The Monthly Review

2. Scriptural Geology, or an Essay on the High Antiquity ascribed to the Organic Remains Imbedded in Stratified Rocks. By the REV. GEORGE YOUNG, D.D, 2nd. Edition. Simpkin and Marshall.

THE authors before us are widely divided,-are in fact directly opposed, upon the subjects indicated by our running title, Mr. Gibson ranging himself under the banner of the Geologists, and the Reverend Doctor standing up strenuously for the Mosaic account, according to its literal sense as given in our English Bibles.

Now, it may be thought that on questions which have excited of late years so much keen controversy as those referred to, and so soon after our notice of Dr. Pye Smith's work on the relation between the Holy Scriptures and some parts of Geological Science, we might have allowed the present volumes to pass with the slightest mention of the views which they generally urge, especially as we do not discover in Mr. Gibson's any very novel arguments on the more important grounds of difference; while in Dr. Young's smaller work, we have but a second edition of what appeared two years ago; with an appendix, however, containing animadversions on Dr. Smith's work. But it is right that a champion on each side should be heard together, when the points at issue are of such magnitude as those belonging to a science which ranks next to that of astronomy, and, on the other hand, as is supposed by many pious persons, when the very foundations of our religious faith are being undermined by the advocates of geological theories. We therefore take advantage of the present opportunity to place before our readers a few of the more striking arguments repeated or advanced by the combatants before us; although, after having so recently reviewed Dr. Smith's work, we need not at any very considerable VOL. I. (1841.) no. 1.

length accompany Mr. Gibson, seeing that he takes pretty nearly the same path as that pursued by the reverend gentleman last mentioned; not as a follower, we are informed in the preface, for nearly the whole of the Essay" had been written before the publication of Dr. Smith's work, which the author had not the good fortune to read until within the last few weeks, nor did he ever attend or read reports of the Rev. Dr. Smith's lectures on the subject."

In an introductory chapter Mr. Gibson, whose enthusiasm is rather verbose, asserts the high claims which Geology has in the range of science. Next we have a general view of the nature, the objects, and the relations of Geological research; its tendency in a theological sense being here as in many other passages of the book rated very high. We then have a summary of the Geological discoveries "which establish the high antiquity of the earth;" and hence a far more remote beginning than the era supposed to be fixed by the sacred narrative. After this the Mosaic record is subjected to the tests which natural phenomena, reason, interpretation or philology, and analogy supply. The Noachian flood in due course is the theme; after which we have a Summary of the arguments by which the consistency of Geology and Revelation is established," which we quote entire.

The consistency of the results established in Geology with the doctrines of Revelation seem, it is said by Mr. Gibson, to be as follows:

"That upon certain points, with regard both to the doctrine of the Creation and of the Deluge, the generally received interpretation of the Mosaic text can no longer be entertained consistently with the facts established in Geology, and must therefore be abandoned, but that it is susceptible of altered interpretation, and that for many considerations, it is clearly liable to correction, by the ascertained results of scientific investigations in the actual phenomena of the globe.

That such correction does not in the least involve the authority of the Holy Scriptures, because a construction which renders the Mosaic narrative perfectly consistent with the language of the globe, may fairly, and without doing violence to the meaning and context of the narrative, be adopted: or any hesitation should be felt in receiving an altered interpretation, then there are strong reasons for concluding that upon these particular subjects, the history interwoven in the book of Genesis, is not possessed of that character 'which could give importance to every point of discrepancy or coincidence between its statements and the phenomena of nature.

"That we may so conclude without casting the slightest impeachment on the sacred writings.

"That with regard to the extent to which the received interpretation must be altered, we find,

"First, as to the doctrine of the Creation-that the researches of Geology confirm the testimony of Scripture to the fact that all created things ori

ginated in the fiat of Omnipotence; that the creation of man was last in order in the great work, the human race having become tenants of the globe at a comparatively recent period; and established societies having began. to be formed, at an epoch, no further distant, in all probability, than that assigned by the Mosaic text.

"That consequently, it is only as to the periods comprehended by the expression the beginning,' and by the days' of creation, that the received. interpretation has to be adapted to the testimony of the globe. And that the only point therefore requiring reconciliation is one in which the inconsistency can be obviated by a change of construction, a change which is fairly warranted by the text."

Mr. Gibson refers to the interpretations put upon the beginning of Genesis by Drs. Chalmers, Buckland and others; and upon the "days" of creation. But to go on with his summary:

"Second, as to the doctrine of the Deluge-that although the phenomena of the globe infallibly testify that frequent changes in the relative situations of land and sea have taken place, and that the submersion by the waters, of land previously existing above their surface, has been for periods of lengthened duration, and that these changes have been accompanied by circumstances relating to organic life, which prove their occurrence at distinct intervals of time; yet, that these facts do not disprove the occurrence of the tranquil inundation described in the Mosaic narrative, because, on a comparison of their respective characters,-indicated as regards the geological deluges by the Phenomena of nature, and as regards the Noachian Deluge by the statements of the Mosaic record,—the events cannot be identified with each other in any respect.

"That the very character assigned to the Noachian Flood by the sacred ས ་ historian precludes us from expecting to find in nature any marks of its occurrence; our belief in it, therefore, rests upon the Mosaic record, as fully and independently as our conviction of the revolutions to which the globe has been subjected, rests upon the phenomena disclosed in geological investigations.

"That such anterior revolutions occurred in periods of which nothing could have been known to mankind, but by means of geological induction; and consequently, that the silence of the Mosaic narrative as to their occurrence, is not surprising; and besides, such events were foreign to the subject of those sacred records which were destined to reveal the moral obligations of the human race.

"That there are strong reasons for considering the introductory portion of the Mosaic text to admit of the construction, that great anterior periods, subsequent to the original creation of the world, are left undefined, unnoticed, and unlimited by the text.

"That consequently, the proofs adduced in Geology, that the Noachian Flood was not the only event of the kind that even affected the globe, do not impeach the veracity of the Mosaic text.

"That the assumed universality of the Noachian Flood is not disproved by conclusions established in Geology alone; but that considerations arising

« Ankstesnis Tęsti »

Knygos