go forth from us, reaching the utmost limits of\nmatter and of time; nay, perhaps extending into eternity, and revealing\nour actions to the finer sensibilities of exalted beings.\n\n_I derive my sixth argument in support of the general principle from\norganic reaction._\n\nFew persons, save the zoologist and comparative anatomist, have any idea\nof the great nicety and delicacy of the relations that exist between all\nthe species of animals and plants, so that what affects one affects all\nthe rest. Perhaps the subject may be illustrated by supposing all the\nspecies of organic beings to be distributed at different distances through\na hollow sphere, while between them all there is a mutual repulsion, and\nthe whole are retained in the form of a sphere by an attracting force\ndirected to the centre. By such an arrangement, if one species be taken\nout of the sphere, or its repellency become stronger or weaker, the\nrelative position of all the rest would be altered. No matter how many\nmillions of species there are, the movements of one will cause a reaction\namong all the rest.\n\nNow, this illustration, although an approximation, falls short of\nrepresenting the actual state of things in nature. It is no exaggeration\nto say that a relation similar to the supposed one exists throughout the\nvast dominions of animate beings; so that you cannot obliterate or change\none species without affecting all the rest. Often the change is effected\nso slowly and indirectly that the beings experiencing it are unconscious\nof it; or they may realize some slight disturbance of the balance in\norganic nature, and yet be unconscious of the cause. By the illustration\nabove given, when one or more species is removed from the supposed sphere,\nor its repellent force weakened or strengthened, although an influence\nwill reach all the other species, yet a new equilibrium will soon be\nestablished, and no permanently bad effects seem to follow. But not so in\nnature. There the balance originally fixed between different beings by\ninfinite wisdom is the best possible; and every change, not intended by\nProvidence, must be for the worse. It was intended, for instance, that man\nshould subdue forests and extirpate noxious plants, as well as ferocious\nand noxious animals; and, therefore, such a change operates to his\nadvantage, but to the injury of the inferior animals. Yet often he pushes\nthis exterminating process so far as to injure himself also. Thus the\nfarmer wages a relentless war against certain birds, because of some\nslight evils which they occasion. But when they are extirpated,\nopportunity is given for noxious insects to multiply, and to bring upon\nthe farmer evils much greater than those he thus escapes.\n\nTo prevent an excessive multiplication of some species is one of the grand\nobjects of the present balance established among the whole. Such an\nincrease is an inevitable effect of the extinction of a species, and it\noften occasions great mischief. The carnivorous species, especially, were\nintended to act as nature's police, to prevent a too great increase of the\nherbivorous races, which are rendered excessively fruitful to keep the\nworld full. If, then, a carnivorous species become extinct, the species on\nwhich it has fed will so multiply as to prove great nuisances, and to\nproduce wide disorder among many species, not only of animals, but of\nplants. And often has man, in this way, by the extermination of species,\nin particular districts, unwittingly brought a powerful reaction on\nhimself.\n\nOn the Island of New Zealand, within one or two hundred years past, eight\nor ten species of gigantic birds--the dinornis and palapteryx--have become\nextinct, probably through the persecution of man. The natives, without\ndoubt, hunted them down for food, until all disappeared: and as no\nquadruped of much size inhabits the island, we think there is no little\nplausibility in the suggestion of Professor Owen, that when the birds were\nall gone, or nearly gone, the natives were tempted to the practice of\ncannibalism, as the only means of gratifying their passion for meat. What\na terrible retribution for disturbing the equilibrium of organic nature!\n\nThe records of zoology and botany afford endless illustration of this\nsubject. But the great truth which they all teach is, that so intimately\nare we related to other beings, that almost every action of ours reacts\nupon them for good or evil; for good, upon the whole, when we conform to\nthe laws which God has established; and for evil, when by their violation\nwe disturb the equilibrium of organized nature, and produce irregular\naction. In this latter case, we cannot tell where the disturbance, thus\nintroduced, will end; for it is not a periodical oscillation, like the\nperturbations of the heavenly bodies, nor a mere change of position and\nintensity by mechanical forces.\n\nBut does not this law of mutual influence between organic beings extend to\nother worlds? Why should it not be transmitted by means of the\nluminiferous ether to the limits of the universe? Who knows but a blow\nstruck upon a single link of organic beings here may be felt through the\nwhole circle of animate existence in all worlds? That is a narrow view of\nGod's work, which isolates the organic races on this globe from the rest\nof the universe. The more philosophical view throws the golden chain of\ninfluence around the whole animal creation, whether small or great, near\nor remote.\n\nReverting to the reasoning which we employed in tracing out the extent of\nmechanical reaction, we shall see that organic reaction may extend not\nonly to other worlds, but also into eternity. For if the matter of the\nuniverse is to survive the conflagration of the last day, the future\neconomy of life must have some connection with the present, whether this\nearth or some other part of the universe be the theatre of its\ndevelopment.\n\nI speak here not of moral influences, which we know will pass over from\ntime into eternity, but of a physical reaction, which may also reach\nbeyond the same gulf. For at least a part of those creatures, who in this\nworld have felt the modifying power of other beings, will survive the\nworld's final catastrophe, and occupy material, though spiritual bodies,\nwhose germ is represented as derived from their bodies on earth. We have\nreason, then, to suppose some connection and modifying influence between\nthem. And we might show, also, that moral causes, which so affect the\nphysical character here, may exert a like power in eternity. But time will\nnot permit the argument to be followed out.\n\nThe conclusion, then, from this argument also, is, that probably every\naction of ours on earth modifies the condition and destiny of every other\ncreated being in this and other worlds through time and eternity. What\nthough human experience, dependent on the bluntness of mortal\nsensibilities, cannot demonstrate such an influence? Shall the gross\nperceptions of this disordered world be made the standard of all that\nexists? Rather let us listen to the suggestions of science, which tell us\nof the possibility of senses far more acute in other worlds, and in a\nfuture state of being--senses that can trace out and feel the vibrations\nof the delicate web of organic influence that binds together the great and\nthe small, the past, the present, and the future, throughout the universe.\n\n_My seventh argument in support of the general principle depends upon\nmental reaction._\n\nMental reaction operates in two ways--indirectly and directly; indirectly\nthrough matter, directly by the influence of mind upon mind, without an\nintervening medium. When describing electric reactions, I have shown how\nour thoughts and volitions change the electric, chemical, and even\nmechanical condition of the body, and, through these media, that of all\nthe material universe; and I need not repeat that argument. But to modify\nthe inanimate world through these agencies necessarily affects all other\nintellects, which are connected with matter; and since man in a future\nworld is to assume a spiritual body, we may reasonably suppose that all\ncreated beings are in some way connected with matter; and, therefore, by\nmeans of materialism, through the subtile agencies that have been named,\nwe may be sure that an influence goes out from every thought and volition\nof ours, and reaches every other intellect in the wide creation. I know\nnot whether, in other worlds, their inhabitants possess sensibilities\nacute enough to be conscious of this influence; certainly, in this world,\nit is only to a limited extent that men are conscious of it. Yet we must\nadmit that it exists and acts, or deny the demonstrated verities of\nscience.\n\nBut is there not evidence that mind sometimes acts directly upon other\nminds, without any gross, intervening media? It may, indeed, be doubted\nwhether any created intellect operates, except in connection with some\nform of matter. Yet there are certain facts in the history of individuals\nin an abnormal state, which show that one mind acts upon another,\nindependent of the senses, or any other material means or\nintercommunication discoverable by the senses. Take the details of\nsleep-waking, or somnambulism; and do not they present us with numerous\ncases in which impressions are made by one mind upon another, even when\nseparated beyond the sphere of the senses? Take the facts respecting\ndouble consciousness, and those where the power was possessed of reading\nthe thoughts, of others, or the facts relating to prevision; and surely\nthey cannot be explained but by the supposition of a direct influence of\none mind upon another.\n\nStill more decided in this respect are the most familiar facts of\nartificial somnambulism, called mesmerism. Whatever may be our views of\nthis unsettled branch of knowledge as a whole, it would seem as if we\ncould not doubt that its facts prove the action of mind upon mind,\nindependently of bodily organization, without rejecting evidence which\nwould prove any thing else.\n\nNow, if we admit that mind does operate upon other minds while we are in\nthe body, independent of the body, can we tell how far the influence\nextends? If electricity, or some other subtile agent, be essential to this\naction, it would indeed transfer this example to electric reaction, but it\nwould still be real. Yet, in the absence of all certain proof of the\nelectric power in this case, and with certain proof of the existence of\nsuch an influence, we may place it among those marvellous means by which\nman makes an impression, wide beyond our present knowledge, upon the\nuniverse, material and mental; and it ought to make us feel that our\nlightest thoughts and feeblest volitions may reach the outer limit of\nintellectual life, and its consequences meet us in distant worlds, and far\ndown the track of eternity.\n\n_Finally. I derive an argument in support of the general principle from\ngeological reaction._\n\nBy this expression, I mean those reactions of whose existence geology\nfurnishes the proof. They are, in fact, the reactions already considered;\nbut geology proves that they have actually operated in past time in many\ninstances, by evidence registered on the rocks, and thus tends to confirm\nour reasoning derived from other sources. I do not mean that the proof is\nbefore us of precisely such an action as our reasoning has supposed, but\nso analogous to that supposed as to lend it confirmation. A few examples\nwill illustrate the argument.\n\nThe effects of mechanical reaction are, perhaps, most frequent and\nstriking in the rocks, especially those deposited from water. Here we\nhave, for instance, the _ripple marks_, which present us with a faithful\nregister of the slightest movement of the waters, and also of the motions\nof the atmosphere, or of the currents in it, that agitated the waters. In\nthe almost impalpable powder that sometimes constitutes the rocks, we can\ntrace the slightest erosion and comminution of the strata from which the\ndeposit was worn. In the petrified rain drops we find an indelible trace\nof the most gentle shower. And here, too, we can see the direction of the\nwind. Such facts, also, imply the operation of electricity and gravity, of\nheat and cold, collecting and condensing the rain, and bringing it down;\nand so similar to present meteorological phenomena do these ancient\nshowers appear to have been, that we may conclude that electrical\nreactions, in all respects, were the same as at present.\n\nThe preservation of the tracks of numerous animals in some of the\nsandstones shows us how deep and permanent an impression the most trivial\naction of a living being may make. In these footmarks we sometimes notice\na change in the direction of the animal along the surface; and, of course,\nan impression deeper or more shallow than usual, of parts of the foot, by\nthe action of the muscles employed in changing the animal's course. Here,\nthen, we have the register of so slight an action as an increased or\ndiminished action of a particular muscle of the leg. Nay, further, such a\nmovement affords us an infallible register of an act of the animal's will,\nsince that must have preceded the change; and that implies an electric\ncurrent, first inward along the sensor nerves, and then outward along the\nmotor nerves.\n\nGeology lays open before us a map of the changes in organic nature from\nthe apparent commencement of life on the globe, and thus enables us to see\nexamples of this kind of reaction. We find different economies of life to\nhave appeared, but all of them most wisely adapted to existing\ncircumstances. In each economy we perceive the balance between the\ndifferent tribes provided for. If, for instance, one race of carnivorous\nspecies died out, new races were created to occupy their place, so that\nthe herbivorous species should not overrun the globe. Thus, when the early\nsauroid fishes diminished, the gigantic and carnivorous marine saurian\nreptiles were introduced. And when the chambered shells, whose occupants\nwere carnivorous, disappeared with the secondary period, numerous univalve\nmollusks were created to feed on other animals; although previously that\nfamily were herbivorous. It would seem, however, as if each successive\neconomy of organic life had contained within itself the seeds of\nextinction. It was, indeed, mainly a change of climate which first caused\nsome species to disappear. But their destruction so disturbed the balance\nof creation that others followed, until total extinction was the result,\nwhich, however, was often hastened by catastrophes.\n\nThus we have in the stony volume of the earth's history actual examples of\neffects resulting from the acts, and even volitions, of the inferior\nanimals, which can never be erased while the rocks endure.\n\nIf, therefore, with our imperfect senses, we can see these results so\ndistinctly, we may safely infer that human conduct, and thought, and\nvolition impress upon the globe, nay, upon the universe, marks which\nnothing can obliterate.\n\nThe thoughts which press upon the mind, in view of such a conclusion, are\nnumerous and interesting. A few we can hardly help noticing.\n\n_In the first place, what a centre of influence does man occupy!_\n\nIt is just as if the universe were a tremulous mass of jelly which every\nmovement of his made to vibrate from the centre to the circumference. It\nis as if the universe were one vast picture gallery, in some part of which\nthe entire history of this world, and of each individual, is shown on\ncanvas, sketched by countless artists, with unerring skill. It is as if\neach man had his foot upon the point where ten thousand telegraphic wires\nmeet from every part of the universe, and he were able, with each\nvolition, to send abroad an influence along these wires, so as to reach\nevery created being in heaven and in earth. It is as if we had the more\nthan Gorgon power of transmuting every object around us into forms\nbeautiful or hideous, and of sending that transmuting process forward\nthrough time and through eternity. It is as if we were linked to every\ncreated being by a golden chain, and every pulsation of our heart or\nmovement of our mind modified the pulsation of every other heart and the\nmovements of every other intellect. Wonderful, wonderful is the position\nman occupies, and the part he acts! And yet it is not a dream, but the\ndeliberate conclusion of true science.\n\n_Secondly. We see in this subject the probability that our minutest\nactions, and perhaps our thoughts, from day to day, are known throughout\nthe universe._\n\nI speak not here of the divine omniscience, which we know reaches every\nthought and action; but I refer to created beings. Science shows us how,\nin a variety of modes, such knowledge may be conveyed to them by natural\nagencies; and we have only to suppose them to be possessed of far more\nacute sensibilities than man's, in order to be affected by these agencies\nas we are by more powerful impressions. And when we consider how fettered\nand depressed a condition this world obviously is in, because of its\nsinfulness, who will doubt but the unfallen beings of other spheres may\nenjoy those keener perceptions that will bring our whole history\ndistinctly before them, day by day? The thought is, indeed, startling, but\nnot unphilosophical.\n\nIf this suggestion be true, then may we indulge the thought as highly\nprobable that our friends, who have gone before us into the eternal world,\nmay be as familiar with our conduct, our words, and even our thoughts, as\nwe are ourselves. If we are acting as we ought, and so as will please\nthem, this must be an animating idea; but if we are not, let it serve to\nstimulate us to our duty, if a sense of the divine omniscience is not\nsufficient.\n\n_We infer from this subject, thirdly, the probability that, in a future\nstate, the power of reading the past history of the world, and of\nindividuals, may be possessed by man._\n\nThe nature of the future spiritual body, and of the heavenly state and\nemployments, impresses the mind with the belief that it will be a\ncondition far more exalted than the present, and that the inlets to the\nsoul will be cleared of all obstructions; so that no impression made on\nsuch a sensorium shall fail to give the mind a distinct perception. In\nheaven, such extreme sensibility might become a source of richest\npleasure; in the world of despair, an instrument of severe punishment; yet\nin both cases it might be the natural result of a man's earthly course.\nNow, such an indefinite exaltation of the perceptions in futurity scarcely\nany one will doubt. Why should we doubt any more that it may rise so high\nthat man will be able to read, through the agencies we have pointed out,\nthe minutest action and thought in human experience? If, as we have reason\nto suppose, angels can do it now, the Bible informs us that we shall be\nlike the angels.\n\nIf this view be admitted, then it may be that the present world is the\nonly spot in the universe where deeds of wickedness can be concealed. In a\nsinful world we can see reasons why the power of concealment should exist\nto some extent. For though no man should do or think any thing which he is\nashamed to have known, yet, if all the plans of men for the promotion of\ngood objects were fully known from their inception, the wicked could\ngenerally defeat them. But in a world of perfect holiness no such\nnecessity would exist, since the universal desire would be to promote\nevery worthy object; and, therefore, it may be that every soul will lie\nperfectly open to the inspection of all other souls--an arrangement that\nseems appropriate to such a world.\n\nIn what an aspect does this principle present the conduct of the suicide!\nTired of earthly scenes, he rushes unbidden into eternity to escape them.\nBut instead of escaping them, he goes where every one of these mortal\nevils--yea, and multiplied, too, a thousand fold--shall start up in his\npath with a distinctness of which he had no conception. And henceforth he\ncan never find, as in this world, even a partial deliverance from their\nterrible vividness. It is as if, to avoid the moonlight, because too\nbright, a man should plunge into the sun.\n\nAgain, if this principle be true, how annoying will it be, to the man who\nhas not acted well his part in this world, to meet in eternity the\never-recurring mementoes of his evil deeds! He will hardly be able to open\nhis eyes without seeing some plague-spot on creation as the result of his\nconduct; and although infinite wisdom and power have stayed the plague, no\nthanks are due to him. The tendencies of his conduct on earth will be\nmost distressing to look upon; and these shall not cease to lie open\nbefore him till the last sand in the glass of eternity is run out.\n\nBut, on the other hand, how does this principle strew the path of eternity\nwith flowers to that man who, in this world, finds his highest pleasure in\ndoing good! Not merely his highest and noblest deeds of benevolence here\nshall loom up in bright perspective there, but a thousand acts of private\nbeneficence, unknown to the world and forgotten by himself, shall stand\nout distinctly on the moving panorama of that better world; and he will be\namazed to see what a wide and blessed influence they have exerted, and\nwill exert, as the catalytic influence moves on and widens in its endless\nmarch. It might have ruined him to see these fruits in this world, by\nexciting pride and vain glory; but it will awaken there only gratitude and\nlove to the grace that enabled him thus, in time, to sow the seeds which\nshould fill eternity with flowers, and fragrance, and golden fruit.\n\n_Finally. What new and astonishing avenues of knowledge_ does this subject\nshow us will probably open upon the soul in eternity!\n\nI do not now speak of the new knowledge of the divine character which will\nthen astonish and delight the soul by direct intuition, but rather of\nthose new channels that will be thrown open, through which a knowledge of\nother worlds, and of other created beings, can be conveyed to the soul\nalmost illimitably. And just consider what a field that will be. At\npresent we know nothing of the inhabitants of other worlds, and it is only\nby analogy that we make their existence probable. Nor, with our present\nsenses, could we learn any thing respecting them but by an actual visit to\neach world. But let the suggestions to which our reasonings have\nconducted us prove true,--let our sensorium be so modified and\nspiritualized that every thought, word, and action in those worlds shall\ncome to us through pulsations falling upon the organ of vision, or by an\nelectric current through the nerve of sensation, or by some transmitted\nchemical change,--and on what vantage ground should we be placed! Without\nleaving the spot of our residence, supposing the universe constituted as\nit now is, we might study out the character and constitution of the\ncountless inhabitants of at least one hundred millions of worlds, which we\nknow to exist; nay, of ten thousand times that number, which probably\nexist. Every movement of matter around us, however infinitesimal, would be\nfreighted with new knowledge, perhaps from distant spheres. Every ray of\nlight that met our gaze from the broad heavens above us would print an\nimage upon our visual organs of events transpiring in distant worlds,\nwhile every electrical flash might convey some idea to our mind never\nbefore thought of. Every chemical ray, too, might inform us of scenes far\noff in the regions of night; and then who can calculate what organic and\nmental influences might be transmitted to us from beings of all ranks and\nscattered through all worlds? To speak of organs, indeed, as the medium of\nperceptions in another world, may be absurd; but we mean only, by that\nterm, whatever may be substituted for our present organs; and we assume\nthat the properties of matter will exist forever; and, therefore, we may\npresume that light, and electricity, and chemical affinity, and corporeal\nand mental influences will, under modified forms, be the modes by which\nknowledge shall ever be transmitted. At least, assuming that they will be,\nand the magnificent conceptions we have now traced out may be hereafter\nrealized. And surely, if they be only slightly probable, the anticipation\nis full of thrilling interest, and the moral effect of dwelling upon it\nmust be salutary. It spreads out before us fields of knowledge which\neternity can never exhaust, and attractive so immeasurably above all the\nknowledge of earth that we almost wait impatiently for the summons to\nbreak from our prison-house below, and to rise on our new pinions to\ncelestial scenes.\n\nIf such rich means of knowledge of created things be enjoyed by celestial\nminds, and they can drink it in to the full measure of their faculties,\nthen one inevitable effect must be to make them unite, ever and anon, in\nadoration and praise to the infinite Being who created and sustains all,\nand whose glory is illustrated by all his works. And we can conceive that\nthere may be stated periods, when, from every part of the universe, the\nanthem of praise comes rolling onwards towards some central spot, where\nthe divine presence is most felt. O, how gladly will each happy soul,\nanimated by every new accession of knowledge, join in the swelling paean as\nit mounts up to the third heavens! Who knows but this is the hour when the\npeal is beginning? O, let not this world be the only spot in the universe\nwhere it shall be unheard and unheeded. Surely we see enough of the divine\nglory here to begin the song, which we hope to pour forth in loftier notes\non high, _unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God;\nto whom be honor and glory, forever and ever. Amen._\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XIII.\n\nTHE VAST PLANS OF JEHOVAH.\n\n\nIt is interesting and instructive to trace the history of man's progress\nin the knowledge of the existence, character, and plans of Jehovah. We\nshall find that progress to have been marked by epochs, rather than\ncontinuous advancement. Some new revelation from heaven, or some new\ndiscovery in science, has given a sudden expansion to his views of the\nDeity, which have then remained in a good degree stationary for a long\nperiod. My chief object in this lecture is to show what accessions to our\nknowledge of the divine plans have been derived from science, especially\nfrom geology. But it will give greater distinctness and impressiveness to\nthe subject to take a review of the principal steps by which the human\nmind has reached its present accurate spiritual and enlarged views of the\nDeity.\n\n_We will first look at man in the rudest condition in society, in which he\nhas any idea of the existence of beings superior to himself._\n\nFor there is a state of his being in which no such ideas exist in his\nmind; tribes of men, and especially individuals, who have lived in a wild\nstate, away from all human intercourse, have been found with no idea of a\nsuperior being of any sort. Other tribes have existed a little more\nelevated above the irrational animals, and these have an impression,\nderived perhaps from their moral sense, or growing out of their\nsuperstitious fears, that some power exists in the universe greater than\nthemselves. But having never entertained an abstract idea on any other\nsubject, and depending alone upon their senses for their knowledge, they\nidentify God with the most remarkable objects of nature. They listen to\nhis voice in the wind and the thunder, in the ocean's roar, and the\nvolcano's bellowing; and they see him in the sun, moon, and stars. They\nfeel that he must be superior to themselves; but how much superior, they\nknow not. They never think of him as infinite, because the idea of\ninfinity on any subject never enters their mind. They conceive of the\nearth only as a plain of considerable extent, bounded by a circle, beyond\nwhich their thoughts never wander; and they look up to the heavens as a\ndome, perhaps solid, studded by luminous bodies, it may be a few feet or\nyards in diameter. They suppose that, somehow or other, this superior\nBeing has the control of their destinies; but the idea of any thing like\nworship is too spiritual to be conceived of, except, perhaps, some\nsuperstitious rite, performed to deprecate the divine displeasure. In\nshort, every thing in their notion of God is indefinite, gross, and\nconfined to the narrow sphere of the senses.\n\n_In the second place, polytheism, especially among nations somewhat\ncivilized, is an advance in man's conceptions of the Supreme Being._\n\nPolytheism probably originated in the deification of distinguished men.\nSuperior minds, who had been the leaders or the benefactors of mankind,\nwere suddenly torn from an admiring world by death. Their bodies were left\nbehind, but the animating principle, the immortal mind, had vanished in a\nmoment; and it was a most natural inquiry, even among the most ignorant,\nwhether some undying principle had not escaped and gone to a higher\nsphere; for it would be difficult to conceive how so much intelligence\nand virtue should be quenched in a moment in eternal night. It would be a\nmost natural and gratifying conclusion with survivors, that their departed\nleaders and benefactors still lived, and were in some way concerned in\nwatching over their interests, and in controlling their destinies.\nConjectures of this sort would, in a few generations, settle into positive\nbelief. Now, this would be a most important advance upon the gross\nmaterialism, and indefinite ideas, which identified divinity with striking\nobjects of nature; for if distinguished warriors and statesmen were still\nalive after their bodies were laid in the grave, there must have escaped,\nat the moment of death, some principle too subtile to be cognizable by the\nsenses, or by chemical, mechanical, or electrical agencies; and which,\ntherefore, may have been immaterial. At least, by such a belief, men would\nbe led insensibly to form an idea of the human soul as an extremely\ntenuous, if not immaterial, principle. Especially would educated\nmen--those devoted to philosophical pursuits--come at length to have a\nclear conception of a spiritual being, neither visible by the senses, nor\ndependent upon the senses for the exercise of its faculties. Very soon\nwould the imagination fill the universe with such beings, and conceive\nthem as holding intercourse with one another, and as presiding over all\nthe objects of this lower world, and directing all its destinies. It would\nbe very natural, however, to endow these superior beings with human\ncharacteristics, and to suppose them actuated by human passions; and thus\nwould the celestial society be represented as a counterpart of that on\nearth, deformed by the same vices and crimes. This would lead to the idea\nof a gradation in rank, power, and intellect among the gods, and to the\nconception of one as supreme. In the popular mythology, however, even\nJupiter was represented as acting under the influence of selfishness,\npride, lust, and passion; and as sometimes brought into peril by his\npowerful inferiors. Some of the philosophers of Greece and Rome did,\nindeed, give descriptions of their supreme divinity not unworthy the\nbiblical views of Jehovah. It may be that they got the clew to these just\nand elevated conceptions from the Bible. But it is not difficult to\nconceive that, in the manner which I have described, they might, by\nreasoning, with, perhaps, some hints derived from revelation, have\ngradually attained to these just and noble conceptions of the supreme\ndivinity. Yet it ought not to be forgotten that these exalted views of the\nphilosophers were not shared at all by the common people, and that even\nthe philosophers themselves were for the most part polytheists.\n\nThe next step in man's knowledge of God was an immeasurable advance upon\npolytheism. _I refer to the revelation which God made of himself to the\nJews in the Old Testament._ Most of this revelation did, indeed, precede\nthe writings of the Greek and Roman philosophers, but it was confined to a\nrude and almost unknown people, until the days of their glory had gone by,\nand did not spread over the globe till an opportunity had been afforded to\nprove that _the world by wisdom knew not God_. You may, indeed, find, in\nthe writings of a few philosophers, passages descriptive of the natural\nattributes of the Deity that will compare favorably with those of the Old\nTestament. But his moral attributes, his benevolence, mercy, justice, and\nholiness, are brought out in the Old Testament in a far more distinct and\nimpressive manner than in all other ancient writings. Another point, and a\nvital one, with the writers of the Old Testament, in which that inspired\nvolume goes infinitely beyond the philosophers, is the unity of God. They\nteach, as a fundamental principle, and with all the earnestness which\ninspiration can bestow, not only that Jehovah is supreme, but that he is\nGod alone, and that no other gods exist. You may, indeed, find statements\nto this effect in the works of the philosophers; but the conduct of\nSocrates, the most enlightened of them all,--in his dying moments,--in\ndirecting a sacrifice to be made to AEsculapius, is a good practical\ncommentary upon their doctrine of the divine unity. It shows that, with\nsome correct notions of the supreme divinity, they believed in the\nexistence of inferior deities; or, at least, they did not regard the\npopular error on this subject of importance enough to require them boldly\nto testify against it. But such testimony constitutes the burden of the\nOld Testament, as if all other religious truths were of little importance\nwithout it. And so far as these inspired books succeeded in fixing this\ndoctrine in the minds of the Jews, they performed an immense service for\nreligion. They swept at once from the universe the thirty thousand\ndivinities of Greece and Rome, and placed Jehovah only on the throne. But,\nfor some reason or other, polytheism has always been a doctrine most\ncongenial to human nature; especially to the uncultivated mind; and the\nprobability is, that the great mass of the Jews, while they believed in\nthe supremacy of Jehovah, still supposed that the gods of the heathen had\na real existence. This certainly was the case before the Babylonish exile,\nthough doubtless the patriarchs had more correct notions. This fact\nexplains the otherwise unaccountable disposition of the Jews to fall away\nto idolatry, in spite of all which Jehovah did to preserve among them his\ntrue worship.\n\nOn the subject, also, of the divine spirituality, we have evidence that\nthe notions of the great mass of the Jewish nation were low and confused.\nThey distinguished, it is true, very clearly between the body and the\nsoul. But they probably conceived of the latter as a very subtile,\ninvisible, corporeal essence, and not that pure, immaterial substance\nwhich is understood by that term in metaphysics. The abstract ideas\nattached to the soul in the nineteenth century probably never entered\ntheir minds; and though in strict language they might be called\nmaterialists, they were by no means such materialists as modern times have\nproduced, who understandingly deny the existence of the soul, and regard\nit as a function of the brain. The Jews thought of God as the most subtile\nessence of which they could form any idea; but whether he were material,\nor immaterial, probably they never inquired. And it cannot escape the\nnotice of a reader of the Old Testament how frequently God is represented\nby figures derived from material objects. This was in accommodation to the\nrude and uncultivated state of most minds in those early days. Purely\nabstract truths would have conveyed no ideas to minds which had never been\naccustomed to abstractions. Hence it is, that we meet in the Bible with so\nmany descriptions of the Deity, which theologians and philosophers\ndenominate _anthropopathic_ and _anthropomorphic_. It was in accommodation\nto the uncultivated state of common minds, which could form no conceptions\nof God that were not founded on some property belonging to man. The\nlanguage of the sacred writers does, indeed, when correctly interpreted,\nconvey the idea of the most perfectly simple, spiritual, and immaterial\nsubstance as constituting the divine essence; and minds accustomed to\nabstract ideas find no difficulty in enucleating the spiritual meaning of\nScripture. But had the divine Being been described by abstract terms, the\ngreat mass of men, even at the present day, would receive no impressive\nconception of the Godhead. God, therefore, in the Old Testament, revealed\nas much concerning himself and his plans, as men would understand. But\nother revelations and developments would follow, when the human mind\nshould be prepared to receive and appreciate them.\n\n_The revelations of Christianity have brought to light so much respecting\nthe moral character and moral government of Jehovah, as to leave little\nfurther to be desired or expected in this world._\n\nThe natural attributes of the Deity have a more spiritual and less\nanthropopathic aspect in the New Testament than in the Old. We are told in\nthe former distinctly, that _God is a spirit, and those who worship him\nmust worship him in spirit and in truth_. But God's moral character, as\ndeveloped in the New Testament, in the plan of redemption and salvation,\npresents us with a perfection and a glory unknown in all previous\nrevelations. We have, it is true, in the Old Testament intimations and\npredictions of the plan, which is fully developed and exemplified in the\nnew dispensation. But these were only shadows of Jesus Christ and him\ncrucified. When he appeared, and by his sufferings, as a substitute for\nman, reconciled divine justice and mercy, and made a clear exposition of\nthe moral law, and a disclosure of a future state of retributions, a flood\nof light was thrown upon God's moral character. Every cloud that had\nrested upon it was cleared away, and immaculate holiness covered it with\nunapproachable splendor. In short, the human mind is incapable of forming\na more correct estimate of moral excellence than is exhibited in the\nscriptural plan of salvation. The more it is meditated upon, and the more\nwe experience its practical influence, the higher will be our conceptions\nof the moral glory of the divine character; nor have we reason to suppose\nthat any further revelations would increase our apprehensions of it. For\nbenevolence, mercy, justice, and grace are here exhibited in unlimited,\nthat is, in infinite, glory and perfection, and therefore can never be\nexceeded.\n\nBut though the exhibitions of the divine character and plans contained in\nthe Bible are thus perfect and excellent, they are not the only\nexhibitions which the universe contains, and which man is capable of\nunderstanding. _Lo, these are a part of his ways._ The Bible has left the\nwonders of the natural world where it found them, to be examined and\ndeveloped by philosophy. Some have thought that it has anticipated a few\nscientific discoveries; but if it had done this in one instance, it must\nhave carried the same plan through the whole circle of science; else how\ncould readers determine when the sacred writers were describing phenomena\naccording to appearances and general belief, and when according to real\nscientific truth? But the fact is, scientific discoveries are left to\nman's ingenuity; and as they are made from time to time, they bring out\nnew and splendid illustrations of the character and plans of Jehovah. Let\nus now recur to some of these discoveries, that have opened the widest\nvistas into the arcana of nature.\n\n_The discoveries in modern astronomy constitute the fifth step in man's\nknowledge of God._\n\nIn order to see how much man's conceptions of the universe have been\nenlarged by these discoveries, compare the opinions which prevailed before\nthe introduction of the Copernican system with what is now certain\nknowledge, founded upon physico-mathematics, respecting the extent of the\nuniverse. Then this earth was thought to be the centre and the principal\nbody of the creation, immovably fixed, with the heavenly bodies, generally\nthought to be of diminutive size, revolving around it every twenty-four\nhours. The earth, too, except in the opinion of a few sagacious\nphilosophers, was not imagined to be that vast globe which we now\nunderstand it to be, but a flat surface, perhaps a few hundred or\nthousand miles in extent, bounded by a circle, and resting on an imaginary\nfoundation. The heavenly bodies were looked upon as little more than\nshining points, or at most a few yards, or by the most daring fancies a\nfew miles, in extent. What a change have the telescope, the quadrant, and\nthe transit instrument, aided by profound mathematics, and the talismanic\npower of the Newtonian theory of gravitation, produced! Every schoolboy\nnow knows that this globe, enormous though it be compared with what the\neye can take in from the loftiest eminence, is but a mere speck in\ncreation, and, with the exception of the moon, appearing from other worlds\nonly as one of the smallest stars in their heavens; so small that its\nextinction would not be noticed. To the ignorant mind, distances and\nmagnitudes exceeding a hundred miles are conceived of only with great\ndifficulty. But the astronomer, when he conceives of magnitudes, must make\na thousand miles his shortest unit, and a million of miles when he\nconceives of distances in the solar system. And when he attempts to go\nbeyond the sun and the planets, the shortest division on his measuring\nline must be the diameter of the earth's orbit; and even then he will be\nborne onward so far, not on the wings of imagination, but of mathematics,\nthat this enormous distance has vanished to a point. Even then he has only\nreached the nearest fixed star, and, of course, has only just entered upon\nthe outer limit of creation. He must prepare himself for a still loftier\nflight. He must give up the diameter of the earth's orbit as the unit of\nhis measurements, because too short, and take as his standard the passage\nof light, at the rate of two hundred thousand miles per second. With that\nspeed can he go on, until his mind has reckoned up six thousand years of\nseconds, and he will reach fixed stars whose light has not yet arrived at\nthe earth, because it did not commence its journey till the time of man's\ncreation.\n\nBut it is not merely in respect to distance and magnitude that astronomy\nhas enlarged our knowledge of the universe. Numerically it has opened a\nfield equally wide. Think of two thousand worlds rolling nightly around\nus, visible to the naked eye. Take the telescope, and see those two\nthousand multiply to fifty or one hundred millions, and then recollect how\nvery improbable it is that the keenest optics of earth can reach more than\nan infinitesimal part of creation. Surely the mind is as much confounded\nand lost, when it attempts to conceive of the number of the worlds in the\nuniverse, as when it contemplates their distances and magnitudes. In\nrespect to number and distance, at least, we find no resting-place but in\ninfinity.\n\nNow, when we turn our thoughts to the Author of such a universe, our\nconceptions of his power, wisdom, and benevolence cannot but enlarge in\nthe same ratio as our views of his works. They must, therefore, experience\na prodigious expansion. And, indeed, the merest child in a Christian land,\nin the nineteenth century, has a far wider and nobler conception of the\nperfections of Jehovah than the wisest philosopher who lived before\nastronomy had gone forth on her circumnavigation of the universe. From the\nfact, also, which astronomy discloses, that worlds are in widely different\nchemical and geological conditions, some gaseous and transparent, some\nsolid and opaque, and some liquid and incandescent, the mind can hardly\navoid the inference that they are fulfilling the vast and varied plans of\nJehovah.\n\n_The sixth step in man's knowledge of Jehovah has been made by the\nmicroscope._\n\nTo give any correct idea of the boundless field which that instrument has\nopened into the infinitesimal parts of creation, it would be necessary to\ngo into details too extended for the present occasion. Perhaps the\nanimalcula or infusoria furnish the best example. \"In the clearest\nwaters,\" says an able writer, \"and also in the strongly-troubled acid and\nsalt fluids of the various zones of the earth; in springs, rivers, lakes,\nand seas; in the internal moisture of living plants and animal bodies; and\nprobably, at times, carried about in the vapor and dust of the whole\natmosphere of the earth, exists a world, by the common senses of mankind\nunperceived, of very minute living beings, which have been called, for the\nlast seventy years, _infusoria_. In the ordinary pursuits of life, this\nmysterious and infinite kingdom of living creatures is passed by without\nour knowledge of, or interest in, its wonders. But to the quiet observer\nhow astonishing do these become, when he brings to his aid those optical\npowers by which his faculty of vision is so much strengthened! In every\ndrop of dirty, stagnant water, we are generally, if not always, able to\nperceive, by means of the microscope, moving bodies, of from one eleven\nhundred and fiftieth to one twenty-five thousandth of an inch in diameter,\nand which often lie packed so closely together that the space between each\nindividual scarcely equals that of their diameter.\"--Prichard, _History of\nInfusoria_, p. 2, 1841.\n\nAgain says he, \"It is hardly conceivable that, within the narrow space,\n[of a grain of mustard-seed,] eight millions of living, active creatures\ncan exist, all richly endowed with the organs and faculties of animal\nlife. Such, however, is the astonishing fact.\"--_Ib._ p. 3.\n\nIn short, whoever will thoroughly study this subject will be satisfied\nthat Dr. Ehrenberg does not exceed the truth when he asserts, as the\nresult of his inquiries, that \"experience shows an unfathomableness of\norganic creations, when attention is directed to the smallest space, as it\ndoes of stars, when revealing the most immense.\"--_Prichard_, p. 8.\n\nHe who follows out the revelations of the telescope, as it penetrates\ndeeper and deeper into space, will feel, when he has seen the remotest\nobject which its power discloses, that there must certainly be a vast\nunknown region beyond, infinitely exceeding that one over which he has\npassed. Just so is it with the microscope. It penetrates to an astonishing\ndistance into the infinitesimal forms of organic and inorganic matter; but\nevery improvement in the instrument reaches a new and equally interesting\nfield; and the conclusion forces itself upon the mind that there are\nregions beyond of indefinite extent, teeming with countless millions even\nof organic beings, of a size much more diminutive than those yet\ndiscovered, and with inorganic forms too minute for the imagination to\nconceive. Indeed, we can no more set limits to creation in the direction\npointed out by the microscope than in that laid open by the telescope. We\nhence get a most impressive conception of divine wisdom and benevolence,\nwhich could thus bestow exquisite organization and life upon atoms minute\nbeyond the power of the imagination to conceive. Indeed, it seems to me\nthat the lesson is even more striking than the contemplation of vast\nworlds in rapid and harmonious motion; because the latter seem to demand\nonly infinite power, but the former requires infinite wisdom to direct\ninfinite power.\n\n_In the seventh and last place, geology has given great enlargement to our\nknowledge of the divine plans and operations in the universe, and in the\nfollowing particulars_:--\n\n1. It expands our ideas of the time in which the material universe has\nbeen in existence as much as astronomy does in regard to its extent.\n\nTo those not familiar with the details of geology, this will probably seem\na startling and extravagant assertion. There has been, and still is, an\nextreme sensitiveness in the minds of intelligent men on this subject. And\nI highly respect the ground from which their apprehensions spring, viz., a\nfear that to admit the great antiquity of the globe would bring discredit\nupon revelation. And yet I believe the most candid and able theologians of\nthe present day do not fear that to admit the existence of the matter of\nthe world previous to the six days' work of creation, is inconsistent with\nthe Mosaic statement. But if we allow any period between its creation and\nthe six demiurgic days, it is no more derogatory to Scripture to make that\nperiod ten millions of years than ten years. For if the sacred writer\nwould pass over ten years in silence, he could, with the same propriety,\npass over ten millions. Now, the longer I study geology, the nearer do my\nideas approximate to the latter number as a measure of the earth's\nduration. Let us contemplate a few facts. We are able to trace the\ngeological changes that have taken place on the earth since man's\nexistence upon it with a good deal of accuracy. For since his remains are\nfound only in alluvium, we must regard all changes that took place\nprevious to the deposition of that formation to have been of an earlier\ndate than his creation. Now, what are the changes which the last six\nthousand years have witnessed? In some places, the agency of rivers and\nother causes have made an accumulation of alluvial matter to the depth of\nnot more than one or two hundred feet, although in particular places it is\nseveral hundred feet. These deposits have been pushed forward at the\nmouths of some large rivers, so as to cover hundreds, and even thousands,\nof square miles. Oceanic currents have also made deposits in the bottom of\nwide seas of considerable extent; and in some limited spots these\ndeposits have been consolidated into rock. The action of frost and\ngravity, also, has crumbled from precipitous ledges angular fragments\nenough to form a slope of detritus sometimes a hundred feet high. The\npolyparia, or coral builders, have advanced their work only a few feet in\nthickness during this period, and soils have accumulated in some places\nabout as much. Volcanic action has occasionally thrown up a new island\nfrom the ocean's bed; but only a few of them have been permanent. Some\ntracts of country, in no case more than a few hundred miles in extent,\nhave, by the same agency, been raised a few feet, or sunk down the same\namount. But after all, the earth's surface remains essentially the same as\nwhen man was placed upon it.\n\nNow, compare these slight changes with those which have preceded it,\nthrough the operation of the same agencies, since the first existence of\nanimals upon the globe. I will not contend, with some distinguished\ngeologists, that these same changes have always operated with the same\nintensity as at present. But there are several circumstances which show\nthat the depositions from water could not have been essentially different\nin ancient and modern times. Now, just compare six or eight miles in\nthickness of the fossiliferous deposits of the previous periods with the\ntwo hundred feet of alluvium accumulated during the historic period; and,\nafter you have made all reasonable allowance for the greater intensity of\naction in former times, you will still find yourselves confounded by the\nincalculable time requisite to pile up such an immense thickness of\nmaterials, and then to harden most of them into stone; especially when you\ncall to mind the numerous changes of organic life, and the vast amount of\nanimal remains which they exhibit. A superficial observer might lump such\na work, and crowd it into a few thousand years. But the more its details\nare studied, the longer does the period appear that is requisite for its\nproduction. Each successive investigation discovers new evidence of\nchanges in composition, or organic contents, or of vertical movements\neffected by extremely slow agencies, so as to make the whole work\nimmeasurably long.\n\nBut when we have gone back to the commencement of animal existence on the\nglobe, we have taken but one step in our review of its early history. The\nnext backward step embraces that wide period during which the stratified,\nnon-fossiliferous rocks--far thicker than the fossiliferous--were\ndeposited; probably by the agency of fire and water. Or if we adopt the\nmetamorphic theory of Mr. Lyell, we shall be still more deeply impressed\nby the length of that period, during which these rocks were in a course of\ndeposition, consolidation, and metamorphosis. For he supposes them\noriginally deposited from water, just as mud, sand, and gravel now are\naccumulating in the ocean's bed, and to have enveloped organic beings, as\nsimilar materials now do. Next the whole were consolidated, so as to form\nthe exact prototype of the existing fossiliferous rocks; and finally it\nunderwent almost complete fusion, by the slow propagation of internal heat\nupwards, until all the organic contents were obliterated, and a\ncrystalline structure was substituted. Nay, according to this theory,\nother systems of rocks, of an analogous character, may have preceded the\npresent primary stratified ones, and have been at length entirely melted\ninto the unstratified; so that we cannot say when organic life first began\non the globe. But I will not press this theory, because most of the ablest\ngeologists reject it, at least in its full extent. And we have a period\nlong enough to confound the imagination, if we take the common view, which\nsupposes the non-fossiliferous rocks to have been deposited from water,\nat a temperature too high to admit the existence of organic beings.\n\nWe have now gone back to that point in the earth's history when a crust\nhad begun to form over the shoreless ocean of melted matter, of which we\nhave reason to suppose it was then composed. Shall we attempt to trace\nback that history any farther? The light does, indeed, grow dim, and the\nclew more and more uncertain, the farther we recede along the track of the\nearth's existence. Still there are some scattered rays that seem to recall\nto us a condition of the earth still earlier than that in which it\nconstituted a molten globe. It may have been dissipated into vapor, like a\ncomet, or a nebula; and subsequently, by the slow radiation of its heat,\nhave been condensed into an opaque, though a melted, incandescent mass.\nSeveral analogies certainly throw an air of plausibility over this\nhypothesis. And if such was, indeed, the earliest condition of the earth,\nthe time requisite to condense it into melted matter must have been longer\nthan any other period of its history.\n\nWho, now, at all familiar with the dynamics of geological agencies, shall\nundertake to give an arithmetical expression to the periods that make up\nthe world's entire history? Not only does the reasoning faculty fail to\ngrasp the entire sum, but even imagination, as she flies backwards through\nperiod after period, tires in the effort, and brings back not even a\nconjectural result. The same feeling does, in fact, come over the mind,\nwhich she experiences when astronomy has hurried her from world to world,\nfrom sun to sun, from system to system, from nebula to nebula, and yet she\nseems no nearer to the limits of creation than when she started. We know\ncertainly that there are limits; because matter cannot be infinite. But we\ncannot conjecture where they are fixed. We know, also that there was a\ntime when this world did not exist, an epoch when its entire mass was\nspoken into existence by the fiat of Jehovah; because the Bible expressly\ndeclares it. But that epoch is unrevealed. If there is any truth in\ngeology, it was certainly more than six thousand years ago. Nay, that\nscience carries us as far back into the arcana of time as astronomy does\ninto the arcana of space. Neither the distance in the one case, nor the\nduration in the other, can be estimated. But there is a sublime\ninspiration in the effort to grasp the subject; and I see not why there is\nnot as much grandeur and high gratification in the idea of vast duration\nas of vast expansion. And I see not why we do not gain as much enlargement\nof our conceptions of the plans of Jehovah respecting the universe in the\none case as in the other. We cannot but infer, from the pre-Adamic state\nof our world, that it must have subserved other purposes than to sustain\nits present inhabitants.\n\n2. In the second place, geology gives us impressive examples of the extent\nof organic life on the globe since its creation.\n\nI shall not contend, with some geologists, that even the primary\ncrystalline rocks may once have been filled with organic remains, which\nhave been obliterated by heat; and that, in this way, there may have been\na number of creations of organized beings on the globe, of which no trace\nnow remains. I take as the basis of my argument only the relics of animals\nand plants actually found in the rocks. And when one sees mountain masses,\noften of small shells, and spread over wide areas, he is amazed to learn\nhow prolific nature has been. What a countless number of vegetables, too,\nmust have been required to produce beds of coal from one to fifty feet\nthick, and extending over thousands of square miles, and alternating\nseveral times with sandstone in the same basin! There is reason to\nbelieve, too, that the number of animals preserved in the strata bears\nonly a small proportion to those which have been utterly destroyed and\ndecomposed into their original elements. For example, in the sandstone\nalong Connecticut River, the tracks of more than forty species of bipeds\nand quadrupeds have been found most distinctly marked. Some of these\nbipeds must have been of colossal size--as much as twelve or fifteen feet\nin height. And yet scarcely any other vestige of their existence has been\ndiscovered. They were the giant rulers of that valley for centuries; but\nthey have all vanished. How numerous, then, may have been the softer\nanimals of the ancient world, which have not left even a footmark to\ncertify their existence to coming generations!\n\nBut the facts recently brought to light respecting infusoria and\npolythalamia fill us with the greatest admiration of the extent of organic\nlife upon the globe. We have already seen that some of these animals are\nso minute that eight millions of them are found in a space not larger than\na mustard-seed; and yet they had skeletons of silex, lime, and iron; and,\nof course, these skeletons have been preserved; and, though of the\nsmallest size, it requires not less than forty-one billions to make a\nsingle cubic inch; yet deposits of them, or of species not much larger,\noccur, several feet in thickness, and extending over several square miles.\nNay, the chalk of Northern Europe, and also of Western Asia, where it\nconstitutes most of Mount Lebanon, and extends southerly through Palestine\ninto Arabia and Egypt, and also deposits in North and South America,\nthousands of miles in extent,--this rock, I say, is nearly half composed\nof microscopic shells. The oolite, also, contains them; and, indeed,\ninfusorial remains occur in flint and opal; and, as instruments and\nobservations are perfected, more and more of the solid rocks are found to\nhave once constituted the framework of animals. It is hardly to be doubted\nthat such was the fact with nearly all the limestone on the globe,\noccupying at least a seventh part of its surface. In fact, we seem fast\ncoming to regard as sober truth the ancient adage, apparently so\nextravagant--_Omnis calx e vermibus; omne ferrum e vermibus; omnis silex e\nvermibus._ Indeed, it is the opinion of so competent a geologist as Dr.\nMantell that \"probably there is not an atom of the solid materials of the\nglobe which has not passed through the complex and wonderful laboratory of\nlife.\"--_Wond. of Geology_, vol. ii. p. 670.--What a vast field here opens\nbefore us to contemplate the far-reaching plans, the benevolence, and the\nwisdom of the Deity!\n\nIn the third place, geology shows us that the present system of organic\nlife on the globe is but one link of a series, extending very far backward\nand infinitely forward.\n\nRevelation describes only the existing species, leaving to science the\ntask and the privilege to lift up the veil that hangs over the past, and\nto disclose other economies that have passed away. How many of them have\nexisted we do not certainly know. If, with Agassiz, we characterize them\nby their predominant tribes, we might say that all the period previous to\nthe new red sandstone constituted the reign of fishes; from thence to the\nchalk, the reign of reptiles; from thence to the drift, the reign of\nmammifera. But this is a less philosophical view than that of Deshayes,\nwho finds five great groups of animals, specifically independent of one\nanother. But who will attempt to fix the chronological limits of these\nsystems? We can only say that they must have been exceedingly long, if we\ncan place any dependence upon existing analogies; and we know that each\none of them is made up of numerous subdivisions, or minor groups, widely,\nthough not entirely, different in composition and organic contents. We\nknow that the more we examine the whole series, the deeper does our\nconviction become that its commencement runs back far, very far, into the\ndepths of past eternity. We know, also, from the joint testimony of\nScripture and geology, that another change is to pass over the world, to\nprepare it for inhabitants far more elevated than those now living upon\nit, and in possession of perfect holiness and perfect happiness. And it\nmay be it will experience far greater changes, adapting it for higher and\nhigher grades of being, through periods of duration to which we can assign\nno limits. O, what a vast chain of being is here spread out before the\nimagination, reaching immeasurably far into the depths of the eternity\nwhich is past, and into the eternity which is to come! What a field for\nthe display of God's infinite perfections! What a vista does it open to us\ninto the vast plans and purposes of Jehovah!\n\nIn the fourth place, geology reveals to us a curious series of\nimprovements in the condition of worlds, as they pass through successive\nchanges.\n\nIf the earth began its existence in the state of vapor, we can hardly\nimagine it in that state capable of sustaining any organic natures, formed\nupon the general type of those now existing. Nor, when the vapor was\ncondensed into a molten globe, could such natures inhabit it, till a crust\nhad formed over its surface, and the heat had been so reduced as not to\ndecompose animals and plants. Even then, the natures placed upon it must\nhave been of a peculiar and low type of organization, capable of enduring\nthe high temperature and catastrophes which would destroy those of more\ndelicate and complicated organization. But gradually did the temperature\ndiminish, while aqueous and atmospheric agencies were accumulating a\ndeeper and a richer soil, so that the next change of inhabitants would\nallow natures of a higher organization and a denser population to occupy\nthe surface. Their remains, buried in the earth, would increase the\nquantity of carbonate of lime in a form available for the use of animals\nand plants; that is, lime would gradually be eliminated, by plants and\nanimals, from its more concealed combinations in the crystalline rocks,\nand be converted into carbonates, sulphates, and humates. A larger amount\nof organic matter would also be converted into humus. Now, limestone soils\nare of all others most favorable to vegetation, when there is a sufficient\nsupply of organic matter. Hence every successive change becomes more and\nmore adapted for animals and plants, because the lime and the organic\nmatter in a state favorable for their support have been increasing; and\nthe present state of the surface is more favorable than any conditions\nwhich have preceded it, and accordingly it is peopled with more perfect\nand more numerous organic natures. Can we doubt but that, if another\nchange passes over the earth, this same great principle of progressive\nimprovement will be manifested in the renovated world? I am not prepared\nto maintain, however, that this future change will be, like the past ones,\nan improvement as to soil and climate; for the change, as Scripture\nteaches, will be accomplished by fire; and so different will be the state\nof existence in the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, that we\ncannot say how far the present system of nature will be introduced. But\nthat it will be an improved condition, we can hardly doubt, if we infer\nany thing from the splendid figures by which it is described in the Bible,\nand from the character of those who are to be its denizens.\n\nSome of the facts of modern astronomy impress us with the idea that this\nprinciple of progress may extend to other worlds. Some of these are in a\ngaseous state, some condensed into fiery liquid globes, some covered with\na crust of solidified volcanic matter, and some surrounded by a liquid,\nlike water. Do not these facts justify the supposition, that the changes\nwhich our earth has undergone are merely a single example of a great\nprinciple in God's government of the natural world? If so, it presents the\ndivine wisdom in an interesting aspect. We see the Deity employing the\nsame matter for different purposes. Instead of creating it for one single\neconomy of organic beings, he seems to have made it the theatre for the\ndisplay of his benevolence through successive periods; but at the same\ntime not losing sight of the highest use he intended to make of it, by the\nintroduction of rational and immortal natures upon it. Human wisdom would\nhave pronounced this impossible; but divine wisdom, prompted by divine\nbenevolence, could accomplish it.\n\nFinally, geology discloses to us chemical change as a great animating,\ncontrolling, and conservative principle of the material universe.\n\nWhen Newton brought to light the principle of gravitation, and showed how\nit controls and keeps in harmonious movement the heavenly bodies, he\ndeveloped the great mechanical power by which the universe is governed.\nAnd this power was supposed for a long time to be superior to all others.\nBut geology has brought out a second great controlling and conservative\nagency,--the chemical power,--\"the second right hand of the Creator,\" as\nDr. McCulloch expressively calls it. Suppose matter under the control of\ngravity, and let it be balanced by a centrifugal force. You have, indeed,\nharmonious motions among the celestial bodies, and, if no disturbing cause\ncome in, you have endless motion. But until you introduce chemical\nagencies, every thing in the individual worlds would be compacted by\ngravity into one dead mass of matter, destined to no resurrection. But let\nchemical agencies leaven that mass, let affinity and cohesion commence\ntheir segregating processes, and constant motion and change would follow,\nwith a thousand new and splendid forms. Especially when the Deity had\ninfused the living principle into portions of that matter, and put\nchemistry, and her handmaid electricity, under the control of the vital\npower, would these worlds teem with animation, and countless exhibitions\nof beauty.\n\nAnd in all known worlds, these chemical changes are at work unceasingly.\nWe know not whether those worlds are all inhabited, but we have evidence\nthat all are undergoing the transmutations of chemistry; not on their\nsurface merely, but in their deep interior. The consequence is, universal\nchange; change often upon a vast scale; change extending through thousands\nand millions of years, and through the entire mass of immense worlds. We\nhave glanced, in these lectures, at the most important of those changes\nwhich this world has undergone, and we have seen it to be almost\nuniversal. We have found that the entire crust of the globe, many miles in\nthickness, and probably to its centre, has been dissolved by heat, and\nmuch of it also by water; that a large part of it, at least, has, by the\nsame chemistry, been made to constitute portions of the animal frame;\nthat, even now, much of its interior is held in igneous solution, and that\nprobably the time was when its entire mass was a molten, self-luminous\nworld. Indeed, the conjecture is not without some foundation, which\ncarries back this chemical action one step farther, and makes the world\noriginally a diffused mass of nebula.\n\nAt this point of the argument, geology appeals to astronomy, to show how\nwidely this principle of chemical change has operated, and still operates,\nin the universe. We look first at the nebulae; for here we probably find\nmatter in its most chaotic and attenuated form, constituting\nself-luminous, diffused masses of vapor. In some of them, however, that\nmatter has begun to condense, doubtless by the radiation of its heat. In\nthe comets, we find probably similar matter, some of it still farther\nadvanced in the process of condensation, so that perhaps a nearly solid\nnucleus may exist. In the sun and fixed stars, the condensation has gone\non so far that cohesive attraction begins to operate, the latent heat of\nthe vapor is extricated, and melted luminous worlds are the result. Around\nthem, however, there probably still floats a wide atmosphere of the more\nelastic materials, which the heat dissipates, of which the zodiacal light,\nperhaps, furnishes us with an example. The nebulosity which surrounds the\nasteroids, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, and Astrea, renders it probable\nthat, though they have advanced so far in the process of refrigeration as\nto become opaque, they may still retain heat enough to dissipate much of\ntheir substance. Still farther advanced towards the condition of a\nhabitable world is the moon; and yet volcanic desolation covers its\nsurface. Not improbably Jupiter is nearly surrounded with a fluid like\nwater, and Saturn by a fluid lighter than water--being still farther\nadvanced towards the condition of the earth.\n\nI acknowledge that these are but slight glimpses of the geology and\nchemistry of other worlds. And yet, taken in connection with the\ngeological history of our own globe, do they not furnish us with some\nextremely probable examples of those changes to which our earth has been\nsubject? They show us that worlds may exist in the form of vapor, and that\nsome are actually at this time in the various conditions through which\ngeology supposes this world to have passed. Do we not, in these examples,\ngather strong intimations of a great law of chemical change in the\nuniverse? Gaseous matter, so far as we know, appears to have been the\nearliest state of the universe; and then, by the agency of heat, it passes\nthrough the successive changes of liquid and solid, which have been\ndescribed.\n\nThe chemical changes that take place on the earth, under our immediate\ncognizance, through the agency of water, usually proceed, under favorable\ncircumstances, in a cycle; that is, the substance, after passing through a\nseries of changes, returns at length into the same condition from which it\nstarted. Thus aqueous vapor, by the loss of heat, is first converted into\nwater, next into ice, and then, by the access of heat, into water again,\nand at last into vapor. The question naturally arises, whether those\nmutations, through which worlds are passing, may not form a similar cycle.\nWe are able to trace them through several steps, from gaseous to liquid,\nand from the liquid to the solid; and we are assured, on the testimony of\nScripture, that the next change of the earth will be from solid to liquid.\nAnd in those stars which in past ages have suddenly broken forth with\nremarkable splendor, and then disappeared, may we not have examples of\nother worlds burnt up,--not annihilated,--but deluged by fire, and either\ndissipated or again cooled? What changes, if any, will succeed the final\nconflagration of the globe, neither science nor revelation informs us.\n\nYet, if the laws of nature respecting heat are not entirely altered, other\nchanges must follow; and we have seen, in a former lecture, that those\nchanges are perfectly consistent with our ideas of heaven, and that they\nmay, in fact, enhance the happiness of heaven. They may go on forever; in\nwhich case, we can hardly doubt but they would form a cycle, though how\nwide the circuit we cannot conjecture; or they may, at least, reach an\nunchanging state. I confess, however, that the idea of perpetual change\ncorresponds best with the analogies of the existing universe; and in\neternity, as well as in time, it may form an essential element of\nhappiness.\n\nIn this world, too, this unceasing change, though it presents at first\nview a strong tendency to ruin, is, in fact, the grand conservative\nprinciple of material things. In a world of life and motion like ours, it\nis impossible that bodies, especially organic bodies, should not be\nsometimes subject to violent disarrangements and destruction from the\nmechanical agencies which exist; and were no chemical changes possible,\nultimate and irremediable ruin must be the result. But the chemical\npowers, inherent in matter, soon bring forth new forms of beauty from the\nruins; and, in fact, throughout all nature, the process of renovation\nusually counterbalances that of destruction; and thus far, indeed, the\nformer has done more than this; for every time nature has changed her\ndress in past ages, she has put on more lovely robes, and a fresher\ncountenance. Can we doubt that this same principle of change, operating,\nas it does, on a stupendous scale through the universe, is one of the\ngreat means of its preservation? It seems, indeed, paradoxical to say that\ninstability is the basis of stability. But I see not why it is not\nliterally true; and I can hardly doubt but this principle is superior to\nthe laws of gravity--superior to every other law, in fact, for giving\npermanence and security to the universe.\n\nIt is true that, in the case of man, connected as diminution and decay are\nwith the curse denounced on sin, they assume, in his view, a melancholy\naspect; and the perishable nature of all created things has ever been\nviewed by the sentimentalist with sad emotions.\n\n  \"What does not fade? The tower that long had stood\n  The crush of thunder, and the warring winds,\n  Shook by the slow but sure destroyer Time,\n  Now hangs in doubtful ruins o'er its base;\n  And flinty pyramids and walls of brass\n  Descend; the Babylonian spires are sunk;\n  Achaia, Rome, and Egypt moulder down.\n  Time shakes the stable tyranny of thrones;\n  And tottering empires rush by their own weight.\n  This huge rotundity we tread grows old,\n  And all those worlds that roll around the sun.\n  The sun himself shall die, and ancient night\n  Again involve the desolate abyss.\"--_Akenside._\n\nIf we turn now our thoughts away from man's dissolution, and think how\nspeedily chemical power will raise nature out of her grave, in renovated\nand increased beauty, this universal tendency to decay puts on the aspect\nof a glorious transformation. We connect the changes around us with those\nwhich have taken place in the great bodies of the universe; we see them\nall to be but parts of a far-reaching plan of the Deity, by which the\nstability of the world is maintained, and its progressive improvement\nsecured. When we look forward, fancy kindles at the developments of divine\npower, wisdom, and benevolence which will in this manner be made in the\nround of eternal ages. We see that what our ignorance had mistaken for a\ndefect in nature is, in fact, a great conservative principle of the\nuniverse, which Newton did not discover because geology had not yet\nunfolded her record.\n\nSuch are the developments of the divine character and plans unfolded to us\nby geology. Compare them now with the views which have hitherto\nprevailed. The common opinion has been, and still, indeed, is, that about\nsix thousand years ago this earth, and, in fact, the whole material\nuniverse, were spoken into existence in a moment of time; and that, in a\nfew thousand more, they will, by a similar fiat, be swept from existence,\nand be no more. On the other hand, geology places the time when the matter\nof the universe was created out of nothing at an epoch indefinitely but\nimmensely remote. Since that epoch, this matter has passed through a\nmultitude of changes, and been the seat of numerous systems of organic\nlife, unlike one another, yet all linked together into one great system by\na most perfect unity; each minor system being most beautifully adapted to\nits place in the great chain, and yet each successive link becoming more\nand more perfect. Nor does geology admit that any evidence exists of the\nfuture annihilation of the material universe; but rather of other changes,\nby which new and brighter displays of divine wisdom and benevolence shall\nbe brought out, it may be in endless succession. Geology is not, indeed,\ninsensible to the displays of the divine character which are exhibited on\nthe present theatre of the world. Indeed, she distinctly recognizes the\nact which is now passing as the most perfect of all. Yet this scene of the\ngreat drama she regards as only one of the units of a similar series of\nchanges that have gone by or will hereafter come; the chain stretching so\nfar into the eternity that is past and the eternity that is to come, that\nthe extremities are lost to mortal vision.\n\nDo any shrink back from these immense conclusions, because they so much\nsurpass the views they have been accustomed to entertain respecting the\nbeginning and the end of the material universe? But why should they be\nunwilling to have geology liberalize their minds as much in respect to\nduration as astronomy has done in respect to space? Perhaps it is a\nlingering fear that the geological views conflict with revelation. Such\nfears formerly kept back many from giving up their souls to the noble\ntruths of astronomy. But they learnt, at length, that astronomy merely\nillustrates, and does not oppose, revelation. It showed men how to\nunderstand certain passages of sacred writ respecting the earth and\nheavenly bodies which they had before misinterpreted. Just so is it with\ngeology. There is no collision between its statements and revelation. It\nonly enables us more correctly to interpret some portions of the Bible;\nand then, when we have admitted the new interpretation, it brings a flood\nof light upon the plans and attributes of Jehovah. Geology, therefore,\nshould be viewed, as it really is, the auxiliary both of natural and\nrevealed religion. And when its religious relations are fully understood,\ntheology, I doubt not, will be as anxious to cultivate its alliance as she\nhas been fearful of it in days past.\n\n\"Shall it any longer be said,\" remarks Dr. Buckland, \"that a science which\nunfolds such abundant evidence of the being and attributes of God, can\nreasonably be viewed in any other light than as the efficient auxiliary\nand handmaid of religion? Some few there still may be whom timidity, or\nprejudice, or want of opportunity, allow not to examine its evidence; who\nare alarmed by the novelty, or surprised by the magnitude and extent, of\nthe views which geology forces on their attention; and who would rather\nhave kept closed the volume of witness which has been sealed up for ages\nbeneath the surface of the earth than to impose on the student in natural\ntheology the duty of studying its contents--a duty in which, for lack of\nexperience, they may anticipate a hazardous or laborious task, but which,\nby those engaged in it, is found to be a rational, and righteous, and\ndelightful exercise of the highest faculties in multiplying the evidence\nof the existence, and attributes, and providence of God. The alarm,\nhowever, which was excited by the novelty of its first discoveries, has\nwell nigh passed away; and those to whom it has been permitted to be the\nhumble instruments of their promulgation, and who have steadily\npersevered, under the firm conviction that 'truth can never be opposed to\ntruth,' and that the works of God, when rightly understood, and viewed in\ntheir true relations, and from a right position, would at length be found\nto be in perfect accordance with his word, are now receiving their high\nreward in finding difficulties vanish, objections gradually withdrawn, and\nin seeing the evidences of geology admitted into the list of witnesses to\nthe truth of the great fundamental doctrines of theology.\"--_Bridgewater\nTreatise_, vol. i. p. 593.\n\nSuch, then, in conclusion of the subject, is the religion of geology. It\nhas been described as a region divided between the barren mountains of\nscepticism and the putrid fens and quagmires of infidelity and atheism;\nproducing only a gloomy and a poisonous vegetation; covered with fogs, and\nswept over by pestilential blasts. But this report was made by those who\nsaw it at a distance. We have found it to be a land abounding in rich\nlandscapes, warmed by a bright sun, blest with a balmy atmosphere, covered\nby noble forests and sweet flowers, with fruits savory and healthful. We\nhave ascended its lofty mountains, and there have we been greeted with\nprospects of surpassing loveliness and overwhelming sublimity. In short,\nnowhere in the whole world of science do we find regions where more of the\nDeity is seen in his works. To him whose heart is warmed by true piety,\nand whose mind has broken the narrow shell of prejudice, and can grasp\nnoble thoughts, these are delightful fields through which to wander. More\nand more they must become the favorite haunts of such hearts and such\nminds. For there do views open upon the soul, respecting the character and\nplans of the Deity, as large and refreshing as those which astronomy\npresents. Nay, in their practical bearing, these views are far more\nimportant. Mechanical philosophy introduces an unbending and unvarying law\nbetween the Creator and his works; but geology unveils his providential\nhand, cutting asunder that law at intervals, and planting the seeds of a\nnew economy upon a renovated world. We thus seem to be brought into near\ncommunion with the infinite mind. We are prepared to listen to his voice\nwhen it speaks in revelation. We recognize his guiding and sustaining\nagency at every step of our pilgrimage. And we await in confident hope and\njoyful anticipation those sublime manifestations of his character and\nplans, and those higher enjoyments which will greet the pure soul in the\nround of eternal ages.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XIV.\n\nSCIENTIFIC TRUTH, RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD, IS RELIGIOUS TRUTH.\n\n\nThe connection between science and religion has ever been a subject of\ndeep interest to enlightened and reflecting minds. Too often, however, up\nto the present time, has the theologian, on the one hand, looked with\njealousy upon science, fearful that its influence was hurtful to the cause\nof true religion; while, on the other hand, the philosopher, in the pride\nof a sceptical spirit, has scorned an alliance between science and\ntheology, and even fancied many a discrepancy. Both these opinions are\nerroneous; and disastrously have they operated, as well upon science as\nupon religion. The position which I take, and which I shall endeavor to\nmaintain, is, that _scientific truth, rightly understood, is religious\ntruth_.\n\nThe proposition may be misunderstood at its first announcement, but I\nhope, ere its examination be finished, to satisfy you that it is true; and\nif so, that it ought to reconcile religion to science, and science to\nreligion.\n\nIn arriving at correct conclusions concerning this statement, much will\ndepend on the meaning which we attach to the phrase _religious truth_.\nReligion is properly defined to be piety towards God. This piety implies\ntwo things: first, a correct knowledge of God; and secondly, the exercise\nof proper affections in view of that knowledge. The former constitutes the\ntheoretic part of religion, and is investigated solely by the\nunderstanding. The latter constitutes the practical part of religion, and\ndepends much upon the will, the heart, or the moral powers of man. All\ntruth, therefore, which illustrates the divine character or government, or\nwhich tends to produce right affections towards God, is properly\ndenominated religious truth. If, then, I can show that all scientific\ntruth, rightly understood, has one or both of these effects, it will\nfollow that it is strictly religious truth.\n\nScientific truth is but another name for the laws of nature. And a law of\nnature is merely the uniform mode in which the Deity operates in the\ncreated universe. It follows, then, that science is only a history of the\ndivine operations in matter and mind.\n\nIn order to avoid mistake, we must make a distinction between the\nprinciples of science, and the application of those principles to the\nuseful arts of life. The principles themselves are an illustration of the\ndivine wisdom and benevolence, but their application to the arts\nillustrates the ingenuity and wisdom of man. At the most, therefore, the\nlatter only indirectly and remotely exhibits the character of the Deity,\nwhile the former directly shows forth his perfections.\n\nI now proceed to establish my general proposition, by showing, in the\nfirst place, that _all scientific truth is adapted to prove the existence\nor to illustrate the perfections of the Deity_.\n\nAfter all that has been written on the subject of natural theology, by\nsuch men as Newintyt, Ray, Derham, Wollaston, Clarke, Butler, Tucker,\nPaley, Chalmers, Crombie, Brown, Brougham, Harris, M'Cosh, and the authors\nof the Bridgewater Treatises, I need not surely go into details to prove\nthat science in general is a great storehouse of facts to illustrate the\ndivine perfections and government. It is, indeed, a vast repository, from\nwhich materials have been drawn on which to build the argument for the\ndivine existence and character. Efforts have been made, it is true, in\nmodern times, to show that the whole argument from design is inconclusive.\nIt is said, that though the operations of nature seem to show design and\ncontrivance, they need no higher powers than those that exist in nature\nitself. They do not prove the existence of an independent personal agent,\nseparate from the material world. Animals, and even plants, possess an\ninherent power of adapting themselves to circumstances; and may not a\nhigher exercise of this same power explain all the operations of nature\nwithout any other Deity?\n\nThis argument appears to me to be utterly set aside by the following\nconsiderations: In the first place, there is no power inherent in\nvegetable or animal natures which can properly be called the power of\ncontrivance and design, except so far as it exists in their minds. All\nother examples show merely the operation of impulse, or instinct, and will\nnot at all explain that wide-reaching contrivance and design which cause\nall the operations of nature to conspire to certain great results, and to\nconstitute one, and only one, great system. In the second place, the\noperations of intellect furnish us with the only examples in nature of\nthat kind of contrivance and design which must have arranged and adapted\nthe parts of the universe. But in the third place, no intellect, within\nour knowledge, is capacious enough to have contrived and arranged the\nuniverse. Indeed, to the capacity of that mind which could have done this\nwe can assign no limits, and, therefore, infer it to be infinite. In other\nwords, we infer the existence of the Deity. In the fourth place, the whole\nforce of this argument rests upon the supposed uniformity of nature. For\nno one imagines that there exists at present, in nature, any power of\ncontrivance and design sufficient to work a miracle; in other words, to\nintroduce new races of animals and plants. \"Could this uniformity once be\nbroken up,\" says an ingenious expositor of this atheistic argument, \"could\nthis rigid order be once infringed for a good and manifest reason, it\nwould change the whole face of the argument. Could we see the sun stand\nstill in heaven, that the wicked might be overthrown, then should we be\nassured of a personal power with a distinct will, whose agents and\nministers these laws were. Such an event would be a miracle. But if such\nevents have happened, they are not a part of nature; it is not nature that\ntells us of them, and it is only with her that we are at present\nconcerned.\"--_President Hopkins, Quarterly Observer_, Oct. 1833, p. 309.\n\nGeology, however, does reveal to us miracles of stupendous, import,\nmiracles of creation, which infinite power and wisdom alone could have\nproduced. Hence, if the testimony of that science be admitted, this\nreasoning can no longer stand the test of examination, and it must be\nacknowledged that the argument for God's existence from design, which has\never been so satisfactory to every mind not clouded by metaphysics, is\nleft standing on an immovable foundation.\n\nTo return to the point from which we started: it is not necessary, I say,\nto go into a detailed examination of each particular science, and show how\nits principles prove and illustrate the being and attributes of the Deity,\nfor the work has already been done more ably and thoroughly than I can do\nit, and admitted by all, save the few who reject the argument from design\naltogether. There are a few sciences, however, which have been hitherto\nchiefly passed by, because they were not supposed capable of throwing any\nlight of consequence upon theology. Let us see whether these sciences are\nas barren of religious interest as has been supposed.\n\nGeology is a branch of knowledge, which, a few years ago, would have been\nat once selected as not only destitute of any important religious\napplications, but as of a positively injurious tendency; and even now,\nsuch is the feeling probably of a majority of the religious world. True,\nit touches religion, natural and revealed, at many points; but so novel\nand startling are its conclusions, that they are thought to unsettle more\nminds than they confirm. They fall in with many of the views of\nscepticism, and especially confirm its doubts concerning the age of the\nworld, and compel the religious man to give up long-cherished opinions\nupon this point, and on other collateral subjects. But we have gone into a\ncareful examination of the religious applications of this science, and\nhave we not found it most fertile in its illustrations both of natural and\nrevealed religion? Let us just recapitulate the conclusions at which we\nhave arrived.\n\nIn the first place, geology furnishes important illustrations of revealed\nreligion. It confirms the statement that the present continents of our\nglobe were once, and for an indefinite time, beneath the ocean, and that\nthey were subsequently lifted above the waters by internal agencies. It\nagrees with revelation in making water and heat the two great agents of\ngeological change upon and within the earth, and that the work of\ncreation, after the production of matter, was progressive. It shows us\nequally with revelation, that the existing races of animals and plants on\nthe globe were created at a comparatively recent epoch, and that man\ncommenced his existence not more than six thousand years ago. It shows us,\nalso, that the earth contains within itself the volcanic agency necessary\nfor its future destruction by combustion, as described in the Bible.\n\nBut, perhaps, the most important illustration of revealed truth, which\ngeology affords, is the light which it casts upon certain passages of the\nBible relating to the creation. As those texts which represent the earth\nas immovable, and the heavenly bodies as moving diurnally around it, were\nnot rightly understood, until astronomy had discovered the true theory of\nthe solar system, so those passages which relate to the period of the\ncreation of the universe, the introduction of death into the world, and\nthe extent and operation of the deluge, were misinterpreted till geology\ndisclosed their true meaning. It is still customary, indeed, to speak of\ngeology and revelation as in collision with each other on these subjects;\nbut this is a false view of the case. Revelation is illustrated, not\nopposed, by geology. Who thinks, at this day, of any discrepancy between\nastronomy and revelation? And yet, two hundred years ago, the evidence of\nsuch discrepancy was far more striking than any which can now be offered\nto show geology at variance with the Scriptures. We ought, therefore, to\nlook upon that science as illustrating, instead of opposing, the\nScriptures.\n\nHaving once admitted the conclusions of geology as to the great age of the\nworld, and a flood of light is shed upon some of the most difficult points\nboth of natural and revealed religion. It shows the occurrence of numerous\nchanges on the globe which nothing but the power of God could have\nproduced, and which in fact were most striking and stupendous miracles.\nHence the arguments which have so long been employed to show that the\nworld is eternal are rendered nugatory; for if we can point to epochs when\nentire races of animals and plants began to exist on the globe, we prove\nthe agency of a Deity quite as strikingly as if we could show the moment\nwhen the matter of the world was summoned into existence out of nothing.\nIn the same manner, also, we silence the argument against the giving of a\nrevelation from heaven, as well as the miracles by which it is\nsubstantiated, on the ground that we have no example of a special\ninterference with the established course of nature. Here we have\ninterpositions long anterior to man's existence, as well as by his\ncreation, which take away all improbability from those which are implied\nin a revelation. We hence likewise establish the doctrine of a special\nprovidence over the world--a doctrine proved with great difficulty by any\nother reasoning of natural theology.\n\nStill more abundant is the evidence derived from geology of the divine\nbenevolence. And this evidence comes mostly from the operations and final\neffect of the most desolating agencies, heretofore regarded as a proof of\nmalevolence, or, at least, of vindictive justice; and we may reasonably\ninfer, that could we look through the whole system of divine government,\nwe should find that all evil is only a necessary means of the greatest\ngood.\n\nNo one can examine existing nature without being convinced that all its\nparts and operations belong to one great system. Geology makes other\neconomies of wide extent to pass before us, opening a vista indefinitely\nbackward into the hoary past; and it is gratifying to witness that same\nunity of design pervading all preceding periods of the world's history,\nlinking the whole into one mighty scheme, worthy its infinite Contriver.\n\nHow much, also, does this science enlarge our conceptions of the plans and\noperations of Jehovah! We had been accustomed to limit our views of the\ncreative agency of God to the few thousand years of man's existence, and\nto anticipate the destruction of the material universe in a few thousand\nyears more. But geology makes the period of man's existence on the globe\nonly one short link of a chain of revolutions which preceded his\nexistence, and which reaches forward immeasurably far into the future. We\nsee the same matter in the hands of infinite wisdom, and by means of the\ngreat conservative principle of chemical change, passing through a\nmultitude of stupendous revolutions, sustaining countless and varied forms\nof organic life, and presenting an almost illimitable panorama of the\nplans of an infinite God.\n\nIf such is the fruit which geology pours into the lap of religion, how\nmisunderstood have been its principles! In many a mind there is still an\nanxious fear lest its discoveries should prove unfavorable to religion;\nand they would feel greatly relieved could they only be assured that no\ninfluence injurious to piety would emanate from that science. But we can\ngive them far more than this assurance. We can draw from this science more\nto illustrate and confirm religion than from any other; and we believe\nthat the history of the past justifies the general conclusion, that those\nsciences whose early developments excited most apprehensions of a\ncollision with religion, have ultimately furnished the most abundant\nillustrations of its principles.\n\nAnother science regarded as barren of religious applications, and even as\nsometimes positively injurious, is mathematics. Its principles are,\nindeed, of so abstruse a nature, that it is not easy to frame out of them\na religious argument that is capable of popular illustration. But, in\nfact, mathematical laws form the basis of nearly all the operations of\nnature. They constitute, as it were, the very framework of the material\nworld. When we look up to the heavenly bodies, we see them directed and\ncontrolled, along with the earth, by those laws, which vary not, by an\niota, from century to century. The infinity of changes, which are going on\nin the constitution of bodies upon and within the earth, chemistry\nreduces to mathematical laws. So far as organic operations depend upon\nchemical changes,--and this is very far,--mathematics is the controlling\npower. I will not say, that life and intellect are in a strict sense under\nthe guidance of mathematics; and yet I doubt not that their operations are\nlimited and controlled by its principles. Confident am I that atmospheric\nchanges, apparently quite as anomalous and irregular as the movements of\nthe vital and intellectual principles, rest on mathematics as certainly as\ndo the revolutions of the heavenly bodies.\n\nIt seems, then, that this science forms the very foundation of all\narguments for Theism, from the arrangements and operations of the material\nuniverse. We do, indeed, neglect the foundation, and point only to the\nsuperstructure, when we state these arguments. But suppose mathematical\nlaws to be at once struck from existence, and what a hideous chaos would\nthe universe present! What then would become of the marks of design and\nunity in nature, and of the Theist's argument for the being of a God?\n\nBut mathematical principles furnish several interesting illustrations of\ntruth, of no small importance. In a former lecture, we have seen how the\ndoctrine of miracles stands forth completely vindicated by an appeal to\nmathematical laws; how, in fact, they might have formed a part of the\noriginal plan of the universe, when first it was conceived in the divine\nmind, and how their occurrence may be as much the result of a fixed law as\nthe most common operations of nature; so that in this way all\nimprobability of their occurrence, on the ground that nature is constant,\nis removed. These views are illustrated in that singular, yet original\nwork of Professor Babbage, called the \"Ninth Bridgewater Treatise,\" a work\nwritten, it is true, in part, under the influence of exasperated feelings,\nbut yet full of original and ingenious suggestions. But these views have\nbeen so fully presented in the Lecture on Special and Miraculous\nProvidence, and in that upon the Telegraphic System of the Universe, that\nthey need not here be repeated.\n\nMathematics, also, aids our conceptions of truths of religion difficult or\nimpossible, from their nature, of being understood by finite beings. All\nthe attributes of the Deity, being infinite, are of this description. But\nit seems to me that the contemplation of a mathematical series, either\nincreasing or decreasing, gives us the strongest apprehension of infinity\nwhich we can attain. It puts into our hands a thread by which we can find\nour way, as far as our powers will carry us, towards infinity. True, after\nwe have followed the series till the mind stops exhausted, we are no\nnearer infinity than when we started; yet we do get most deeply impressed\nwith the unfathomableness of the abyss that separates the finite from the\ninfinite.\n\nTo many minds all statements of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity\nappear so absurd and contradictory as to be incapable of belief. Yet let\nit be stated to a man, for the first time, that two lines may approach\neach other forever without meeting, and it must appear equally absurd. But\nafter you have demonstrated to him the properties of the hyperbola and its\nasymptote, the apparent absurdity vanishes. So, when the theologian has\nstated, that by the divine unity he means only a numerical unity,--in\nother words, that there is but one Supreme Being, and that the three\npersons of the Godhead are one in this sense, and three only in those\nrespects not inconsistent with this unity,--every philosophical mind,\nwhether it admits that the Scriptures teach this doctrine or not, must see\nthat there is no absurdity or contradiction in it. And thus it may happen,\nthat the solution of a man's difficulties on this subject may come from a\nproposition of conic sections, as in fact we know to have been the case.\n\nIt is said, however, that mathematicians have been unusually prone to\nscepticism concerning religious truth. If it be so, it probably originates\nfrom the absurd attempt to apply mathematical reasoning to moral subjects;\nor, rather, the devotees of this science often become so attached to its\ndemonstrations, that they will not admit any evidence of a less certain\ncharacter. They do not realize the total difference between moral and\nmathematical reasonings, and absurdly endeavor to stretch religion on the\nProcrustean bed of mathematics. No wonder they become sceptics. But the\nfault is in themselves, not in this science, whose natural tendencies,\nupon a pure and exalted mind, are favorable to religion, because its\nprinciples illustrate religion.\n\nThere are several other sciences, whose earlier developments were supposed\nfor a time to be unfavorable to religion; and hence has originated a\nground of apprehension respecting science generally. When the Copernican\nsystem of astronomy was introduced, it was thought impossible ever to\nreconcile it to the plain declarations of Scripture; and hence at least\none venerable astronomer was obliged to recant that system upon his knees.\nSimilar fears of collision between science and revelation were excited\nwhen chemistry announced that the main part of the earth has already been\noxidized, and, therefore, could not hereafter be literally burnt. Because\nsome physiologists have been materialists, it has been inferred that\nphysiology was favorable to materialism. But it is now found that they\nwere materialists in spite of physiology, rather than from a correct\ninterpretation of its facts.\n\nStrong apprehensions have also been excited respecting phrenology and\nmesmerism. And, indeed, in their present aspect, these sciences are\nprobably made to exert a more unfriendly influence upon vital religion\nthan any other. Those who profess to understand and teach them have been,\nfor the most part, decided opponents of special providence and special\ngrace, and many of them materialists. But this is not because there are\nany special grounds for such opinions in phrenology or mesmerism. The\nlatter branch, indeed, affords such decided proofs of immaterialism, as to\nhave led several able materialists to change their views. Nor does\nphrenology afford any stronger proof that law governs the natural world,\nthan do the other sciences. But when a man who is sceptical becomes deeply\ninterested in any branch of knowledge, and fancies himself to be an oracle\nrespecting it, he will torture its principles till they are made to give\ntestimony in favor of his previous sceptical views, although, in fact, the\ntones are as unnatural as those of ventriloquism, and as deceptive. When\ntrue philosophy shall at length determine what are the genuine principles\nof phrenology and mesmerism, we can judge of their bearing upon religion;\nbut the history of other sciences shows us that we need have no fears of\nany collision, when the whole subject is brought fairly into the daylight.\n\nUpon the whole, every part of science, which has been supposed, by the\nfears of friends or malice of foes, to conflict with religion, has been\nfound, at length, when fully understood, to be in perfect harmony with its\nprinciples, and even to illustrate them. It is high time, therefore, for\nthe friends of religion to cease fearing any injury to the cause of\nreligion from science; and high time, also, for the enemies of religion to\ncease expecting any such collision.\n\nIn conclusion of this argument, we may safely challenge any one to point\nout a single principle of science which does not in some way illustrate\nthe perfections of the Deity; and if he cannot, scientific truth may be\nappropriately called religious truth, especially since such illustrations\nare the highest use to which science can be applied. It is no drawback on\nthe argument because so few make this use of science, nor because some\nattempt to array science against religion; for this only shows how men may\nneglect the most important use to which science can be applied, or how\nthey can pervert the richest gifts.\n\nI derive a second argument in support of the general position, that\nscientific truth is religious truth, from the fact that _it will survive\nthe present world, and its examination become a part of the employments\nand enjoyments of heaven_.\n\nThe Scriptures are, indeed, sparing in their details of the specific\nemployments of the heavenly world, except so far as worship and praise are\nconcerned. But that worship will undoubtedly be the spontaneous impulse of\nthe heart, (as it is in this world when acceptable,) in view of some\nmanifestations of the divine character. Accordingly, the first sentence of\nthe future song of Moses and the Lamb, as the saints stand with the harps\nof God upon the sea of glass, is, _Great and marvellous are thy works,\nLord God Almighty._ The works of God, then, will be studied in the future\nworld; and what is that but the study of the sciences? It is, indeed, said\nby the apostle, that _whether there be tongues, they shall cease_, [that\nis, in a future world;] _whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish\naway_; and hence it has sometimes been inferred that all the knowledge\nwhich we acquire in this world will disappear with this world. But this\ncannot be the meaning of the passage, for in a variety of places the Bible\nrepresents both the righteous and wicked in another world as conscious of\nwhat took place on earth; and, unless the nature of the mind be changed\nat death, it is not possible to conceive that the knowledge we acquire\nhere should be lost. This passage may refer to one of those gifts of\ninspiration peculiar to apostolic times, called by the sacred writer _the\nword of knowledge_. But more probably he meant to teach that, so much\nbrighter and clearer will be the disclosures of another world, that most\nof our present knowledge will be eclipsed and forgotten. But this does not\nimply that our future knowledge will be essentially different in nature\nfrom that which we acquire on earth. The grand difference is, that now _we\nsee through a glass darkly, but then face to face_.\n\nWe can, also, see why some branches of science cultivated on earth should\nbe very much modified in a future world. There are several, for instance,\ndependent mainly upon the present organic constitution of nature; and of\nsuch branches only the general principles can survive the destruction of\nthe existing framework of animals and plants. Take, for an example,\nanatomy and physiology. We believe, indeed, that the new earth, wherein\ndwelleth righteousness, will be material, and that the bodies of men will\nalso be material. But even though these bodies should be organized, we\nlearn from the Scriptures that this organization will be very different\nfrom our present bodies. _They_, says Christ, _who shall be accounted\nworthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither\nmarry nor are given in marriage, neither can they die any more; for they\nare equal unto the angels._ Paul's vivid description of the future\nspiritual body leaves the impression on the mind that it must be very\ndissimilar to our present bodies. He does not attempt to define the\nspiritual body, probably because we could not understand the definition,\nsince it would be so unlike any thing on earth. He represents it as\nincorruptible, powerful, and glorious, entirely in contrast with our\npresent bodies, and declares that it is not flesh and blood, and that it\nis not organized like our present bodies.\n\nIt seems, then, that we have no certain evidence that the future spiritual\nbody will be organized; and in a former lecture we have seen that it is\nnot necessary to suppose it endowed with organs. If not, it is obvious\nthat the sciences of anatomy and physiology can have no existence in a\nfuture world, except in the memory. On the other hand, however, there are\nsome things in Paul's description of the future body that make it quite\nprobable that its organization will be much more exquisite than any thing\nin existence on earth. He represents it as springing from our present\nbodies as a germ from a seed; and this would seem to imply organization;\nthough we must not infer too much from a mere rhetorical similitude. But\nhe also represents the spiritual body as far transcending the natural body\nin glory and in power; and, since the latter is fearfully and wonderfully\nmade, we know of nothing but the most exquisite organization that can give\nthe spiritual body such a superiority over the natural. Admitting that\nsuch will be its structure, and, although the nomenclature of anatomy and\nphysiology, which is adapted to flesh and blood, shall pass away and be\nforgotten, yet analogous sciences shall be substituted, based on facts and\nprinciples far more interesting, and developing relations and harmonies\nfar more beautiful. It may be thought, indeed, that, so different will be\nthese sciences from any thing on earth, that there can be no common\nprinciples and no link of connection. But the longer a man studies the\nworks of God, the more inclined will he be to regard the universe,\nmaterial and immaterial, as founded on eternal principles; as, in fact, a\ntranscript of the divine nature; and that all the changes in nature are\nonly new developments of unchanging fundamental laws, not the introduction\nof new laws. Hence the philosopher would infer that in existing nature we\nhave the prototype of new heavens and a new earth; and although a future\ncondition of things may be as different from the present as the plant is\nfrom the seed out of which it springs, still, as the seed contains the\nembryo of a future plant, so the future world may, as it were, lie coiled\nup in the present. If in these suggestions there is any truth, there may\nbe a germ in the anatomy and physiology of the present world, which shall\nsurvive the destruction of the present economy, and unfold, in far higher\nbeauty and glory, in the more congenial climate of the new heavens and the\nnew earth. If so, the great principles of these sciences which are\nacquired on earth, and which are so prolific in exhibitions of divine\nskill, may not prove to be lost knowledge. They shall be recognized as\ntypes of those far higher and richer developments of organization which\nthe spiritual body shall exhibit.\n\nIt may be still more difficult to show that such a science as botany will\nhave a place in the new earth; simply because we have no certain knowledge\nof the existence of vegetation there. We can infer nothing on this subject\nfrom the figurative representations of the new Jerusalem in Revelation,\nsince the drapery is all derived from this world. But, on the general\nprinciple already stated, that the universe constitutes but one vast and\nharmonious system, and all the economies upon it, past, present, and\nfuture, are only different developments of eternal principles, this\nconsideration, I say, should make us hesitate before we infer the\nannihilation of the vast vegetable kingdom upon the destruction of the\npresent economy of the world. And it does give us an aspect of extreme\nbarrenness and cheerlessness to think of the new earth entirely swept of\nevery thing analogous to the existing foliage, flowers, and fruits. We\nhave attempted to show, however, in another place, that the spiritual body\nmay be of such a nature that it might exist in a temperature so high, or\nso low, as to prevent the existence of such organic natures as now exist.\nBut how easy for the Deity to create such natures as are adapted to\nextremes of temperature as wide as we now are acquainted with; and that,\ntoo, on the same type as existing nature; so that the new earth, while yet\nan incandescent, glowing ocean, might teem with animals and plants,\norganized on the same general principles as those of the present earth!\nBut there is another supposition. I have endeavored to show that change\never has been, and probably ever will be, one of the grand means by which\nmind is introduced to higher spheres of enjoyment; and even though the new\nearth at first should be destitute of organic natures, both animal and\nvegetable, they might be introduced in successive and more perfect\neconomies, as a means of increased happiness, especially to rational\nnatures. These are, indeed, only conjectures; but the balance of\nprobabilities seems to me to incline the mind to the belief that there may\nbe a botany as well as zoology in the future world, far transcending their\nprototypes on earth.\n\nAmong the things that we may be certain will pass away with the present\nworld is the mode of communicating our ideas by language. This the apostle\nexpressly declares when he says, _Whether there be tongues_, [that is,\nlanguages,] _they shall cease._ Now, the acquisition of languages, and the\nright use of language, or rhetoric and oratory, constitute a large part of\nwhat men call learning on earth. And the question is, whether there are\nany principles on which these branches of knowledge are based that will\nbecome the elements of new and higher modes of communicating thought in a\nfuture world. These branches are, indeed, rather to be regarded as arts\nthan sciences. Language is the drapery for clothing our thoughts, and,\nunless we have thoughts to clothe, it becomes useless; and rhetoric and\noratory merely show us how to arrange that drapery in the most attractive\nand impressive style. But there is such a thing as the philosophy of\nlanguage and the philosophy of rhetoric, whose principles are derived\nchiefly from moral and intellectual philosophy. And these, we have reason\nto believe, are eternal. Different as will be the mode of communicating\nthoughts hereafter from the present, we shall find the same philosophical\nprinciples lying at its foundation. Hence we may expect that there will be\na celestial language, a celestial rhetoric, and a celestial oratory, in\nwhose beauty and splendor those of earth will be forgotten.\n\nI now proceed briefly to consider those sciences which, having little\nconnection with material organization, we may more confidently maintain\nwill have an existence on the new earth.\n\nIt will be hardly necessary to spend much time in proving that\nintellectual philosophy will be one of the subjects of investigation in a\nfuture world. For it would be strange if the noblest part of God's\nworkmanship, for which materialism was created, should cease to be an\nobject of inquiry in that world where alone it can be investigated with\nmuch success. When we consider that the whole train of mental phenomena is\nconstantly passing under the mind's own observation, and that a vast\namount of time and talent has been devoted to the subject ever since man\nbegan to philosophize,--that is, for more than two thousand years,--it\nwould seem as if psychology ere this must have attained the precision and\ncertainty of mathematics. But how different is the fact! I speak not of a\nwant of agreement in opinion on subordinate points, for these minor\ndiversities must be expected in any science not strictly demonstrative.\nEven astronomy abounds with them. But metaphysical philosophers have not\nyet been able to settle fundamental principles. They are not yet agreed as\nto the existence of many of the most familiar and important intellectual\npowers and principles of action. The systems of Locke and Hume,\nconstructed with great ability, were overthrown by Reid; Stewart differed\nmuch from Reid; and Dr. Thomas Brown has powerfully attacked the fabric\nerected by Stewart. And lastly, the phrenologists, with no mean ability,\nhave endeavored to show that all these philosophers are heaven-wide of the\ntruth, because they have so much neglected the influence of the material\norgans on the mental powers. Now, this diversity of result, arrived at by\nmen of such profound abilities, shows that there are peculiar difficulties\nin the study of mind, originating, probably, in the fact that, in this\nworld, we never see the operation of mind apart from a gross material\norganization. But in another state, where no organization will exist, or\none far better adapted to mental operations, we may hope for such a\nclarification of the mental eye that the laws of mind will assume the\nprecision and certainty of mathematics, and the relations between mind and\nmatter, now so obscure, be fully developed. Then, I doubt not, the\nprinciples of mental science will furnish a more splendid illustration of\nthe divine perfections than any which can now be derived from the material\nworld.\n\nWill any one believe that the principles of moral science and mathematics\nwill be altered or annihilated by the conflagration of the globe? We\nbelieve them no more dependent upon the external universe than is the\ndivine existence. God exists by a necessity of nature, and these\nprinciples have the same unchanging and eternal origin. If so, no changes\nin the material world can affect them. So far as we understand them here,\nwe shall find them true hereafter; and we shall doubtless find that our\npresent knowledge is but the mere twilight of that bright day which will\nthere pour its full light upon these subjects. Mathematical and moral\ntruths, which we now suppose to be general laws, we shalt then find to be,\nin many cases, only the ramifications of principles far wider, which we\ncannot now discover, and which we could not comprehend were they open to\ninspection. And we shall also find that moral laws are as certain and\ndemonstrable as those of mathematics; and that they form the adamantine\nchain which holds together the spiritual world, and gives it symmetry and\nbeauty, as mathematics links together the material universe.\n\nAmong men who understand biblical interpretation, and also the principles\nof science, the belief in the annihilation of the material universe at the\nclose of man's probationary state is fast disappearing, and the more\nscriptural, philosophical, and animating doctrine is embraced, that there\nwill be only a change of form and condition of our earth and its\natmosphere, and that the matter of the universe will survive, and\nsuccessively assume new and more beautiful forms, it may be eternally. If\nso, all those physical sciences, which do not depend upon organic\nstructure, will form subjects of investigation in the heavenly world.\nThere will be the heavenly bodies, governed by the same laws as at\npresent, and offering a noble field for examination. Nor will the heavenly\ninhabitants need, as on earth, visual organs and optical instruments,\nwhich, at best, afford us only glimpses of the material universe. For\nthere, if we rightly conjecture, will they possess the power of learning,\nwith almost intuitive certainty and intuitive rapidity, the character and\nmovements of the most distant worlds. Nay, it may be that they can pass\nfrom world to world with the velocity of light, and thus become better\nacquainted with their more intimate condition. Thus will the astronomy of\nthe celestial world surpass, beyond conception, that science which even\nnow is regarded as unequalled for its sublimity.\n\nWe cannot be sure through what material medium the mind will act in a\nfuture world. But the manner in which we know heat, light, and electricity\nto be transmitted, makes it not impossible that the same or a similar\nmedium may be the vehicle through which thought shall be hereafter\ntransmitted. If so, we can easily understand how the mind will be able to\npenetrate into the most recondite nature of bodies, and learn the mode in\nwhich they act upon one another; for the curious medium which conveys\nlight and heat does penetrate all bodies, whether they be solid or\ngaseous, cold or hot. Hence we may learn at a glance, in a future world,\nmore of the internal constitution of bodies, and of their mutual action,\nthan a whole life on earth, spent in the study of chemistry, will unfold.\nThen, too, shall we doubtless find chemical laws operating on a scale of\ngrandeur and extent, limited only by the material universe.\n\nUniversally diffused as light, heat, and electricity are, and diligently\nas their phenomena have been studied, yet what mystery hangs over their\nnature and operations! They seem to be too subtile, and to approximate too\nnearly to immaterial substances, to be apprehended by our beclouded\nintellects. When, therefore, our means of perception shall be vastly\nimproved, as we have reason to believe they will be in eternity, these\nwill become noble themes for examination. For who can doubt that agents so\nethereal in their nature, and apparently indestructible, and even\nunchanged by any means with which we are acquainted, will survive the\nfinal catastrophe of our world? Probably, indeed, we are allowed to catch\nonly glimpses of their nature and operations on earth, so that we may\nsafely anticipate an immense expansion of the electricity and optics which\nwill form a part of the science of heaven.\n\nWe have endeavored to show, in a former lecture, that the future residence\nof the righteous will be material; that it will, in fact, be the present\nearth, purified by the fires of the last day, and rising from the final\nruin in renovated splendor. We have shown that this is the doctrine of\nScripture, of philosophy, and of a majority of the Christian church. A\nsolid world, then, will exist, whose geology can be studied by glorified\nminds far more accurately and successfully than the globe which we\ninhabit; for those minds will doubtless be able to penetrate the entire\nmass of the globe, and learn its whole structure. The final conflagration\nmay, indeed, for the most part, obliterate the traces of present and past\norganic beings. But according to the doctrine of action and reaction in\nmechanics, in chemistry, in electricity, and in organization, every change\nthat has ever passed over the earth has left traces of its occurrence\nwhich can never be blotted out; and it is not improbable that glorified\nminds will possess the power of discovering and reading these records of\nthe past, if not on the principle just specified, yet in some other way;\nso that the entire geological history of our planet will probably pass in\nclear light before them. Points which we see only through a glass darkly\nwill then stand forth in full daylight; and from the glimpses we are able\nto obtain in this world of its present geological changes, what a mighty\nand interesting series will be seen by celestial minds! If, even by the\ncolored rays which come upon us through the twilight of this world, we\nare able to see so many striking illustrations of the divine character\nengraven on the solid rocks, what a noble volume of religious truth shall\nbe found written there, when the light of heaven shall penetrate the\nearth's deep foundations! Those foundations, figuratively described in\nrevelation as so many precious stones, bearing up a city of pure gold,\nclear as glass, will then reflect a richer light than the costliest\nliteral gems which the rocks now yield. The geology of heaven will be\nresplendent with divine glory.\n\nWe see, then, with a few probable exceptions, resulting from a difference\nbetween the organism of heaven and earth, that science will survive the\nruin of this world, and in a nobler form engage the minds, and interest\nthe hearts, of heaven's inhabitants. It will, indeed, form a vast\nstorehouse, whence pious minds can draw fuel to kindle into a purer and\nbrighter flame their love and their devotion; for thence will they derive\nnew and higher developments of the divine character. Shall we not, then,\nadmit that to be religious truth on earth which in heaven will form the\nfood of perfectly holy minds?\n\nThe position which I laid down, at the outset, that scientific truth,\nrightly applied, is religious truth, seems to me most clearly established.\nIf admitted, there flow from it several inferences of no small interest,\nwhich I am constrained to present to your consideration.\n\n_In the first place, I infer from this discussion that the principles of\nscience are a transcript of the Divine Character._\n\nI mean by this, that the laws of nature, which are synonymous with the\nprinciples of science, are not the result of any arbitrary and special\nenactment on the part of the Deity, but flow naturally from his\nperfections; so that, in fact, the varied principles of science are but so\nmany expressions of the perfections of Jehovah. If the universe had only a\ntransient existence, we might suppose the laws that govern it to be the\nresult of a special ordination of the Deity, and destined to perish with\nthe annihilation of matter. But since we have no evidence that matter will\never perish, and at least probable evidence that it will exist forever,\nthe more rational supposition is, that its laws result from the nature of\nthings, and are only a development of so many features of the divine\ncharacter. If so, then the most important inquiry in the study of the\nsciences is to learn from them the phases in which they present the divine\nperfections.\n\n_In the second place, it does not follow from this subject that the most\nextensive acquisitions in science necessarily imply the possession of true\npiety._\n\nPiety consists in the exercise of right affections of heart towards God,\nexcited by religious truth. Now, I have attempted to show only, that the\nnatural tendency of scientific truth is to excite such religious\naffections; but that tendency, like all other good influences, may be, and\noften is, resisted. Hence a man may reach the loftiest pinnacle of\nscientific glory whose heart has never heaved with one religious emotion.\nHe may penetrate to the very holy of holies in nature's temple, and yet\nretain his atheism, in spite of the hallowed influences that surround him.\nNothing is plainer in theory, and, alas! nothing has been more surely\nconfirmed by experience, than that the possession of science is not the\npossession of religion.\n\n_In the third place, what a perversion of science it is to employ it\nagainst religion!_\n\nRightly understood, and fairly interpreted, there is not a single\nscientific truth that does not harmoniously accord with revealed as well\nas natural religion; and yet, by superficial minds, almost every one of\nthese principles has, at one time or another, been regarded as in\ncollision with religion, and especially with revelation. One after another\nhave these apparent discrepancies melted away before the clearer light of\nfurther examination. And yet, up to the present day, not a few, closing\ntheir eyes against the lessons of experience, still fancy that the\nresponses of science are not in unison with those from revelation. But\nthis is a sentiment which finds no place with the profound and\nunprejudiced philosopher; for he has seen too much of the harmony between\nthe works and the word of God to doubt the identity of their origin. He\nknows it to be a sad perversion of scientific truth to use it for the\ndiscredit of religion. He knows that the inspiration of the Almighty\nbreathed the same spirit into science as into religion; and if they utter\ndiscordant tones, it must be because one or the other has been forced to\nspeak in an unnatural dialect.\n\n_In the fourth place, how entirely have the natural tendencies of science\nbeen misunderstood, when they have been represented as leading to\nreligious scepticism!_\n\nI do not deny the fact that many scientific men have been sceptical. But I\nmaintain that this has been in spite of science, rather than the result of\nits natural tendency; for we have shown that tendency in all cases to be\nfavorable to piety. Other more powerful causes, therefore, must have\noperated to counteract the natural influence of scientific truth in those\ncases where men eminent for science have spurned away from them the\nauthority of religion. Among these causes, the pride of knowledge is one\nof the most powerful; and before the mind has attained to very profound\nviews of science, this pride does often exert a most disastrous influence\nupon a man's religious feelings.\n\nHe is looked up to as an oracle on other subjects, and why should he not\nbe equally wise concerning religion? It is natural for him to feel\ndesirous, in such circumstances, of rising above all vulgar and\nsuperstitious views, and of convincing his fellow-men that he has made as\ngreat discoveries in religion as in science. He, therefore, calls in\nquestion the prevailing religious opinions. Having once taken his stand\nagainst the truth, pride does not allow him to recede, and he endeavors to\nconvert scientific truth into weapons against religion. And this\nperversion produces the impression, with those not familiar with its\nnatural tendency, that science fosters scepticism.\n\nAnother cause of this scepticism is a superficial acquaintance with the\nreligious bearings of scientific truth. It is one thing to master the\nprinciples of science in an abstract form, and quite a different thing to\nunderstand their religious bearings. Moral reasoning is so different from\nphysical and mathematical, that often a mind which is a prodigy for the\nlatter, is a mere Lilliput in the former. And yet that mind may fancy\nitself as profound in the one as in the other, and may, therefore, be as\ntenacious of its errors in religion as of its demonstrated verities in\nscience.\n\nIn the following extract it will be seen that Dr. Chalmers imputes the\nreligious scepticism connected with science chiefly to a superficial\nacquaintance with science. His remarks may seem unreasonably severe and\nsweeping; nevertheless, they deserve consideration. And they accord with\nthe idea of Lord Bacon, who says, \"A smattering of philosophy leads to\natheism; whereas a thorough acquaintance with it brings him back again to\nreligion.\" \"We have heard,\" Dr. Chalmers remarks, \"that the study of\nnatural science disposes to infidelity. But we feel persuaded that this is\na danger associated only with a slight and partial, never with a deep,\nand adequate, and comprehensive, view of its principles. It is very\npossible that the conjunction between science and scepticism may at\npresent be more frequently realized than in former days; but this is only\nbecause, in spite of all that is alleged about this our more enlightened\nday and more enlightened public, our science is neither so deeply founded,\nnor of such firm and thorough staple, as it was wont to be. We have lost\nin depth what we have gained in diffusion; having neither the massive\nerudition, nor the gigantic scholarship, nor the profound and well-laid\nphilosophy of a period that has now gone by; and it is to this that\nInfidelity stands indebted for her triumphs among the scoffers and\nsuperficialists of a half-learned generation.\"--_Chalmers's Works_, vol.\nvii. p. 262.\n\nBriefly, but nobly, has Sir John Herschel vindicated science from the\ncharge of sceptical tendencies. \"Nothing can be more unfounded than the\nobjection which has been taken _in limine_ by persons, well meaning,\nperhaps, certainly of narrow minds, against the study of natural\nphilosophy, and, indeed, against all science, that it fosters in its\ncultivators an undue and overweening self-conceit, leads them to doubt the\nimmortality of the soul, and to scoff at revealed religion. Its natural\neffect, we may confidently assert, on every well-constituted mind, is and\nmust be the direct contrary. No doubt the testimony of natural reason, on\nwhatever exercised, must, of course, stop short of those truths which it\nis the object of revelation to make known; but while it places the\nexistence and principal attributes of a Deity on such grounds as to render\ndoubt absurd, and atheism ridiculous, it unquestionably opposes no natural\nor necessary obstacle to further progress; on the contrary, by cherishing\nas a vital principle an unbounded spirit of inquiry and ardency of\nexpectation, it unfetters the mind from prejudices of every kind, and\nleaves it open to every impression of a higher nature, which it is\nsusceptible of receiving; guarding only against enthusiasm and\nself-deception by a habit of strict investigation, but encouraging, rather\nthan suppressing, every thing that can offer a prospect or hope beyond the\npresent obscure and unsatisfactory state. The character of the true\nphilosopher is to hope all things not impossible, and to believe all\nthings not unreasonable.\"--_Diss. on Study of Nat. Phil._\n\nIn speaking of geology and revelation, Sir John says, \"There cannot be two\ntruths in contradiction to one another, and a man must have a mind fitted\nneither for scientific nor for religious truth, whose religion can be\ndisturbed by geology, or whose geology can be distorted from its character\nof an inductive science by a determination to accommodate its results to\npreconceived interpretations of the Mosaic cosmogony.\"--_Dr. J. P. Smith's\nLectures_, p. viii. 4th edition.\n\n\"We have often mourned,\" says M'Cosh, \"over the attempts made to set the\nworks of God against the word of God, and thereby excite, propagate, and\nperpetuate jealousies fitted to separate parties that ought to live in\nclosest union. In particular, we have always regretted that endeavors\nshould have been made to depreciate nature with a view of exalting\nrevelation; it has always appeared to us to be nothing else than the\ndegrading of one part of God's works in the hope thereby of exalting and\nrecommending another.\" \"Perilous as it is at all times for the friends of\nreligion to set themselves against natural science, it is especially\ndangerous in an age like the present.\n\n\"It is no profane work that is engaged in by those who, in all humility,\nwould endeavor to remove jealousies between parties whom God has joined\ntogether, and whom man is not at liberty to put asunder. We are not\nlowering the dignity of science when we command it to do what all the\nobjects which it looks at and admires do--when we command it to worship\nGod. Nor are we detracting from the honor which is due to religion when we\npress it to take science into its service, and accept the homage which it\nis able to pay. We are seeking to exalt both when we show how nature\nconducts man to the threshold of religion, and when from this point we bid\nhim look abroad on the wide territories of nature. We would aid at the\nsame time both religion and science, by removing those prejudices against\nsacred truth which nature has been employed to foster; and we would\naccomplish this not by casting aside and discarding nature, but by rightly\ninterpreting it.\n\n\"Let not science and religion be reckoned as opposing citadels, frowning\ndefiance upon each other, and their troops brandishing their armor in\nhostile attitude. They have too many common foes, if they would but think\nof it, in ignorance and prejudice, in passion and vice, under all their\nforms, to admit of their lawfully wasting their strength in a useless\nwarfare with each other. Science has a foundation, and so has religion;\nlet them unite their foundations, and the basis will be broader, and they\nwill be two compartments of one great fabric reared to the glory of God.\nLet the one be the outer and the other the inner court. In the one, let\nall look, and admire, and adore; and in the other, let those who have\nfaith kneel, and pray, and praise. Let the one be the sanctuary where\nhuman learning may present its richest incense as an offering to God, and\nthe other the holiest of all, separated from it by a veil now rent in\ntwain, and in which, on a blood-sprinkled mercy-seat, we pour out the\nlove of a reconciled heart, and hear the oracles of the living\nGod.\"--_Method of the Divine Government_, p. 449, _et seq._\n\n_In the fifth place, scientific men and religious men may learn from this\nsubject to regard each other as engaged in a common cause._\n\nIf it be indeed true that scientific truth, rightly applied, is religious\ntruth, then may the religious man be sure that every scientific discovery\nwill ultimately contribute to the illustration of the character or\ngovernment of the Deity; and therefore should he encourage and rejoice in\nall such investigations, and bid God speed to the votaries of science.\nEven though he cannot see how the new discovery will illustrate religion,\nand though, when imperfectly developed, it may seem to have an unfavorable\naspect, he need not fear to confide in the general principle that science\nand religion are alike of divine origin, and must be in harmony. On the\nother hand, the votary of science should remember that the state of\nsociety most favorable to his pursuits is one in which religion exerts the\nstrongest influence. It is for his interest, therefore, merely as a lover\nof science, and much more as a moral and accountable agent, to have pure\nreligion prevail. Scientific and religious men should, therefore, look\nupon each other as co-laborers in a most noble cause--in illustrating the\ndivine character and government. All jealousy and narrow-minded\nexclusiveness should be banished, and side by side should they labor in\nwarm-hearted and generous sympathy. Alas! how different from this has been\nthe history of the past! and, to a great extent, how different it is at\npresent! \"A study of the natural world,\" says Professor Sedgwick, \"teaches\nnot the truths of revealed religion, nor do the truths of religion inform\nus of the inductions of physical science. Hence it is that men, whose\nstudies are too much confined to one branch of knowledge, often learn to\noverrate themselves, and so become narrow minded. Bigotry is a besetting\nsin of our nature. Too often has it been the attendant of religious zeal;\nbut it is perhaps the most bitter and unsparing when found among the\nirreligious. A philosopher, not understanding one atom of their spirit,\nwill sometimes scoff at the labors of religious men; and one who calls\nhimself religious will, perhaps, return a like harsh judgment, and thank\nGod that he is not as the philosophers; forgetting, all the while, that\nman can ascend to no knowledge except by faculties given to him by his\nCreator's hand, and that all natural knowledge is but a reflection of the\nwill of God. In harsh judgments, such as these, there is not only much\nfolly, but much sin. True wisdom consists in seeing how all the faculties\nof the mind and all parts of knowledge bear upon each other, so as to work\ntogether to a common end; ministering at once to the happiness of man and\nhis Maker's glory.\"--_Discourse on the Studies of the University_, 5th\nedition, p. 105, appendix.\n\n_In the sixth place, the subject shows us what is the most important use\nto be derived from science._\n\nIt does not consist, as men have been supposing, in its application to the\nuseful arts, whereby civilization, and human comfort and happiness are so\ngreatly promoted; although men have thereby been raised from a state of\nbarbarism and advanced to a high point on the scale of refinement. It is\nnot the application of science as a means of enlarging and disciplining\nthe mind; although this would be a noble result of scientific study. But\nit is its application for the illustration of religion. This, I say, is\nits most important use. For what higher or nobler purpose can any pursuit\nsubserve than in developing the character, government, and will of that\ninfinite Being, who is the sum and centre of all perfection and happiness?\nOther objects accomplished by science are important, and in the bustle of\nlife they may seem to be its chief end. But in the calmness of mature\nyears, when we begin to estimate things according to their real value, we\nshall see that the religious bearings of any pursuit far transcend in\nimportance all its other relations; for all its other tendencies and uses\nare limited to this world, and will, therefore, be transient; but every\nthing which bears the stamp of religion is immortal, and every thing which\nconcerns the Deity is infinite. It is true that but few who are engaged in\nscientific pursuits make much account of their bearings upon man's highest\ninterests; but very different will it be in heaven. There, so far as we\nknow, all the applications of science to the useful arts will be unknown,\nand the great object of its cultivation will be to gain new and clearer\nviews of the perfections and plans of Jehovah, and thus to awaken towards\nhim a deeper reverence and a warmer love. And such should be the richest\nfruit of scientific researches on earth.\n\n_In the seventh place, the subject shows us that those who are the most\neminent in science ought to be the most eminent in piety._\n\nI am far from maintaining that science is a sufficient guide in religion.\nOn the other hand, if left to itself, as I fully admit,--\n\n  \"It leads to bewilder, and dazzles to blind.\"\n\nNor do I maintain that scientific truth, even when properly appreciated,\nwill compare at all, in its influence upon the human mind, with those\npeculiar and higher truths disclosed by revelation. All I contend for is,\nthat scientific truth, illustrating as it does the divine character,\nplans, and government, ought to fan and feed the flame of true piety in\nthe hearts of its cultivators. He, therefore, who knows the most of\nscience ought most powerfully to feel this religious influence. He is not\nconfined, like the great mass of men, to the outer court of nature's\nmagnificent temple, but he is admitted to the interior, and allowed to\ntrace its long halls, aisles, and galleries, and gaze upon its lofty domes\nand arches; nay, as a priest he enters the _penetralia_, the holy of\nholies, where sacred fire is always burning upon the altars, where hovers\nthe glorious Schekinah, and where, from a full orchestra, the anthem of\npraise is ever ascending. Petrified, indeed, must be his heart, if it\ncatches none of the inspiration of such a spot. He ought to go forth from\nit among his fellow-men with radiant glory on his face, like Moses from\nthe holy mount. He who sees most of God in his works ought to show the\nstamp of divinity upon his character, and lead an eminently holy life.\n\n_Finally, the subject gives great interest and dignity to the study of\nscience._\n\nIt is not strange that the religious man should sometimes find his ardor\ndamped in the pursuit of some branches of knowledge, by the melancholy\nreflection that they can be of no use beyond this world, and will exist\nonly as objects of memory in eternity. He may have devoted many a toilsome\nyear to the details and manipulations of the arts; and, so far as this\nworld is concerned, his labors have been eminently salutary and\ninteresting. But all his labors and researches can be of no avail on the\nother side of the grave; and he cannot but feel sad that so much study and\nefforts should leave results no more permanent. Or he may have given his\nbest days to loading his memory with those tongues which the Scriptures\nassure us shall cease; or to those details of material organization which\ncan have no place or antitype in the future world. Interesting,\ntherefore, as such pursuits have been on earth, nay, indispensable as they\nare to the well being and progress of human society, it is melancholy to\nrealize that they form a part of that knowledge which will vanish away.\n\nThe mind delights in the prospect of again turning its attention to those\nbranches of knowledge which have engrossed and interested it on earth, and\nof doing this under circumstances far more favorable to their\ninvestigation. And such an anticipation he may reasonably indulge, who\ndevotes himself on earth to any branch of knowledge not dependent on\narrangements and organizations peculiar to this world. He may be confident\nthat he is investigating those principles which will form a part of the\nscience of heaven. Should he ever reach that pure world, he knows that the\nclogs which now weigh down his mind will drop off, and the clouds that\nobscure his vision will clear away, and that a brighter sun will pour its\nradiance upon his path. He is filling his mind with principles that are\nimmortal. He is engaged in pursuits to which glorified and angelic minds\nare devoting their lofty powers. Other branches of knowledge, highly\nesteemed among men, shall pass away with the destruction of this world.\nThe baseless hypotheses of science, falsely so called, whether moral,\nintellectual, or physical, and the airy phantoms of a light and fictitious\nliterature, shall all pass into the limbo of forgetfulness. But the\nprinciples of true science, constituting, as they do, the pillars of the\nuniverse, shall bear up that universe forever. How many questions of deep\ninterest, respecting his favorite science, must the philosopher in this\nworld leave unanswered, how many points unsettled! But when he stands upon\nthe vantage-ground of another world, all these points shall be seen in the\nbright transparencies of heaven. In this world, the votaries of science\nmay be compared with the aborigines who dwell around some one of the\nprincipal sources of the River Amazon. They have been able, perhaps, to\ntrace one or two, or it may be a dozen, of its tributaries, from their\ncommencement in some mountain spring, and to follow them onwards as they\nenlarge by uniting, so as to bear along the frail canoes, in which,\nperhaps, they pass a few hundred miles towards the ocean. On the right and\non the left, a multitude of other tributaries swell the stream which\ncarries them onward, until it seems to them a mighty river. But they are\nignorant of the hundred other tributaries which drain the vast eastern\nslope of the Andes, and sweep over the wide plains, till their united\nwaters have formed the majestic Amazon. Of that river in its full glory,\nand especially of the immense ocean that lies beyond, the natives have no\nconception; unless, perhaps, some individual, more daring than the rest,\nhas floated onward till his astonished eye could scarcely discern the\nshore on either hand, and before him he saw the illimitable Atlantic,\nwhitened by the mariner's sail and the crested waves; and he may have gone\nback to tell his unbelieving countrymen the marvellous story. Just so is\nit with men of science. They are able to trace with clearness a few rills\nof truth from the fountain head, and to follow them onward till they unite\nin a great principle, which at first men fancy is the chief law of the\nuniverse. But as they venture still farther onward, they find new\ntributary truths coming in on either side, to form a principle or law\nstill more broad and comprehensive. Yet it is only a few gifted and\nadventurous minds that are able, from some advanced mountain top, to catch\na glimpse of the entire stream of truth, formed by the harmonious union of\nall principles, and flowing on majestically into the boundless ocean of\nall knowledge, the Infinite Mind. But when the Christian philosopher\nshall be permitted to resume the study of science in a future world, with\npowers of investigation enlarged and clarified, and all obstacles removed,\nhe will be able to trace onward the various ramifications of truth, till\nthey unite into higher and higher principles, and become one in that\ncentre of centres, the Divine Mind. That is the Ocean from which all truth\noriginally sprang, and to which it ultimately returns. To trace out the\nshores of that shoreless Sea, to measure its measureless extent, and to\nfathom its unfathomable depths, will be the noble and the joyous work of\neternal ages. And yet eternal ages may pass by and see the work only\nbegun.\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes:\n\n[1] I ought surely to except the work of Professor Bachman, which I have\nnot read, but which was certainly written by an able naturalist.\n\n[2] I am not aware that this reply to the objection was ever advanced,\ntill the publication, by myself, last year, of a sermon on the\nResurrections of Spring, in a small volume of sermons, entitled Religious\nLectures on some peculiar Phenomena in the Four Seasons. I may be\nmistaken; but I cannot see why this reply does not completely meet the\ndifficulty, and free an important doctrine from an incubus under which it\nhas long lain half smothered.\n\n[3] I hope it is not vanity to say that this subject, also, was first\nsuggested in the sermon referred to in the preceding note. If correct, it\nopens an animating prospect to the afflicted Christian.\n\n[4] The first edition of this work was republished in this country. In\nEngland it has reached the fifth edition, much enlarged.\n\n[5] Two or three years since Professor Bronn described twenty-six thousand\nsix hundred and seventy-eight species; and, upon an average, one thousand\nspecies are discovered every year. M. Alcide D'Orbigny, in 1850, stated\nthe number of mollusks and radiated animals alone at seventeen thousand\nnine hundred and forty-seven species.\n\n[6] The news has just reached us that this venerable man is no more. I was\npresent last summer at Homerton, when he resigned the charge of that\nbeloved institution. From his addresses and his prayers, so redolent of\nthe spirit of heaven, I might have known that he was pluming his wings for\nhis upward flight. I am thankful that I was permitted to see the man,\nwhom, of all others in Europe, I most desired to see. But Dr. Buckland I\ndid not meet; for he was in an insane hospital, with no prospect of\nrecovery. Alas! how sad to think of such Christian philosophers, so soon\nremoved from the world, or from all concern in it! Could I dare to hope\nthat I shall meet them and kindred spirits before the throne of our common\nRedeemer, how should I exclaim with Cicero, \"_O preclarum diem, quum in\nillud animorum concilium coelumque proficiscar, ut quum ex hac turba et\ncolluvione discedam!_\"\n\n[7] This had always seemed to me a very strong case, as I had seen it\ndescribed. But a recent visit to the spot (September, 1850) did not make\nso strong an impression upon me as I expected. In the first place, I found\nthe head of Lake Lehman, where the Rhone enters, to be so narrow, that the\ndetritus brought down by the river cannot spread itself out very far\nlaterally. Secondly, I found, on ascending the Rhone, that it is every\nwhere a very rapid stream; and, on account of the origination of its\nbranches from glaciers, it is always loaded with mud. So that the process\nof deposition must be going on continually. This cannot be the case in one\nin ten of other rivers, whose waters, for most of the year, are clear.\nThis case, then, is only a quite unusual exception, and cannot be regarded\nas a standard by which to judge of the rate of deposition at present, or\nin past times.\n\n[8] For a much more minute and extended account of the different modes\nproposed to reconcile geology and revelation, and indeed of their entire\nconnection, I would refer to several papers in the American Biblical\nRepository, especially to the number for October, 1835, p. 261. The\nprogress of science has, indeed, rendered it desirable to change a few\nsentences in those articles; but all their essential principles I still\nmaintain.\n\n[9] See Stuart and Hodge on Rom. v. 12; also Chalmers's Lectures on\nRomans, Lecture 26; and Harris's Man Primeval, p. 178.\n\n[10] Johnston's Physical Atlas, pp. 66, 76, (Philadelphia edition, 1850.)\n\n[11] Rev. Joseph Tracy, Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1850, p. 614.\n\n[12] See the Frontispiece.\n\n[13] The subject of this inference is treated with great ability and\ncandor in the _Biblotheca Sacra_ for November, 1849, by my friend and\ncolleague, Rev. Joseph Haven, Jr., professor of intellectual and moral\nphilosophy in Amherst College.\n\n[14] In this description I have attempted to give exactly the experience\nof myself and John Tappan, Esq., with our wives, who ascended Snowdon in\nJune, 1850. A few days after, we ascended Cader Idris, another mountain of\nWales, near Dolgelly, where the views were perhaps equally wild and\nsublime, with the addition of a vast number of trap columns, and a\npseudo-crater, with its jagged and frowning sides.\n\n[15] When I visited this spot, in September, 1850, I was so fortunate as\nto get sight of a party that had just commenced the descent from the\nsummit of Mont Blanc. To the naked eye they were invisible, but the whole\ntrain could be distinctly seen through a telescope. This was the third\nparty that had ascended that mountain in the summer of 1850. I doubt not\nthat the dangers have been exaggerated, and that the excursion will become\ncommon.\n\nThere are other points of great interest around Chamouny, which I have not\nnoticed, some of which I visited, but not all. I have mentioned only the\nmost common.\n\n[16] In September, 1850, I visited this well, and found the water running\nstill, at the rate of six hundred and sixty gallons per minute at the\nsurface, and half that amount at the top of a tube one hundred and twelve\nfeet high, from whence it could be carried to any part of Paris; and, in\nfact, does supply some of the streets. I tasted the water, and found it\npleasant, though warm, (84 deg. Fahrenheit.)\n\n[17] I adopt this division from an able American review of the \"Vestiges.\"\n\n[18] For the details of this remarkable subject, see the \"Parthenogenesis\"\nof Professor Owen, p. 76, (London, 1849;) Steenstrup's \"Alternation of\nGenerations,\" published by the Ray Society in 1845, and Sedgwick's\n\"Discourse on the Studies of the University,\" Supplement, p. 193, (London,\n1850.)\n\n[19] The subject of this lecture has been ably discussed, within a few\nyears, in most of the leading periodicals in Europe and America, though I\nmust say not always with the candor calculated to do the most good. The\ntwo most able volumes that have fallen into my hands, on the subject, are\nProfessor Sedgwick's \"Discourse on the Studies of the University,\" &c.,\n(fifth ed., London, 1850,) and Hugh Miller's \"Footprints of the Creator,\"\nnow republished in this country.\n\n[20] This subject has been treated more fully, and I hope more\nsatisfactorily, in a little work of mine, which has just reached its\nsecond edition, entitled Religious Lectures on Peculiar Phenomena in the\nFour Seasons, (Amherst, 1851.) See the first Lecture, on the Resurrections\nof Spring.\n\n\n\n\nUNION BOOK STORE\n\n  ALLEN & SPIER\n  IMPORTERS AND DEALERS IN\n  SCHOOL, LAW, MEDICAL & MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS;\n\n  Paper, Blank Books; American, English and\n  French Staple and Fancy Stationery,\n\n  No. 148 CLAY STREET, Just below Montgomery,\n  SAN FRANCISCO.\n\n\nUNION SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY.\n\nThis department embraces the latest editions of the most approved text\nbooks in various languages.\n\n\nSPELLERS AND READERS.\n\nAbbot's, McGuffey's, Heman's, Swan's, Sanders', Town's, Webster's, &c.\n\nARITHMETIC.\n\nAdams', Colburn's, Davie's, Greenleaf's, Ray's, Smith's, Thompson's, &c.\n\nGEOGRAPHY.\n\nMitchell's, Morse's, Olney's, Smith's, &c.\n\nGRAMMAR.\n\nBrown's, Bullion's, Kirkham's, Smith's, Weld's, &c.\n\nHISTORY.\n\nALLISON'S, Bancroft's, Gibbons', Grote's, Hildreth's, Humes', Josephus,\nMacauley's, MOSHEIM'S, PRESCOTT'S, Russell, Rollin, Tytler's, Willard's,\n&c.\n\nWorks on Geology, Botany, Chemistry, Philosophy, Astronomy, Physiology,\n&c.\n\nBook-keeping, Penmanship, Mathematics, Agriculture, Domestic Economy, &c.\n\nLANGUAGES.\n\nVarious works, comprising, Ollendorf's Method for learning English,\nFrench, Spanish, German, Italian, &c. ANTHON'S CLASSICAL SERIES; also,\nGreek and Latin Grammars, Readers, Dictionaries, &c.\n\nARCHITECTURE.\n\nCity and Rural, Marine and Naval.\n\nMUSIC BOOKS.\n\nAmerican Vocalist, Devotional Harmonist, New Carmina Sacra, Alpine Glee\nSinger, Dulcimer, Young Melodist, Sabbath School Gems, Sunday School\nHarmonist; Instruction Books for Violin, Accordeon, &c.\n\nFOREIGN BOOKS.\n\nHistories, Biographies, Novels, &c., in French, Spanish, German, Italian,\nWelsh and Dutch.\n\nLAW BOOKS.\n\nComprising in part works by Story, Chitty, Greenleaf, Barbour, Vattell,\nBright, Adams, Dean, Dunlap; also, Form Books, Reports, &c.\n\nMEDICAL BOOKS.\n\nEmbracing works on Domestic Medicine, Anatomy, Surgery, Diseases of Women\nand Children, &c., by Dunglison, Hooper, Cooper, Meigs, Lawrence, Dewees,\nWilson, Carpenter, Watson, Taylor, Churchill, La Roche, Nelligan, &c.\n\nHave also constantly on hand, a large stock of\n\nMISCELLANEOUS BOOKS,\n\nIn the various departments of Literature, among which are the following:\n\nBOHN'S Standard, Scientific, Antiquarian, Classical, and Illustrated\nLibraries--comprising about 150 vols.\n\nHARPER'S Family and Classical do--200 vols.\n\nDOWNING'S Agricultural and Architectural Works.\n\nBENJAMIN'S, La Fever's, Sloane's and Griffith's Architecture.\n\nPRIMERS, Toy Books, Juvenile Books and Sabbath School Books--a large\nvariety.\n\nTHE POETICAL WORKS of Shakspeare, Byron, Milton, Goldsmith, Pollock, Pope,\nHemans, Coleridge, Rogers, Campbell, Montgomery, Lamb, Burns, Kirk White,\nYoung, Gray, Beattie, Smith, Collins, Cowper, Thomson, Scott, Howitt,\nWordsworth, Tennyson, Bryant, Longfellow, Whittier, Willis, Halleck, &c.\n\nSCOTT'S, Addison's, Goldsmith's, Irving's, Cowper's, Dick's and Milton's\nProse Works.\n\nESSAYS--By Macaulay, Stephens, Talfourd, Wilson, Jeffries, Sydney Smith,\nCarlyle, Alison, Mackintosh, Foster and De Quincey.\n\nBIOGRAPHIES of Washington, Penn, Johnson, Franklin, Marion, Calhoun, &c.\n\nSPARK'S American Biography.\n\nTHEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS BOOKS.\n\nEmbracing various Encyclopedias, Commentaries, &c. Common Prayers, various\nsizes and bindings.\n\nHYMN BOOKS.\n\nBaptist Psalmist, Methodist Hymns, Presbyterian Psalms and Hymns, Zion\nSongster, Select Melodies, &c.\n\nAGENCY FOR THE BOOK PUBLICATIONS OF THE AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY.\n\nDepot for Bibles and Testaments from the American Bible Society.\n\nDepot for Publications of the N. Y. Methodist Book Concern.\n\nAlso on hand, Books of the American Sunday School Union; Sunday School\nRequisites; Harper's, National and other Magazines; London, Edinburgh,\nNorth British and Westminster Quarterly Reviews, &c., &c.\n\n\nOur stock comprises many works not included in this list, and is\nconstantly being increased by the additions of new works, as they are\nissued from the press. Orders for Books and Stationery will meet with\nprompt attention, and will be filled on the most reasonable terms.\n\nALLEN & SPIER\n\n148 Clay Street, S. F.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nPassages in italics are indicated by _italics_.\n\nThe original text includes Greek characters. For this text version these\nletters have been replaced with transliterations.\n\nThe original text includes Hebrew characters. For this text version these\nletters have been replaced with the notation [Hebrew].\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"The Religion of Geology and Its Connected Sciences","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":163049}