Geology in Its Relation to Revealed Religion

Introductory remarks-Progress of science-Astronomy-Principles applicable to science, inapplicable to Faith-Geology in reference to Scripture-Scripture interpretation-Natural sciences not the subject of Scripture-Scripture facts; figurative meaning-The creation-Compatibility of science and religion-Indefinite length of the days of creation-Origin of geological data-Geological principles misapplied.-Utility of Geology.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

WHEN novel theories in science seem to contradict the written word of God, timid Christians are alarmed, and infidels exult in the vain anticipation of triumph. But fears for the truths of religion, and delusive hopes of its overthrow, are alike groundless. An All-wise and Omnipotent God could never have revealed what science should subsequently falsify. The infidel can have no reason to glory, nor the Christian to apprehend; for whether the new opinions be true or false, they invariably serve to confirm revelation. If true, they tend to increase the sum of our proofs in favour of Christianity; if false, the truths of Scripture shine forth with renewed brilliancy and lustre, like the sun emerging from the clouds, in all the blaze of his meridian splendour.

In every department of human art or science, the progress to perfection is slow and gradual. Man attains not his object at once; progressive steps lead to its final accomplishment. We should not, then, be surprised if, in his attempts to explain the phenomena of nature, he is deceived and frequently errs. But it is, indeed, remar

kable, that men of high intellectual attainments should, in many instances, be the abettors of the most absurd theories; and, indeed, of such theories, philosophers, in all ages, have been the strenuous supporters. They devise systems to harmonise with their own preconceived opinions, and these systems are, in their turn, overthrown by others, sometimes less absurd, but generally not less erroneous. Truth may, however, be the final result, as the history of astronomy so strikingly exemplifies. System succeeded system for centuries. The complicated epicycles of Ptolemy, and the long-exploded system of Tycho Brahé, were invented to explain the phenomena of the heavens. The Copernican system, and the discoveries of Newton and Herschel, followed; and though, at first, philosopher was opposed to philosopher, and the pastors of the Church differed in their astronomical opinions, yet the contending parties were reconciled, the written word of God was inviolably preserved, the truths of astronomy admitted, and the Copernican system, so long advocated by Galileo, finally established.

The novel opinions introduced by Copernicus and Galileo, about the beginning of the sixteenth century, occasioned alarms similar to those now felt about the discoveries in geology. The motion of the earth, and the quiescence of the sun, seemed to many, then, as much opposed to the literal meaning of Scripture, as the deductions from

It may be well to notice a dangerous error into which the unwary may be betrayed, as it has many advocates eminent for literary acquirements: principles strictly correct when applied to arts and sciences, may be the reverse as regards faith. Progressive steps bring man's work to perfection; in faith, such is not the case. Man's limited faculties compel him, as it were, to attain his object by gradual advances. A God-man has founded a Church and given a law which must be unchanged and unchangeable. His works cannot, like those of man, be liable to improvements. A fixity of character marks the works of God; constant fluctuation is the characteristic of man's inventions. It is, therefore, an error to imagine that perpetual variations in faith lead to the truths of religion. The very reverse is the fact: one error in faith begets another still greater; nor is there any security in doctrine, save in that one true faith which the Son of God himself has revealed.

geological discoveries seem now to the Mosaic account of the creation. Explaining the text, in the former case, by the apparent motion of the sun and the absolute motion of the earth, reconciled Scripture and astronomy. Explaining the Mosaic narrative, in the latter case, by admitting the days of creation to be indefinite portions of time, not natural days, as the text would seem to imply, has been adopted by many to reconcile Scripture and geology.

Whether geological discoveries absolutely require such an interpretation, is as yet the point at issue. Some hold this interpretation as indispensable to geology; others believe the literal meaning compatible with all the discoveries hitherto made in the science. But were the facts of geology such as to require the figurative meaning of the text, that figurative meaning might be adopted consistently with the Catholic principle of Scripture interpretation, without sacrificing one article of faith, or relinquishing an iota of Catholic doctrine.

Certain portions of Scripture admit of various interpretations; other parts can only be understood in the figurative sense to several passages the literal meaning alone is applicable. The sacred volume is not a treatise on natural science; it sometimes speaks popularly, and adapts its language to circumstances. How unintelligible, we may add, how absurd, would it have been to address an illiterate people in words calculated to convey the idea of the sun's fixity, and of the earth's annual or diurnal motion! How strange to a person ignorant of the architecture of the heavens to hear motion ascribed to the moon, and quiescence to the sun, when to his untutored mind both appear subservient to the same law! How few are there, even now, to whom such language would not be a mystery? Had Josue spoken of the sun and moon in the language of modern astronomy, every sentence would have been a paradox even to the most learned of the Jewish doctors. Popular language, therefore, and popular language only, should be used in Scripture wherever questions of physical science are introduced.

« Previous Continue »

Books