Geology in Its Relation to Revealed Religion

THE following work is not intended as a regular treatise on Geology, nor does it add new discoveries to those already made in this infant science: its objects are, however, important. It distinguishes useful and interesting knowledge, from idle and absurd speculations; divests scientific truths of every semblance of fable and romance; substitutes arguments founded on reason and religion, for theories based upon vague and insufficient data; and elevates to its legitimate position among modern branches of popular knowledge, a science hitherto of no good repute, on account of the irreligious purposes to which it has been perverted.

In these pages, the erroneous opinions of geologists are refuted, without impugning the rational inferences drawn from geological facts; the line of demarcation is carefully traced between just, legitimate deductions, and opinions founded on mere possibilities; discrepant theories are so contrasted as to make it appear that no one of them possesses those characters by which any system, having truth or consistency for its basis, can be recognised; and every effort is made to disarm that hostility which, with much apparent justice, has generally existed against this useful and interesting branch of knowledge.

Geology has, for several years, engaged the attention of the learned, and numerous theories have been devised to explain its phenomena. Systems have been framed to accord with the preconceived notions of philosophers; every fossil is made the subject of some new hypothesis; and all this to establish the "immeasurable age of our planet," and the countless lapse of ages through which animals and vegetables are supposed to have existed. It may be well to observe here, that no argument in favour of the indefinite age of the earth can be deduced from the distance of the fixed stars, and the progressive motion of light, as the distinct light of the sun, and each of the fixed stars, was cast to its utmost limit, the very instant they were called into existence. The radiation of light from centres is necessary to produce those beautiful diversities of light and shade which adorn the universe; but, as God saw that all the works he made were good, he saw, too, that they were perfect. Light moves progressively from those luminous bodies to which it is attached, but it moves and radiates only in the track which the first rays that emanated from the hand of the Creator, had marked out to those that were to follow.

The most remarkable of the theories alluded to, relate to the change of the earth, from its original nebulous or fluid state, to its present condition; and to the production of the various orders of rocks." Geology teaches," says Dr. Hitchcock, "that the time has been when the earth existed as a molten mass of matter. I should be sustained by many probabilities if I were to go further, and maintain that the time was when the globe existed in a gaseous state." Phillips, alluding to the theory of rock-formation, says, "the matter of metamorphic rocks, derived from rocks of the granitic kind, and suspended in vast oceans, was, when deposited, subjected to a great heat from below, which

gave it, in its reconsolidation, much of that crystalline texture which it had in its plutonic form."

It is too evident, how these and similar notions tend to the subversion of Scripture. Were the earth a fragment of the sun, struck off from that luminary by the impact of a comet, as Whiston imagined; or did it owe its origin to the accumulation of nebulous matter, it would be useless to assert that no fiery nucleus existed within it, or that no classes of rocks owed their origin to a central heat. If chalk, and limestone, and silica, are animal productions, as some geologists affirm; if coal owes its origin to the vegetable world; and if existing continents have been formed of the worn-down materials of by-gone worlds, it would be useless to argue in favour of the literal meaning of Scripture, or to assert that sufficient time for the accomplishment of such mighty works elapsed within the historic period. And could it be shown that extinct plants and animals had no connexion with existing races, it would be to little purpose to cite Scripture against the doctrine of successive creations of organic beings. These geologists may justly be classed among those of whom Balmez speaks thus: "There is a universal and constant fact in the history of the human mindviz., its decided inclination to invent systems in which the reality of things is completely laid aside, and where we only see the workings of a spirit which has chosen to quit the ordinary path, in order to give itself up to its own inspirations. The history of philosophy is a perpetual repetition of this phenomenon, which the human mind shows, in some shape or other, in all things which admit of it. When the mind has conceived a peculiar idea, it regards it with that blind and exclusive predilection which is found in the love of the father for his children. Under the influence of this prejudice, the mind develops its ideas, and accommodates facts to suit it; that which at first was only an ingenious and extravagant idea, becomes the germ of important doctrines; and if it arise in a person of an ardent disposition, fanaticism, the cause of so much madness, is the consequence.” The rash opinions of geologists, which have made the science a term of reproach in the world of reason and religion, are too numerous to be noticed in this preface, but are stated at full length in the following pages. The existence of a central-heated nucleus is disproved; coal, chalk, limestone, &c., are shown to be true minerals; extinct plants and animals, proved to have been portions of the existing systems, and the precise forms wanted to fill up the hiatus in the present races; and the species which now inhabit the earth, are shown, generally, to have been created with powers capable of enduring all those changes of circumstances which could result from alterations in the physical geography of the earth.

Every one friendly to a science of paramount importance to the mining and agricultural pursuits, and to almost every other department of national industry, should labour to allay that hostility which has long existed against geology. The advantages accruing to society from the several discoveries made in this science, should not be relinquished because infidels have attempted to make it subserve their own anti-Christian and impious purposes. The facts of geology should not be condemned because of the many extravagant theories to which they have given rise. The instrument should not be doomed along with the hand which directs its operations.

Several well-meaning geologists have been led into error by the analogical mode of reasoning. "If," say they, "the earth be now in a state of refrigeration, it must have formerly been much hotter ;" and this mode of argument being plausible, the transition was easy to that of the fusile, or gaseous state of the whole globe. From the degrading and elevating causes now in active operation through every part of the globe, geologists infer the existing lands to be but "one item in the series of worlds which have passed away, and are to succeed the present continents." By similar reasoning on organic fossils, they conclude, that "distinct races of plants and animals, occupied this earth for indefinite ages, anterior to the creation of man; that successive geological eras are marked by forms of life quite distinct from any that followed, or had preceded them; and that whole families of organic beings naturally die away, and are succeeded by new races, which are constantly being introduced on earth."

Those who advocate the eternity of matter, may, with some show of consistency, use this mode of argument; but such as believe in the Scripture narrative, and in one great miraculous, omnipotent act of creation, have no such palliative for their erroneous opinions. To reason from analogy, we must always compare parallel cases. We may say that Newton acquired his science, as Demosthenes did his eloquence, by long study and intense application; but we cannot say that Solomon's wisdom was so acquired, though such would be our conclusion were we ignorant of the source whence it proceeded. If we trace the existence of plants or animals through a series of generations, we are justified in deducing analogical conclusions, but not so when the first plants and animals, as they came from the hands of the Creator, are the subject of our consideration. In them, we would, too, discover every trace of a former existence which they never enjoyed; every mark of a previous infancy through which they never passed. Here our analogy, though true in appearance, would be false in effect. Our reasoning holds good as long as the cases are analogous, but fails altogether as soon as we judge of created beings by those produced in the ordinary mode of generation.

The same is true as regards the whole earth; we could apply those laws by which its physical changes are now marked, to its state, when the work of the six days was accomplished; and yet, how void of truth would be the inference! As we know nothing of the earth when new, and as it came from the hands of the Creator, we have every reason to believe it was perfect in all its parts, with as many indications of a long-anterior existence, as the most acute disciple of Cuvier would discern in the

"Numerous living creatures, perfect forms-
Limb'd and full grown,"

which sprang into life when God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth," &c. And as we could discover in the first lion or elephant every lineament, every discriminating feature, which marks all the kind, so we could perceive in the earth's crust, while yet new, stratified and unstratified rocks, sandstones and limestones, chalk and silica, coal, culm, and all the various substances which now supply matter

for all the theories of geology. It is, then, unfair to deduce arguments subversive of Scripture, from assumed analogy, in cases where no analogy exists.

Even just arguments, drawn from analogy, are not always favourable to geological theories. Every naturalist now admits the reticulated nature of the existing animal and vegetable kingdoms. If there existed formerly a multitude of distinct races of plants and animals, every such distinct creation (reasoning by analogy) should have formed a perfect system in itself; but such is not the fact. No comparative anatomist, from Cuvier to Owen, has done more than to trace some connexion between extinct and existing races; none has ever attempted to form a system from the fossils of extinct races. No such system could have been formed; and hence, there has been but one creation. Between the productions of the different parts of that one creation there could be no vast space of time,* and, consequently, the six days alluded to in the Mosaic narrative, were but ordinary days, and not indefinite periods, amounting to myriads or millions of years, as modern geologists imagine.

Though geological theories are, for the most part, at variance with Scripture, yet geological facts are not so, nor is Scripture adverse to geology. Religion has no cause to apprehend the progress of knowledge. Physical truths tend only to confirm the truths of revelation, if proofs from science can be supposed to add new evidence in favour of Christianity. Religion has ever been the best benefactress of science; and there exists no reason why the truths of revelation should be opposed to the truths of physical science. None but the enemies of both would employ one to subvert the other.

Astronomy was formerly the subject of much discussion, because its principles seemed opposed to the literal meaning of Scripture. Geology is now in the same predicament, and its discoveries are supposed to be incompatible with the Mosaic account of the creation. But as the truths of religion can never be disproved by those of science, the discoveries in astronomy, or the facts which geology unfolds, can never be opposed to the doctrines which Infinite Wisdom has revealed. A wrong interpretation of Scripture, or an unwarranted inference drawn from erroneous data, may seem to bring religion and science into collision; but conclusions, strictly scientific, are never inconsistent with the Catholic doctrine of Scripture interpretation. The motion of the earth, and quiescence of the sun, are opposed to the literal meaning of Scripture; but the figurative meaning of the text which ascribes a relative, and not an absolute motion to the sun, simply reconciles Scripture and astronomy. In geology, however, the case is quite different; the figurative meaning is not required to reconcile the Mosaic narrative with any truth which that science discloses, for the literal meaning is in perfect accordance with all its phenomena, as an attentive perusal of the following pages will fully demonstrate.

Finally, this work is unreservedly submitted to the judgment of che Church; for however specious the arguments may be in support of private opinions, such opinions must ever be erroneous when, in the slightest degree, opposed to the doctrines of the Church, "the pillar and ground of the truth."

* See chapters xx and xxi of this work.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

Introductory remarks-Progress of science-Astronomy-Principles

applicable to science, inapplicable to Faith-Geology in reference to

Scripture Scripture interpretation-Natural sciences not the sub-

ject 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.