Very nearly allied to the mode of procedure now adverted to, is that of a numerous class, who, without so absolutely setting aside the Mosaic account as Mr. Babbage would do, yet pass it over, making little or no account of it, professing that because the Bible is meant to teach something else than Geology, we are not to look for aught else than a popular account of the creation of the world, and one that would be intelligible to persons without scientific preparation for understanding it. Thus, for example, Dr. Buckland, after stating a method of reconciling the two accounts, to which we shall ere long have occasion to advert, concludes thus: It should be borne in mind, that the object of this account was not to state in what manner, but by whom, the world was made, As the prevailing tendency of men, in those early days, was to worship the most glorious objects of nature, namely, the sun and moon and stars, it should seem to have been of such a kind, that its truth would be more probable than the fact which it endeavors to establish.' "The argument is now reduced to the mere truism, that "The probability in favor of the testimony by which a miracle is supported, must be greater than the probability of the miracle itself." " Now, it is very certain that Hume's argument is not this; that he was not quite so foolish as to argue that a smaller amount of testimony would be sufficient to establish the most miraculous fact than would be necessary to establish the most probable. The argument is not that the probability of the truth of the testimony must be greater than the probability of the fact, but that it must be greater than the improbability of the fact, so as to cover or neutralize that improbability, and leave a surplus of positive probability. It is not difficult to perceive where lies the fallacy of the method whereby Mr. Babbage has reached so strange a conclusion. It will be patent at once if we only complete the sentences which he has left imperfect. Its falsehood would be more improbable than the fact is improbable— This is so clear, that we should perhaps apologize to our readers for dwelling upon it so long; but, an apology being confessedly necessary, it will be just as easy to make it for a greater as for a smaller fault, and therefore we shall venture to exhibit the argument in a way that may make Mr. Babbage's fallacy still more palpable to some minds. This may be effected by the adoption of a simple mathematical symbol, Hume's proposition is this:— In order to establish a miracle,— Improb. of falsehood of test. must be 7 Improb. of the perform. of the mir. Consequently,-Improb. of truth of test. must be Improb. of the perform. of the mir. Or-Prob. of truth of test, must be 7 improb. of the perform. of mir. Thus is Mr. Babbage's interpretation of this celebrated argument shewn to be equally repugnant to common sense, to Logic, and to Algebra; and now for the inconsequence with which we have ventured to charge him. Immediately after giving this statement of what he supposes Hume's argument to be, he sets himself to the refutation of the argument itself; and does refute it in a way at once elegant and convincing, both in the text and in a valuable note, without ever hinting that it is the real argument that he is refuting, and not his absurd version of it. Yea, a few pages further on, he states the argument quite correctly, without appearing to be in the least aware that this statement of it is utterly opposed to that which he had previously given. Since we have taken upon us thus freely to discuss the demerits of the "Ninth Bridgewater Treatise," it is but fair to say, that if our subject had led us to speak of its merits, we should have found no lack of matter for a much longer digression than that for which we have again to beg the indulgence of our readers. one important point in the Mosaic account to guard the Israelites against the polytheism and idolatry of the natives around them, by announcing, that all these magnificent celestial bodies were no gods, but the work of One Almighty Creator, to whom alone, the worship of mankind was due. -(Bridgewater Treatise.) To a similar purpose is the following argument, by a writer less known indeed than Dr. Buckland, but whose work we have no hesitation in pronouncing an excellent one-Mr. Trimmer: What can be gathered from the brief account of the creation contained in the first chapter of Genesis, more than this, that the world was not selfexistent and eternal; that it was called into being by the fiat of an Almighty Creator; and that, though he could have produced it in an instant, clothed, as we now behold it, with plants, and furnished with inhabitants, it was his pleasure to proceed gradually in the work of creation; and that man was the last, as he is the noblest, of his Maker's works? And what, we would again ask, is there in the phenomena of Geology inconsistent with this? h 01 01 th th Now, we would submit that this is not the fair view of the case. While it is quite true that the object of the Bible is not to teach its readers Geology, and while it is not to be expected that it should contain any particular account of the geological formations; while, moreover, it is expressed in popular and plain, rather than in philosophical or strictly accurate, language, it is true also that it details the process of creation at considerable length. The historical narrative that it gives has been all along understood by its readers as a plain and distinct statement; and it is impossible to read it without being convinced that its author intended that it should be regarded in this light, as descriptive of an actual transaction, and not merely as an amplification of the few points of information which Mr. Trimmer states as its substance. At all events, the main difficulty is evaded, in this and all similar attempts at reconciling the geologic and scriptural statements, by regarding the latter as consisting of merely general and vague assertions, which were never intended to be understood as strictly and literally accurate. The date of the creation is ascertained by the scriptural narrative; and although the chronologies of the Hebrew, the Samaritan and the Septuagint texts of the Pentateuch do not exactly accord, that date on the largest computation cannot be removed so far back as 8,000 years from the present time. Now, what we may call the catholic geological doctrine, the doctrine in holding which the great majority of Geologists are agreed, and which all those of any considerable repute do decidedly hold, is, unquestionably, that the strata, composing that crust of the earth which comes within the reach of our observation, have been deposited during successive periods, whose aggregate must amount, not to eight, but to thousands of thousands of years. Every attempt, therefore, to reconcile the two accounts, which leaves the chronological difference unaccounted for, we must regard as an absolute failure. Having now adverted to some of the principal attempts that have been made virtually to set aside the scriptural text on the one side, or the geological text, as it may well be called, on the other, we have now to speak of several attempts made to shew that consistency, or at least no contradiction, obtains between the two records, by a departure from the usual interpretation of the one or the other. As soon as a knowledge of the main facts of Geology, especially those respecting organic remains, came to be generally diffused, and many men received by hearsay vague reports of these facts, and many others saw with their own eyes merely so many geological phenomena as accidentally or spontaneously fell under their notice, it was too hastily supposed that these facts afforded strong confirmation of the account of the creation, but more especially of the deluge, recorded in holy writ. By such careless observers, and by such non-observers, the mere fact that thousands of marine shells were found in large numbers at great elevations above the present level of the sea, was not only regarded, as it very legitimately might have been regarded, as a proof that at one period the land of our present continents was submerged beneath the waters of the ocean, or the waters of the ocean raised above the land; but further it was concluded, that this submergence took place at the period of the Noachian deluge, and was, in fact, nought else than that deluge. Now this latter conclusion, right or wrong as it might be as to the fact, was certainly, as a conclusion, unwarranted and illegitimate. But neither was it right as to the fact itself. Indeed, it was soon ascertained that it was wholly erroneous; that, in reality, the strata indicated not one submergence merely, but several; and moreover that not only had such submergences swept certain races of animals from existence, which seems from the Mosaic record not to have been the case at the Noachian deluge, but, what was more strange and more difficult to account for, that after each submergence certain new races of animals had been brought into being, different altogether from those that existed before. In fact it was clearly ascertained, that there exists a series of geological formations, each containing the remains of distinct classes of animals and vegetables, deposited in succession one over the other; and that the organic remains are so distinct from each other, even in the contiguous strata of the same locality, and at the same time so similar to each other in the corresponding strata of even the most remote localities, that they afford G G the means of accurately demonstrating the comparative age of the strata themselves. It was the determination of this great law of the "characterism" of the organic remains by Dr. W. Smith, that converted Geology into a science, and earned for Dr. S. the title of the father of that science. Till then, its facts were a mere rabble; thenceforth they were reduced to order, and formed into troops and regiments and brigades, and into a great and well-appointed army. Now some Geologists having considered that the strata might conveniently, for purposes of nomenclature and reference, be divided into six main classes, it occurred, not unnaturally, to some minds, that these six classes of strata might be none other than the records of the six days of creation. This idea received a certain degree of confirmation from the fact that there is a general correspondence between the deposits in the successive formations on the one hand, and the objects recorded as having been created on the several days on the other. In particular it is known to every one that there are no organic remains in the lowest rocks of the series, and that we can trace a general advancement in the organization of the remains, as, leaving the "primary" rocks, we proceed, through the "transition" series, to the "secondary" and " tertiary" formations. One great element was necessary however in order to effect the desired reconcilement-the element of time; and the introduction of this element into the Mosaic account forms the first of the attempts, now under notice, to modify the interpretation of the scriptural narrative, so as to shew its correspondence with geological phenomena. The essence of it consists in understanding the term "day," as used in the first chapter of Genesis, as significant, not of a solar day of twenty-four hours, but of a long period of time. We are not aware who first suggested the interpretation in question; but it has found considerable favour with many highly respectable interpreters of scripture. It has indeed been characterised by some as rationalistic and infidel; but it has been propounded by many who are certainly neither rationalists nor infidels; and it has been defended from such charges by many who have not adopted it. Dr. Wiseman for example says: "I do not advocate the prolongation of the days to periods, but I think it very wrong to call men infidels for doing so." The writer of the present article has as good a right as any one, according to the usual wont of apostates, to revile and vilify the interpretation to any extent; for he not only approved of it, but actually wrote and published an argument in support of it many years ago. We confess, however, that we still feel a lingering attachment to our first love, although we have withdrawn from her the undivided homage of our heart. We first became acquainted with the interpretation in the course of our study of two works by Mr. Stanley Faber, his Three Dispensations, and his Hore Mosaice; and the exceeding delectation with which we perused these singularly suggestive works went far towards recommending to us the doctrine in question. It was shortly after that we took upon us to publish in a religious periodical* an argument in favour of the doctrine, the substance of which, (so far as we recollect it, for we have not been able to procure a copy of it,) was somewhat as follows. It was argued : 1. That the days spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis were certainly not solar days, inasmuch as the sun was not created till the fourth of them had begun. Since then the necessity of the case makes it impossible that the term day can be used in its ordinary sense, it remains to us to ascertain, by all available means, in what sense it is used. 2. That the expression, "every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew," seems to indicate plants and herbs in an embryo state, the answer to the question-"what is a plant before it grows ?"-being apparently -"a seed." But if the vegetable kingdom were created in the state of seeds on the third day, it is clear that the graminivorous animals could not have been created within forty-eight hours thereafter. 3. It seems that a considerable length of time must have elapsed between the creation of Adam and that of Eve. It was God's will that our first father should, by experience, find out his want of a help-meet for him, that so he might, with more lively gratitude, receive "Heaven's last, best gift." But Adam was not created even at the beginning of the sixth day. How then could he possibly, before its close, if it were but an ordinary day, review all the tribes of animals, so as to discover that amongst them all there was not one fitted to be his mate, be thrown into a deep sleep, and receive his rib-formed partner? God's works are independent of time; but here we have man collecting experience, the experience of his own feelings; and this is a work to which time is an essential pre-requisite. 4. The terms, in which the institution of the Sabbath is alluded to in the fourth commandment of the decalogue, seem to favor the supposition, instead of being, as has been sometimes urged, inconsistent with it. The reasoning of the fourth commandment implies, that we are to rest on each seventh day, in humble imitation of our Creator, who accomplished the work of creation • Edinburgh Christian Instructor, for 1835 or '36. |