Bjn ^ ' ^►^^'^a. ^.^. ^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 5* (./ A fe # &, ^ 1.0 II I.I 1^ 12 :^ lis. 1^ |2.5 2.0 18 lUS IIIIIM ill 1.6 ?.■« \ Va Photographic _,Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) S73-4!>03 ^><^"0 '"""^^t^^ ^^_^^ '<^ Wi ii CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical ly/licroreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques { Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, wliicli m9y alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de conleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculde I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re iiure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure BJank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ 11 se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas dt6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; L'Institut a microfilmd le meiileur exemplaire qu'il lui a dt6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reprodulte, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages sndommagdes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restauries et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es. tachetdes ou piqu( Pages d6color6es. tachetdes ou piqudes Pages Pages d^tachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualit6 in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Pages detached/ I I Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I — I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuiilet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont M filmdes d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleura image possible. T t( T P o fi O b< t^ si 01 fi si 01 Tl St Tl w M di er be ri£ rei mi This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in iceepi'ng with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — 4»> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6ndrosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compto tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exeniplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenqant par le premier plat et en termincnt soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commengant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustratiun et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbols V signifie "FIN ". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd A partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaira. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 6 6 I '^^> SCEPTICISM A FOLLY: FIVE LETTERS, n OCCASIONED BY A GEOLOGICAL ARTICLE IN THK WESTMINSTER REVIEW FOR JULY, 1857. " They are vanity and the work of errors ; in the time of their visitation they shrll perish." — Jeremiah x 15. BY ADAM TOWNLEY, D. D., INCUMBENT OF TARIS, C. W. [Oriyinally written for the Toronto Colonist.) * TORONTO : rUBLlSllED BY THOMPSON * CO., 52 KING STREET EAST. 1857. Price Seven Pence Half-penny. ^ SCEPTICISM A FOLLY: FIVE LETTERS, OCCASIONED BY A GEOLOGICAL ARTICLE > IN THE WESTMINSTER BE VIEW FOR JULY, 1857. <* They are vanity and the work of errors ; in the time of their visitation they shall perish." — Jeremiah x 15. !' BY ADAM TOWNLEY, D.D., INCUMBENT OF PARIS, C. W. [Originally written for the Toronto Colonist.) TORONTO : PUBLISHED BY THOMPSON & CO,, 52 KING STREET EAST. 1857. Price Seven Pence Half-Penny. THE WESTMINSTER REVIEW. HUGH MILLER, CHEVALIER BUNSEN, &c. [letter L] Sir, — The Westminster Review is a periodical which I have much satisfaction in reading. For while it sorely tries my equanimity by its cold-hearted scepticism, its pretentious sneering, audits most deceptive and illogical reasoning, it is, at the same time, exceedingly gratifying to ijee how entirely baseless are those attacks which the keenest wits amongst the sceptics of Europe are con- tinually making upon the glorious aud invulnerable citadel of our Holy Catholic Faith. I have sometimes begun to read, almost trembling, their vindications of German Rationalism, or their an- tagonistic Biblical criticisms, or their laboured attempts to invalidate the credibility of Sacred History, or their unhallowed pocans when any apparent Mosaic difficul- ties are raised by modern Geological discoveries; — but in every case have I been compelled to admit with re- newed thankfulness how completely the wisdom of man is foolishness with God, and to understand with in- creased awe the literal character of the fact, that when men do *' not like to retain God in their knowledge" they " become vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts are darkened." Of course the Westminster Revieio is a clever publi- cation, but its reasoning is so transparently shallow, and it8principU^ are so glaringly false and self-contradictory, that 1 can only account for men of learning and talent thus committing themselves, on the supposition that their unhallowed attacks upon revealed truth have sub- jected them to the curse of judicial blindness. Nor let this idea be scouted as the ravings of mere puritanic II illiberality and superstition. For if you once admit that God has given an inspired revelation of His doings and His will, is it not then even reason to suppose, — nay, has He not declared, — that He will " darken the hearts" (minds, intellects,) of those who set themselves in de- termined opposition to such Revelation? Besides, if intellect did share in the ruin of the Fall, then before it can reasonably be expected to comprehend the high things of God, it must again be illuminated by the Spirit of God; but such illumination the salf-idolizing sceptic scornfully, and yet idiotically, rejects. Further, if there be a mighty fallen intellect, who is the Prince of the Power of the Air, upon whom are his subtle influ" ences likely to be so earnestly and successfully exerted as upon those of the learned, who share in his scorn o^ heavenly light and purity ? Especially, since such men are amongst his ablest auxiliaries in carrying on his ma- lignant warfare against God and man. Hi It will not do for sceptical sarins to assume a tone of perfect indifference to the truth or falsehood of Revela- tion in their professed researches, literary or scientific, after truth. In so doing they beg the \e>ry question at issue; since nothing can be more certain than that if there be two antagonistic powers of good and evil, seeking to influence every individual of our race, each one of us must have, in a greater or less degree, a distinct tendency to love or hate the revealed things of God. — Indeed, what but the latter feeling could cause the scep- tic to endeavor to propagate his doubts, even although himself were /toncsiZj/, if such a thing be possible, their victim ? What does scepticism offer us in the place of Christianity, that its votaries should so eag^3rly endeavor to diffuse their negation of faith ? The very sin of Chri^tianii;y, so to speak, in the eyes of its opponents, is that it seeks to impart a purity too intense, a love too unselfishly deep, a di^'nity too divinely awful, and an immortality too lofty inits thrilling enjoyments, fortheir earth-bound intellects to compass, or their fleshly hearts [nit that ngg and ,— nay, hearts" B in de- sides, if I e fore it he high ,6 Spirit [ sceptic rther, if rince of tie influ" terted as scorn o* uch men n his ma- i tone of ["Revela- icientific, question than that and evil, ace, each a distinct f God.— the scep- although ble, their place of endeavor ry sin of ments, is^ love too 1, and an , for their ily hearts ">: ; 'I to desire. " Beloved, now are we the Sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He shall appear, vv£ shall be like Him, for we shall see Him," (that is, and dwell with Him in eternal felicity,) " as He is." Such is the present, ench the future of Christianity ! Now, what do the JVestminster and its idol, — a sceptical philo- sophy, offer us in exchange for dignity so grand bliss so boundless? What, buta vast waste of agoniz- ing doubt ! In robbing us of our divinity, ihey trample our very manhood in the dust, and leave us to the death of a dog, or at least to the unkuown future of an atom too mean to share its Maker's care ! In the name, then, of our common humanity we ask, what are the motives which induce the issumg of publications like the West- minster 1 Must there not be, in the hearts of their wri- ters, a bitter hatred, though it may be even partially shrouded to themselves, of all that is called holy, before they can thus "cast about fire-brands and death" for the purpose of blasting our only joy in life, our only hope in death ? Suiely Solomon was wise when he declared such to be the conduct of a " madman." My thoughts have been more immediately directed into this channel by an article or two in the last (July) num- ber of the Westminster. The Reviewer thus speaks of poor HughMiller's efforts to reconcile geology with revelation: " Is it not melancholy? — an ingenious and naturally ear- nest and upright mind thus twisting and twisted ! and through such a cause lost to truer and better ends!" Now, although no geologist, I am not satisfied with the method Mr. Miller adopts in reconciling the difficulties he met with. Still, cold must be the heart, aye, degraded the very soul of the man, who could treat with contempt, as the reviewer does all through, Mr. Miller's laborious efforts to save the truth of revelation. He trembled, I can imagine, for the hopes of a world ! He feared lest the very science ho had idolized should quench the beams of the sun of righteousness! A too absorbing 6 devoticn to science had, perhaps, dimmed his faith, until reason reeled as he looked into the awful gloom of a hopeless eternity. And yet the sceptic sneers at such emotions — the ruin of a world but serves to point a jest with him! Verily, "the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." [letter II.] Sir, — It may at first sight seem somewhat strange that one, who acknowledges himself to be no geologist, should attempt to offer any strictures upon a review of a geological treatise. But concerning the science of geo- logy, as I know little, so I have little to say; it is of that ignorance of the true fads of nature, which causes presumptuous men to endeavour to make them appear antagonistic to Revelation, that I speak. The very basis of such antagonism is as illogical as it is impious. It is an acknowledged axiom that it is unnecessary, in order to the establishing of any truth, to be able to meet, or satisfactorily to explain every objection that may be brought against it : that is the prerogative of Omniscience alone, until in eternity He shall be pleased to reveal His " secret things" to us also. At present it ought to be sufficient for us that the objective arguments and facts in its support are clearly and un- answerably proved ; thenceforward no one of rightly constituted mind, or clear intellect, will permit his be- lief in such truth to be shaken, however plausible the mere objections brought against it may appear. More especially will this be so, where the objections are of such a character, that concerning their force or applica- bility, as opposed to the truth in question, the opponent himself can only make a plausible gue-s. Now, this appears to me to be exactly the state of| things with respect to Divine Rbvelation and the objec- tions brought against its reality on the ground of its ap- 1 parent incompatibility with modern geological discove- ries. The former has been proved to be genuine, both by facts and reason, with a power of unanHwerable de- monstration unexampled in the case of any other his- torical or mental truth connected with man. Evident- ly, then, the only consistent, or, indeed possible method of shaking the credibility of Revelation is by disproving the facts, and exposing the fallacy of the reasoning upon which our faith therein is grounded. So long as these remain firm and intact, geologic.il discoveries may pre- sent dilHculties, but, in the nature of things, they can afibrd no real arguments against the truth of the Bible. Thus, for instance, I may raise a score of apparently unanswerable objections against the possibility of a aviu of Louis Napoleon's youthful absurdities, rowdy- ism, and undistinguij-'hed early mental character, tver succeeding to the empire, or manifesting any talent for governing, if on its throne ; but the fact of his being there and proving himself one of the cleverest men in Eu- rope, will, alas for the credit of my intellectu;il acumen ! scatter all my powerful iinpos.sibilitiea to the winds. Precisely so is it with the geological, and other modern puff-ball artillery, with which the impregnable citadel of Christianity is assniied. So long as the objective de- monstrations of its truth are, as they ever must remain, unanswered by its assailants, our hopes continue firm and unshaken as the Eternal Rock upon which they are built. But my principal object in this letter is to oifer a sug* gestion or two upon the pecuhur arrogance, and the shameful want of coi rect princip les of ratiocination, mani- fested in geological scepticism. Geology is avowedly in its infancy as a science, and indeed, must evidently re main soj until that day when we shall know as we are known. For, in very truth, notwithstanding the rapid progress of our age in the material application of the dlffeient sciences, with respect to the secret, almost sacred, principles of them all, we may literally use the words of the Apostle and confess that we " now see I t m I" P ml 8 through a glass darkly." And concerning none of the sciences ii this more entirely true than of geology. How absurd, then, is it to bring forward our twilight glimmer- ings concerning a very small portion of its facts, in the expectation that they will extinguish the clear torch-like blaze of Revelation ! It is without doubt our want of geological know- ledge, rather than its superabundance, that causes geo- ology to present us with so many difficulties. And these difficulties are, I cannot but think, great- ly increased by the eiTorts of some well-intention- ed geologists, whoj like the late talented and pious Hugh Miller, endeavor to interpret the Mosaic account of the commencement of the present orrfier of creation by the very little which geology has yet revealed, or perhaps ever will reveal, concerning the pre- Adamite history of our globe. It is clearly a trial of our faith, and reason- ably so, since we are only required to be content to let *' secret things belong unto the Lord ;" for, be it re- membered, geology brings no facts against the facts of the inspired Mosaic account. !t is only the conjectural reasoning of men upon the facts of geology that makes the difficulty. To me, therefore, it is a matter of great regret that the excellent and gifted Mr. Miller should in his " Testimony of the Rocks," have given a non- natural interpretation to the Mosaic Week in order that, by stretching it over an unlimited series of ages, he might make it take in what appeared to him to have been the order of creation. By so doing, I think hs has fairly laid himself open to the rejoicing sneer of the infidel-hearted Westminster Revieiver, who asks if the Bible is to be subjected, in its plainest statements, to such forced interpretations — " What, in such circum- stances, is the u^e of the book? In its declarations on the most iraporttiut points it may be meaning something totally different," (to its apparent meaning,) '' and of which mankind will get no inkling for thousands ». *" years." 9 To this, I Cufifess, I have no answer to give, if such contortions are ndmissable, as Mr. Miller, and other timid Christian geologists, have used, in order to recon- cile their nece'sarily crude theories with the Bible. No, Sir — I believe that in every case the literal inter- pretation of the Bible, where, according to the ordinary laws of language, it adtnits of a literal interpretation, is the right one. Holy Scripture was not written for geologists, or (ther learned savans, as such ; it was written foi' plain men, in order to aid in making them wise unto salvation. And, for once, I perfectly agree with the Westminster, that if the Bible is to be subjected to the non-natural and forced interpretations of any set of men — I care not whether they be geologists, Ro- manizers, or ultra-Protestants — it becomes, for all prac- tical purposes, useless. But what, then, are we to do ? since we must act, not as mere superstitious votaries, but as those whom God Himself invites to reason upon His doings. The West- minster Reviewers, and even many frightened geological Christians, tell us that the facts of geology clearly dis- prove the Mosaic account of the creation according to its literal interpretation. What, then, I ask again, are we to do? Why, simply deny the fact; refuse to acquiesce in the truth of the assertion ! "yea let God be true, and every man a liar:" and certain it is that geology cannot prove one of its anti-Mosaic statements ; it can only offer what it conceives to be plaicsible conjectures in support of its unbelief. Geology, as a science, I fear- lessly repeat, is itself walking in profound darkness, and shall it presume to usurp the place of Revelation? Idiotic folly ! It is verily the blind seeking t > lead the blind; and if men, wilfully forsaking the light of Reve- lation, will be eo foolish as to follow such guidance, need we to marvel if both the guide and his followers fall into the pit of perdition ? That geological difEcultios (or rather phenomena) ex- ist, which we, on account of our ignorance, can k 10 not explain, is natural ; the marvel would be if it were not so. I am told, Tor instance, that the world must have existed and been inhabited innumerable ages before the creative week, described in the Book of Genesis, commenced. Well, there is nothing there that contradicts this ; the earth, doubtless, was created and again destroyed. But light, air, a separation of earth and water were, it is also said, all necessary to animal existence, and Moses tells us that the formation of these things did not take place until the first week of our pre- sent creation. Well, what proof have we that all this had not once existed and been destroyed, or thrown into chaos ? But light, if indeed it were needed, might have illumined nature without the sun ; the earth might roll through space unconnected with the present plane- tary system ; animal life, reptile or marine, might exist under an organization altogether different to the present. The Reviewer's objection to the above I purpose to notice in my next. iB iii !|! LETTER III. SiR^ — The theory, and I admit that it is little else, propounded in my last, of a pre-existent state of things which by its entiie destruction made way for the present creation, is declared to be untenable because it has been discovered, " Tliat the organic creation recorded by geology was esgeniiallv connected, by a series of per- sistent foasils, with the present order of things". This is indeed a summary method of cutting the Gordian knot ! For, grant that geology has thus proved the connection of the past with the present, what more likely, — what, in fact, could be more completely in accord with what we know by Revelation of the ordinary methods of the Divine procedure — than that, after having brought one phase of creative energy to its own degree of perfection, he should close it up, in order to 11 be if it world )le ages ook of g there created of earth animal ofthese ourpre- all this twn into 1, might th might It plane- ght exist present. rpose to ttle else, of things e present se it has rpcorded es of por- ting the j9 proved hat more letely in ordinary jat, after its own order to make way for what appears, from its connection with the spiritual and eternal, to be His noblest form of material organization ? In a word, to God all things arc possible. And what were the peculiarities of that former " possible" state of things, or what is its true history, geology neither has revealed nor ever can reveal. Geology, as the handmaid of piety, is privileged to un. veil new trophies of the Divine power, fresh wonders of God's inexhaustible wisdom ; but as the opponent of Revelation it is the silliest of dwarfs attacking the grand- est of giants with a sword of bass wood. The Noachian Deluge presents difficulties similp./ to those of geology, especially as respects the capability of the Ark to contain the vast variety of species of beasts and birds, which modern science has shewn to exist. The Reviewer, therefore, would weakly deny the fact of the flood, on the ground of his not understanding the how. I say " weakly," for it is the common resort of feebleness of mind to deny, in the face of the clearoat evidence, what it cannot un dersiand. But the way in which Hugh Miller gets over the difiicult^ by supposing, in common with some others, that the deluge was only partial, again lays him open to the sneers of his opponenh Here, again, I must agree with the Reviewer that the language of Scripture, fairly interpreted, allows of no question as to the univer- sality of the Deluge. How then are we to get over the difficulties of the size of the Ark, the distribution of its inmates to their various climates, &c. 1 I see no need of getting over them. The fact of the Deluge and its at- tendant circumstances being proved upon irrefragable evidence, its difficulties belong to Him to Whom " all things are possible." But yet it may admit, I imagine, of a doubt whether it is not quite reasonable to suppose that the variety of species may have greatly increased, from natural causes, since the Flood. 12 M. i! f HI ■J ifc' ■■f ■«" il But our sceptical philosophers quite lo^e sight of one great principle of christian ethics, namely, that miracles, — that is the Divine interference with the usual order of His own works, whenever such interference tends to His own glory or to the benefit of His creatures, — are no breach of the Divine economy, but in exact accord- ance with its known, because revealed, principles. Miracles form, indeed, a law of the Uivine procedure, the fitness of which singularly recommends itself to right reason. It is the knowledge of this law of miracidous interference, which greatly aids the consistent believer in trusting the Almighty where He cannot trace His footsteps, or clearly see how to reconcile His word and works. For men who have the largest amount of faith, (cre- dulity!) upon the smallest degree of evidence, commend me, not to the Romish devotee, but to the sceptical phi- losopher. Thus, let there be the most shadowy proba- bility of some geological conformation, which apparent- ly tends to throw discredit upon Christianity, and it is immediately pronounced to be a fact, in the presence of which Christianity must fall, like Dagon before the Ark ! I should, for instance, much like to know from those rationally, because Christianly, learned in Geology, whether the assertion that the Trilobites of the Palaeo- zoic period had eyes suited to the present organization of light, be not one of those easy acts of faith or credu< lity to which I have alluded; being adopted because it appears to militate against the Scriptural account of the origin of light. I have already stated that the existence of light, or even of a sun, previoustothe Mosaic creation, would present no difHculty to my reason in its uudoubt- ing reception of the Bible as a Divine Revelation; but I ask the question, because it seems to me that the exact nature of the eyes of these trilobites must have beeii taken marvellously upon trust. Since, though their or- ganic remains may be abundant in a fossil state, I can scarcely think that the delicate coatings of the eye, with j ^. Int under ed fal pharis purpo Bunse antagc in wl the pi earth and at libe book, To th theref of hot princi ceuce, of the and un Egypt, langua compli not 8U( )U^ 4i? t of one niracles, order of tends to •es, — are ; accord- :inciples. ocedure, f to right iracrdous believer race His word and 13 its still more subtile fluids, have been so wondrously preserved throughout the mighty convulsions oi nature for a thousand ages, that in these last days the anatomist and the optician can, at least with due regard to their own professional reputation, decide, with the reckless fearlessness assumed by the Reviewer, upon the exact relation which this most delicate organ bore to light, or its equivalent, in the awful past of nature's remotest dy- nasties. Verily, it appears to me that the good old woman, who declared that she could believe that Jonah swallowed the whale, if the Bible said so, knew nothing of the power of faith, when compared with these learn- ed sceptical geologists! lith, (cre- :ommend )tical phi- vy proba- apparenl- and it is esence of the Ark ! om those Geology, le Palseo- anization or credu- lecause it unt of the existence 3 creation, uudoubt- tion; but the exact ave been 1 their or- ate, I can eye, with In the number of the Westminster Review (July) now under notice, there is another striking instance of learn- ed fallacious arrogance; and of whar. appears to be Pharisaic, sceptical humility, for the sake of serving a purpose. That arch-enemy of the faith, Chevalier Bunsen, nas lately published a work on Egypt, antagonistic to the integrity of Holy Scripture; in which, amongst other speculations, he assumes the probability of our race having been on this earth for upwards of twenty thousand years, and then modestly intimates that no one is at liberty to condemn his theories, who has not read his book, and is not, also, deeply learned in Egyptian lore! To this the reviewer meekly assents, and declines, therefore, to criticise the work. But mark the cunning of both the Chevalier and the reviewer. For if the principles they thus lay down, with such apparent inno- cence, be correct, the evidences of our Christianity and of the truth of its Volume of Inspiration, are so feeble and uncertain, that, unless we have read the work on Egypt, and are, in addition, thoroughly versed in the language and antiquities of that country, we musi be completely at sea as to whether Chevalier Bunsen has not succeeded in entirely uprooting their foundations. 14 !fti II ■B I !tl ir 11 Out upon such pretentious insolence, from whomsoever it comes .' If our faith vrere, indeed, thus at the mercy of the brightest intellect that God ever made, it were not worth the preserving ! But the illogical impudence of such men, apart from their wickedness, excites one's deepest scorn. Let them at least shake the walls that surround the revela- tion of God's eternal truth and mercy, before they so conceitedly and ignorantly attempt to lay them in the dust with their very small artillery. Let, I say. Cheva- lier Bunsen, the Westminster Eeview, et id genus omne, manfully endeavor to disprove the truth of revelation, and of our faith as founded thereupon, by shaking the positive evidences upon which they are based; such as the testimony of profane history, miraculous facts, church iuHtitutions, holy traditions, and the mighty spiritual effects produced by Christianity ; and when these are undermined, but not till then, we may be pre- pared to listen to the negative possible objections, by which, through a great stretch of in6del credulity even then, our hopes of salvation may be assailed. But to conclude this letter with one word. — It does seem to me that so long as I believe in a God I must also believe in Christianity, and in the simple and literal truthfulness of that Revelation on which it is so largely founded ; until, at least, scepticism shall oflfer me a system more worthy of the Divine perfection!^, and more full of blessedness to man. And this feeling of holy confidence is irrespective of those positive arguments for its truth, which when men or devils shall succeed in shp'iing, the pillars of Heaven itself may tremble. It is high time that Christian men more thoroughly understood that reason is not elevated, but rather dishonoured, by doubting, and that a whole legion of negative difficulties ought to have no power to disturb the faith of one whose religion, if rightly under- stood, will abundantly enable him to give " a reason of the hope " that is in him. Difficulties are the \ery 15 atmosphere of faith : we must not expect in this life to "know even as also we are known." And I repeat, in conclusion, the assertion, that scepticism never provbd one fact that was in opposition to the facts stated in the Book of God. LETTER IV. Sir, — I must once more trespass on your patience, as I wish to make a few remarks on the difficulties attend- ing Mr. Hugh Miller's attempt to reconcile the Mosaic Creation week with the theories of modern geologists. Mr. MiPer takes the ground that as Revelation was no more intended to teach geology than astronomy, the opponents of his theories are to be placed in the same category with the unwise theological persecutors of Galileo, Columbus, &c. But in this he confounds things which are essentially different. The Bible does not undertake to instruct us in the mysteries of the Solar System : it merely speaks of the sun, moon, and stars, as Mr. Miller himself well remarks, just ns the almanack does, in that common phraseology which represents their relations to us. But yet I much question, whether the Jewish and Christian world got their former notions of the earth being an extended plain, and so forth, from the Bible ; its language by no means necessarily involv- ing such errors ; these ideas were rather derived, I imag- ine, from ancient secular philosophy, to which Biblical phraseology was unwittingly accommodated in the minds of its readers. We readily grant, therefore, on the same principles, that, as the Sacred Volume is not a geological treatise, the organic history and conformation of our globe is a fair subject of scientific research and theory. But what revelation profettes to state as historic truth, must be under' stood according to the received language and ideas of the people to whom the revelation was made, oi it would cease to be reliable testimony ; and thus becoming a mere vol- ri ■I |ii i 'if i i ill i in 16 nme of guess work, in respect of its interpretation, it would consequently be valueless as a record of Divine truth and mercy. Whether the history of Creation as at present organ- ized, was given to Moses in a vision, as Mr. Miller and others suppose, or by direct communication, is of little importance : its literal accuracy is the question ; but yet from the distinct declaration of Jehovah to Aaron and Miriam concerning the honour He put upon Moses, when He said : " With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently and not in dark speeches," I can come to no other conclusion, notwithstanding the special pleading in " The Testimony of the Rocks," than that the history of Creation was so given to him, immediately by God himself. Now nothing can be more plain, simple, and didac- tic than the account given in the book of Genesis o^ the creation of the heavens, the earth, and its inhabitants, as they at present exist. And this account Jehovah so- lemnly repeated, writing it with his own finger upon the two tables of stone, amidst the awful solemnities of Mount Sinai. And here, let it be remembered, that " words are but signs of our ideas, " and that conse- quently they cease to be true, when they cease correctly to represent those ideas. Now, what would the people of Israel understand ; what, in fact, have all men under- stood, till warped by a floundering philosophy, from this week of six days, and its seventh of holy rest — but the universal week of Judiaism, and of Christianity 7 Hence as Jehovah — the God of Truth — could not use language designing it to convey a deceptive sense to His hearers, I cannot avoid the conclusion that the Mosaic week of the Creation was a natural week. Miller and his friends, suggest, however, that Moses ^poke after the manner of the later prophets, who gener- ally use natural periods to indicate long prophetic dates. But they ignore this all important difference, that the prophets were not writing history ; and the people 17 ition, It Divine t organ- . Miller on, is of uestion ; ovah to put upon k mouth eeches," iding the Rocks," ito him, nd didac- enesis of habitants, hovah so- ger upon mnities of sred, that at conse- correctly le people en under- from this —but the 7 Hence language is hearers, E week of lat Moses rho gener- etic dates, that the le people \ whom they addressed doubtless understood that the days aLd weeks mentioned were prophetic and not na- tural periods ; and again a certain degree of obscurity was absolutely requisite in their case, as otherwise the prophecies might have been said to procure their own fulfilment ; and thus one of their great objects — the proof of the Divine prescience— have been defeated. Evi- dently then, their position and that of Moses in his ac- count of Creation, were not at all parallel. His theme was history, his object to impress the Jews, and thence mankind at large, with a deep sense of the Divine Ma- jesty, power and goodness, and the high original motive for the institution of the Sabbath; here there was no call for obscurity ; on the contrary, the plamer the de- tails the more likely was the object aimed at to be gain, ed ; and hence, as we see, the language could not be simpler; nor could there be a more complete absence of anything to intimate that the terms day and week were not used in their natural sense. And further, notwithstanding all the efforts used to reconcile the employment of an indefinite geological period in the present organization of things with the motive assigned by the Most High for setting apart the seventh day and making it a day of holy rest, I must think them a signal failure. To my moral perceptions there js something very painfully repugnant, in supposing, that the Eternal, after being an incalculable number of ages in bringing creation to perfection, should then, in the firstpauae of His operations, represent to us that He had been only^thus engaged six natural days, and make that the ground of demanding that the seventh day should be set apart as a day of holy rest, so long as time should last, in commemoration of that supposed six days of creative energy. There is,however, no such objection to the idea that our globe itself, and, if you will, the countless systems by which it is surrounded, had beea in existence innumerable ages, and that afler returning, perhaps repeatedly, to chaos, whatever that may be, they were once more called into joyous existence during the 18 m m I '» iS ii f '¥ m ! 1 •is days by recreative Diviae power, as narrated in the Book of Geneiis. Nay, ifone scientifically ignorant of Greology might pretend to offer a geological suggestion, it would be that the foregoing supposition is the only one consistent with the recent discoveries in the science itself; since between the various geological eras the connection appears so slight, as to indicate that each one of them toaa a recreation ; the Mosaic account being simply the history of the last and most perfect, to which indeed all the rest tended. Not without reason, also, does the Westminster RevieVir- er sneer at the spasmodic efforts made by Hugh Miller, and those who think with him, to reconcile their theory of a partial Noachian Flood with the plain and strong language of Scripture, and the almost certain previous universal diffusion of the human family. The Reviewer of course, rejoices in the theory of a partial Deluge, because, if true, it gives, in despite of all that Mr. Miller can say to the contrary, awful force to his sceptical attacks upon the credibility of Revelation. With respect to the Flood, as it, like the story of Creation was a matter of history, so Moses concerning it also professes to give a plain detail of the facts of the case ; and here there can be none of the mistaken of eyewitnesses, since he wrote under Divine direction; for not even Noah could have been bold enough to use the unequivocally universal language, concerning the Flood, which is used by Moses, as personally he could only have witnessed a very small portion of its effects. And then the strong expresson of St. Peter surely sets the teaching of Scripture on the matter at rest, when, after speaking of the earth at large, as part of it being in the water and part out of the water, when in its natural state, be adds, " Whereby the worldthat then was, being overflowed with water, perished ;" and he proceeds to compare the flood with that universti destruction by fire of the heavens and the earth, which is hereafter 19 to Uke place. To such plain declarations as the above, it is surely superfluous to add, in proof of the univers- ality of the flood, the fact of the large, and therefore necessarily diff'usive population of the world ; oalcu- lated by some, as being, from the great age to which men lived, six tinaes as numerous as at present. Mr. Miller finds it difiicult to meet this, but suggests that men were so wicked that they had nearly depopulated the world by their wars and crimes! But even if so, the greater reason is there to suppose that the remnunta would not be all found near the same spot ; and if some were scattered in Asia, some in Europe and Aflrica, or even in America, the Deluge must still have been uni- versal in otdw to reaoh them all. Again, the natural cause which Mr. Miller assigns for even his supposed partial Flood is diametrically opposed to the Scriptural one. He attributes it to the sinking of the earth ; the Scriptures, on the contrary, most emphatically to " the fountains of the great deep being broken up, and the windows of heaven being opened," and pouring forth their torrents of rain ; until, not as Miller con- jectures, the earth sank, but, as Moses repeats at least three times, " the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth ;" or as St. Peter, so many ages after, declares, " they overflowed the earth that then was." It will perhaps be said, that I have not met the difii- culties that oppose themselves to the idea of a universal Noichian Deluge. That was not my object ; those difiicul- ties I do not fear, they doubtless arise from our own want of knowledge. But I solemnly protest against any be- liever in Revelation attempting to undermine its truth, by such lawless interpretations, as those upon which poor Hugh Miller, and men of his Geological school, have so recklessly ventured. Either their warping and twisting of Revelation is most thoroughly unwarrantable, or the foundations of our faith are gone. No portion of Holy Wru is safe, if such principles of interpretation are once admitted, — the story of Redeeming love may be 20 ||h- reiolved into an allegory, and the Blesied Spirit, oar only hope of sanctification, declared to be a myth. In fine, however, I may just observe, that to me it seems that most of the difficulties which appear to surround the question of the Deluge arise from the want of a reasonable faith. For instance, why may we not suppose that the different species of the same ani- mals have, from a variety of causes, greatly multiplied since the deluge 7 Do the different species of the bull, the lion, the sheep, &c., vary more the one from the other than the Oancasian from the Hottentot 7 And yet Christian geologists find little difficulty in supposing that these last are descended from one common parent- age. And if the number of the spftcies can be thus re- duced, the objections as respects both their having to travel far to assemble at the ark, as in such case the ori- ginal species might be found near it, and their accommo- dations in it, are met. Then as to the difficulties attending their dispersion tu their natural localities, I can see none but what equally apply to the fact of their being so dis- persed, even if there had been no flood ; for still the question returns, How did they get to their present localities 7 Indeed one or two facts by which Geology corrobo' rates Revelation, should teach reasonable men faith as regards the rest. I refer to the truth to which Mr. Miller beautifully alludes, as being proved by geology,— tAat all things had a beginning. And to the yet more strik- ing fact, that up to the Mosaic period of the Creation, no records of man are found ; his footsteps are as yet un- seen! I thankfully repeat th&n, with renewed confidence, "Let God be true, though every man a liar." iif 21 THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION. LETTER V. SiE, — I only last evening saw your "daily," contain- ing the letter of my friendly opponent J. C. P. ; whom I thank for his very kindly personal appreciation. But as you wish to eschew controversy on the subject to which his letter refers, I will only trouble you with a brief reply. I have carefully examined Hugh Miller's " Testimony of the Rocks," and while I quite appreciate the earnest- ness of his spirit, the beauty of his diction, and the ability displayed in his investigations, I deeply regret, both for the sake of his own peace of mind, and the good of others, what I must consider his unwarrantable wresting of God's Holy Word; Had he been trained with feelings of more reverent respect for the authori- tative interpretations of the Church as the "witness and keeper of Holy Writ," I cannot but think that it would have been happier both for himself and his readers. With respect to the "expressions found in God's Word :— " The Day of God, " The Day of the Lord, "A thousand two hundred and three score days, "Seventy weeks," &c., &c., Quoted by your correspondent, and with which Mr. Miller seeks to confound the " week " of creation, the answer is simple. And though I have already attempted to give it in my fourth letter, I will, at the hazard of a little repetition, make one or two further observations, in the hope of strengthening my position. 22 I :3 '■■■I i'i» 3'' t:i,.i|! '- t The above expressions were so evidently used in a metaphorical or typical sense, and in stich entire ac- cordance with the symbolic teaching common to the periods in which they were written, that it is probable they were never misunderstood by competent persons. With the "six days" of the Book of Genesis it is, however, altogether different. Moses was professedly giving a plain historical account of Creation as at pre- sent existing in its relations to man; and, as though anticipating the glosses of these last times, he marks the days of creation, beyond the possibility of unpr^u- diced questioning, as common days, by mentioning their successive ** mornings " and " evenings ;" and then, by Divine command, draws from the cessation of work at the end of these six ordinary days, the obligation of observing every ordinary seventh day, ac one of rest and of holiness to the Lord. The Israelites, therefore, could not, any more than common-sense men amongst oui'selves, have understood the days of creation as other than natural days. And indeed, if they were not so, what was Moses but a deceiver alike to them and us ? But, if contrary to all the laws of language, we are to understand the week of creation as being composed of days of almost unlimited duration, then we must of necessity apply the same rule to the Fourth Command- ment, since it is entirely based upon the Mosaic account of creation. Hence its six days of labor become six vast epochs of time, each comprising many ages, during which the successive generations of men are to work without any special periods being appointed for rest or worship, imtil, at the end of these six epochs, a seventh period — an eternity perhaps — is to be ushered in, and devoted to enjoyment and to the service of Almighty God! Will J. C. D. accept this as a true interpretation of the Fourth Commandment and its Seventh Holy day ? 23 x\nd yet it appears to me to be the only one consistent with the modern geologico-religious theory. • If the Sacred Scriptures are thus to be tortured by private interpretations, contrary to all the teaching of Christ's Holy Catholic Church in its purest, and per- haps most inspired ages, what is to prevent the dogmas of transubstantiation, purgatory, the papacy, &c., be- coming fearfully prevalent amongst those who are seek- ing unity upon almost any terms ? Or, on the other hand, what is to be our protection against the insidious attacks of our sceptical and rationalistic foes upon the Divinity of our Blessed Lord, the existence of the Holy Ghost, the eternity of rewards and punishment, the validity of the Holy Sacraments, &c., &c. ? Since only once admit the lax principles of interpretation sanc- tioned by the unfortunate Miller and his well-meaning compeers, and the Bible will cease to be a " stumbling- stone" to the Romanist, or a "rock of offence" to the rationalist and the infidel. LETTER VI. Sir, — Since writing the foregoing 1 iters, I received the September number of Blackwood's Magazine^ and regret to see that in an article entitled " The Book and the Rocks," it cordially endorses Mr. Miller's theory that each of the Mosaic six days of creation embraces an incalculable number of ages. It does not, however, advance much that is new in argument, being little more than an echo of" The Testimony of the Rocks." Still, with your permission, I will briefly notice some of its statements. I quite agree with the writer, and Mr. Miller, that the supposition of Dr. Pye Smith that the Mosaic account of creation is concerned with only a small portion of the earth's surface, — is quite untenable, opposed alike to Revelation and science. # 24 ¥ P-^ L:i .if But I also think that the admissions of both Mr. Miller and Blackwood themselves, as well as the argu- ments jf their opponents, prove that their assertion that the "geologic periods agree with the Mosaic days in order and number,^' is based on e::ceedingly fanciful grounds, and strained contrary to the facts of the case, in order to support a favorite theory. In proof of this, let your readers carefully note the admissions of these writers, and then read the article in the Westminster Review which first occasioned these letters. But if I am correct in this idea, then the whole of Mr. Miller's theory falls to the ground as " the baseless fabric of a vision.** The saying of St. Peter that " one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," is quoted in support of Hugh Miller, by his admirer in Blackwood. But the quotation is beside the mark ; the argument of the Apostle simply being that God can accomplish His moral designs in the world without reference to time. While our controversy is concerning the right of geologists to give a non-natural import to the language which Jehovah has addressed to men, in cases where He Himself has not given the slightest intimation that He was using common language in other than in its o>'dinary meaning. The principal argument adduced in " The Book and the Rocks'' which I have not already noticed in my pre vious letters, is a very singular one, namely, — that "if the day of the Creator's rest be a long period of time," (as the writer supposes is the case,) "so must also be the six days of His work!" Upon this fancied seguitur he lays a very triumphant stress, saying, " The retort is complete and unanswerable." Whereas to me it ap- pears ponitively puerile. Surely the writer does not suppose that the term " rest" is applicable to the Crea- tor in the same sense that it would be to a. man who had been engaged in arduous labour? In fact, for ought that we know, works of creation may be going on 26 table. Th,me.j;X°f" "'^r''''' ""yP"- the last ,u day. He bJbZ "" '" '"'i"'' f" for h» .„„ c„„f„„, ;„ " "f„ "■'' S";""". .0 God .„d K/'Jy- %"««».e«ir°',«Ue7 "" «'^«""> pr"" ^'•~»-. -e;r:j; r.^;.f h .ha. .he SereTe^ dT^^VJ" "'"" '"«'■' '^» «"" .0 atrengihen 4, ^.a^e ''t i, r" ' '5* """■"'»" ^'racier of the oU,er Z^ " *"""■ ""^ "■• '"«"! W'of ceatio.,^',^ *i'',7« •'■er. being .he' h». •■> order to preven7.I.T r ^ """^"^ " »«"«' Koe, is „„„ rj"" "■;■•• -«» Perveraion, aa.fo, V "eo-e i while the SeveU nft •*""' '" " '""'•°«'"- I' e,o.liy liable .. StoA'^^"* "o »f "e. waa )' la., day „f ti,e Z!! ? °°- ^nd beaide., J>th of loviag kmdaS~L ^ ^"^ " » """drone "ending perhap, f L. "T"'"" ""^"H'VPhs, " PoaUive ,ev^,.«,r "tnir."' ' "•""" ""'» m; «'«, becaoae there i,r„,,i, """^dingly K.»ch -viaion." Which ?fc "'*.'"'""■"»»" "in, o/St. John. „h;„ ,"t tit?-,*'"""^ " '" «" b le« .hen i, U,er. .LT .' ""*" '" "'' «"»Ple i k: -hiie, .„ *e" he7h.sr.h':;r''"* " "■"»«• t>«fon. M I have «„.j b.?! Z"r°T """ •■■ DBiore, that God apoka in :S w n !i it: 1:1 I 26 all His revelations to Moses, face to face, as a man with his friend. But this trifling with Holy Writ is further distressing, because we must after all return to the fact that the Divine Intelligence is responsible for the truth- ful accuracy of the narrative according to the common method of interpreting human language, whatever might be methods by which it was imparted to Moses, or, — the Book of Genesis is a fable ! Thus, let any unprejudiced person say, after reading the account of the fourth day's creation of the sun moon and stars, whether human language can convey any facts in clearer or plainer terms 7 Yet of this state- ment of the Book of Genesis, the article in question says : *' This is optical not astronomical truth" ! I fancy I can see the quiet sneer of the Weatminater on reading such a defence of , the holy literal truth of that volume, on the fact of whose unassailable truth all our dearest hopes depend. And this cavilling is certainly most uncalled for; as the account of the heavenly bodies is literally and *' astronomically " correct, Blacheood I to the contrary^ notwithstanding, when considered in; their relations and influences upon our earth ; — and : this it was, of course, the legitimate object of the sacred] historian to state. But what, indeed, is there to prevent our supposing,] if geology seems to demand it, that a planetary systemj or systems, had existed, and been destroyed, before tbe| creation of the present solar system, described by Mc ses as taking place on the fourth day 7 or, might it noli possibly be their re-organization from a state of chaos 1 These suppositions are surely more reverential, than tol imagine that when God says He **made two greaij lights," He only means that He cleared avmy the mUW and fogs which hid them from sight ! And yet this iij what Mr. Miller al!id Blackwood wjuld have us to be lieve. The whole of these efforts to bend the Mosaic aej count to the 5u/)po50(2 discoveries of geological scieno II' 27 give painful evidence of a want of reasonable faith.-^ Good men have unwittingly permitted their love of sci- ence to over-ride their love of faith ; for though all, as respects the when and how of geology, is guess work, yet in order to make the word of God succumb to its rude uncertainties, His Truth has been tortured into something so like " a lie" that religion vails her face in shame. It is pleasant, however, where one finds so much to deplore, to be able to speak in terms of high gratification ofthe able manner in which both Mr. Miller and the writer of " the Book and the Rocks " place in bold relief the complete refutation which the recent dis- coveries in the science of geology have given to the sceptical conceits of the eternity oj the world, the ir^finite succession of the human race, die. In earnest and glow- ing language they rejoicingly show how entirely in harmony are geology and Holy writ on these impor- tant points. And this they do mthout any unholy strain- ing of the divine veracityi What a pity it is that they could not also have trusted Eternal Truth where geolo- gy does not speak, but only as yet utters moU uncertain sounds. The necessary brevity of these letters compels me to conclude, content with rather suggesting reflection than elaborating argument. I finish, therefore, with one hint, — that the present infancy of the science of geology should cause its christian votaries, while they steadily pursue their researches, and fearlessly proclaim their discovered facts, — for the Infinite stands in no need of the adroit fencing of poor human wit to defend either His natural or revealed truth, — at the same time to let their faith " stand still," assured that in this thing also, they shall one day "see the selvation of God;" and doubtless they will then greatly marvel that they should ever have trembled lest God should not be able to <* vindicate his ways to man." u