Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 3

Science and the Bible

page break

Science and the Bible.

In accordance with a request made to me by some of my clerical brethren, I am going to address you this evening upon Science and the Bible. Their request has imposed a somewhat arduous task, not only upon me who have had to write, but also upon you, my friends, who will now have to listen to my lecture. For you must not expect to be entertained with anecdotes, or amused with pleasantries, or charmed with eloquence, as some of you have been on former similar occasions in this building. I am not a good story-teller, nor am I a wit or an orator. Indeed, even if I could hope to do so with success, my present business is of too grave a nature to permit me to assume either of these characters. All that I shall aim at will be to communicate to you in clear and homely language, and at the same time as briefly as possible, some results of my reading and reflection, not within the last few weeks only, but during many past years; and that which I ask of you—and your presence here encourages me to ask it with confidence—is, that you will give me your patient attention for the space of at least an hour and a half. Less than this will not suffice for what I have to say.

Before entering upon my subject I would beg you to observe that I have not come forward as the champion of the Bible against Science. In my opinion the Bible has nothing to fear from Science. There is no quarrel between them. Some unwise friends of one and the other have tried to set them at variance, but I believe they are, and always have been and will be, inseparable friends. A man is not to be regarded as a disbeliever in the Bible because he is a votary of Science; nor, on the other hand, is one who upholds the authority of the Bible to be supposed to look on Science with suspicion. While I receive with the most perfect confidence all that God has told me through the Bible, I receive with the same confidence whatever He has enabled me to learn from Science. I have no more doubt of the diurnal and annual motions of the earth, or of the monthly revolution of the moon, or of the leading facts of geology, than I have of the birth, life, and death, the resurrection and ascension, of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I cannot for a moment entertain the idea of Science contradicting the Bible. For what is the Bible? It is a volume of writings inspired of God for "our learning." or instruction. And what is Science!—I use the word throughout this lecture in its widest and most comprehensive meaning, It is the accumulation of all that man has been able to dis- page 4 cover by the use of his unassisted reason concerning this visible world, and concerning the events which have occurred and are occurring in it. The knowledge acquired from one of these sources cannot, therefore, but harmonise with that which is derived from the other. Any disagreement between them is impossible. This harmony however, although it must always subsist, may not be in all cases discernible. Science may appear to contradict the Bible; and during the present century, in which such great progress has been made in all its various branches, it has made us acquainted with a number of facts relating to this earth and its inhabitants, which from their apparent irreconcilability with the Bible, have not only given occasion of triumph to unbelievers, but have shaken the faith of many weak, and greatly perplexed the minds of some established, Christians. Theories, also, directly opposed to the statements which are contained in the Bible narrative, have been propounded by men whose names stand high in the scientific world. My object, then, in this lecture will be to show that these facts and theories afford no real ground for exultation to the adversaries, or alarm to the lovers of the Bible.

In consequence of the wide extent of the field over which I must travel, I have found much difficulty in determining how to arrange what I have to say upon the several branches of my subject in an orderly manner. The method I have chosen as most suitable for my purpose is to state to you four distinct propositions, the truth of which I shall endeavour to establish. These will serve as so many heads, under which I may collect the various facts and arguments that I wish to bring under your consideration. I will now, therefore, proceed to state my first proposition, vis:—

That much of what is called Science is nothing else than arbitrary and unphilosophical hypothesis. The ablest inductive philosophers may put forth theories which are subsequently found to be erroneous. Newton's theory of light—the corpuseular—which was for some time generally accepted, has now been quite superseded by another—the undulatory. In like manner, geologists have been repeatedly compelled, in the progress of their researches, to put aside, or greatly modify, their earlier conclusions. It is, therefore, no discredit to a scientific man to have suggested, upon grounds of reasonable probability, an hypothesis which has ultimately been disproved; but those to which I now refer are not of this kind. They are such as rest upon no reasonable probability whatever. The instances that I shall adduce are the several theories which have been successively proposed, in place of the account given us in the Bible, concerning the origin of all the infinite variety of vegetables and animals that abound on the earth.

Of these, the first in order of time is the atheistic atomic theory, of which the remarkable work of the Epicurean philosopher and poet, Lucretius—a name lately made familiar to the English reading public by our own poet laureate—contains the fullest exposition. His notion was, that all this beautiful and well ordered universe was, to use Matthew Henry's expression, "a chance hit" coming into existence by the accidental agglomeration of an infinite multitude of material particles. This theory—although no one, I suppose, would now accept it—appears to me to be not one whit more absurd than those modern ones contained in the anonymous work entitled, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, and in Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. I am aware that in speaking thus of these latter works I may be charged with very great presumption, and may be reminded that I am assuming to judge of and condemn the reasoning and conclu- page 5 sions of men of far higher scientific attainments than myself. My reply is, that I readily acknowledge their superiority in their own departments of science; but that superiority does not entitle them to a deferential submission in matters which lie outside of those departments. A man may attain the very first rank as a naturalist, an astronomer, or a geologist, and yet may be entirely destitute of those higher faculties, which are required in an inductive philosopher. Besides, in the investigation of truth we must always use our own independent judgment. Herein the only deference that a great name can claim from us is, that, as to matters with which he is conversant and we are not, we should take his word for what he says; and that as to other matters, on which perhaps we are equally able with him to form a correct opinion, we should not come to a decision different from that at which he has arrived, without bestowing on them careful attention and exercising due deliberation. For myself, I do not possess extensive scientific knowledge; and therefore, in reading the work of such a man as Darwin, I implicitly believe, on his authority, whatever he describes as observed facts of natural history. But I can follow a train of reasoning, and therefore judge for myself of the correctness of any inferences which he may draw from those facts. And that which I can do, every man of ordinary intelligence—every one of you, my friends—can, if he will, do also. Now, what we can judge of for ourselves, we ought not to accept upon the authority of others. I do not therefore feel it necessary to offer any apology for the expression of my opinion concerning these two works. Of the correctness of that opinion you are now to be the judges. If I succeed, as I trust I shall, in convincing you that these two theories deserve to be designated as arbitrary and unphilosophical hypotheses, you will acquit me of presumption; if I fail, I must bear the reproach.

You will observe that my reason for examining the arguments of these two works is, that the theories proposed in them directly contradict the statements of the Bible, both as to the independent creation of all the various kinds of plants and animals which now exist, or have formerly existed on the earth, and also as to the limitation of the generative power of each plant and animal to produce only those which are of the same kind with itself. But in conducting my examination I shall take no notice of any such contradiction. I shall put away altogether the consideration of the bearing of these theories upon the truth of the Bible, and test them simply by the natural reason. For when our object is, as at present, to ascertain what Science says upon a particular point, we must listen only to its voice. To allege the authority of the Bible, or to take any account of its statements, would be very right on another occasion, but not on this. We have now to do with nothing but the facts which are adduced as premises of the argument, and the conclusions which are deduced from those facts.

To begin then with the earlier of the two works, The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. The author describes himself as "a private person with limited opportunities for study;" but his book shows him to have acquired large scientific knowledge, and to possess great acuteness and literary ability. It is written in an agreeable style; and, except that it altogether ignores the Bible account of the creation, there is nothing in it, so far as I have observed, calculated to offend the religious feelings of a reader. No one can recognise more distinctly than he does the evidence, which the phenomena of the physical page 6 world afford to the existence of "a Being (I quote his own words), beyond nature—its author, its God—infinite, inconceivable it may be, and yet one whom these very laws (the laws of the physical world), present to us with attributes shewing that our nature is, in some way, a faint and far-cast shadow of His, while all the gentlest and beautifullest of our emotions lead us to believe that we are as children in His care, as vessels in His hand." The hypothesis which this writer proposes to us for explaining the existence of the present animal and vegetable world is progressive development by means of natural generation. He conjectures that God has imparted to plants and animals the power, not only of propagating their own respective species, as we see to be ordinarily the case, but also of producing occasionally, at long intervals, under special circumstances, plants and animals of a higher species than their own. In this manner, according to his idea, during the ages which have passed since the creation of the earth, all the varieties of organic beings which now people it have been produced—one higher species, genus, family, order, and sub-kingdom following after another, until the highest of them all—man—was reached. Here, for the present, the series ends.

Now, what are the facts on which this hypothesis is grounded? I shall take pains to state them fairly.

First of all, there is the universal existence of law in inorganic nature from the beginning of creation. The same law of gravitation which now exists on the earth's surface keeps, and, as he says, produced (but this is only an hypothesis, not an observed fact) the earth itself, and the planets in their forms and in their orbits. This law also governs the most distant stars: and not only so, but it, and every other whereof we have any knowledge, have ruled in the world from the beginning.

Secondly, in the animal life of the globe there has been a regular progression, not only of grades, or sub-kingdoms—as from invertebrate to the lowest vertebrate, fish; then from fish to reptiles, and afterwards to birds and mammalian, and finally to man—but also of orders and genera: the inferior forms, which appear in the lower, being succeeded by superior forms in the higher strata.

Thirdly, in "this revelation of organic history" are to be noted the following particulars:—1. That "the initial genera of all the various orders are always perfect animals, well fitted by creative wisdom (I quote his own words) for the part they had to play in the field of life." 2. That throughout large groups there is observable a fundamental unity of organism, as if all were constructed upon one plan, though in a series of improvements and varieties, each having a strong affinity to others which have preceded or succeeded it in the series—e.g., the form of man represents in many particulars, some very minute and curious, the forms of other mammalian quadrupeds. One instance which he mentions of this unity is that the number of cervical vertebræ is the same in all mammals; the long neck of the giraffe having no more bones in it than the necks, or no-necks, of the elephant and pig. 3. That while this unity of organism is preserved, particular organs, which correspond to each other in different animals, are sometimes put to different uses—in the elephant the snout is extended into an "instrument serving all the usual purposes of an arm and hand." 4. That, further, there are sometimes to be found in what the author calls "the original plan of the animal structure" a double set of organs, one or other of which is selected for development according to the needs of the particular animal. The most remarkable and best known instance of this is found page 7 in the twofold arrangement for breathing in air and in water—lungs and gills; but the remarkable circumstance is that at an early stage of the fœtal process mammalia have no lungs, but a bronchial apparatus, and that afterwards, as the author says, this goes back, and the lungs are developed from a different portion of the organism. 5. That, lastly—and this is perhaps "the most remarkable circumstance" of all—there exist in many animals what are called rudimentary organs—i.e., organs which are developed to a certain extent, but are wholly useless; e.g., the mamme of a man, and the process of bone which in female marsupial animals supports the pouch, but which in the male is of no use whatever.

Besides these there is another class of facts of a different and very curious nature, concerning the progress of embryonic development; which, as the author lays great stress upon them. I must not pass over. According to his statement, the correctness of which I do not at all doubt, all animal organisms commence with a sample cell, of which it is impossible (i.e., impossible for man in the present, and probably in any future, state of science) to tell to what form it is destined to advance. In this cell a series of changes takes place, whereby the scientific observer is enabled successively to determine, first, to what sub-kingdom the embryo belongs; then, if it be of the vertebrate, whether it belong to the fish, reptile, bird, or mammal class; next, if it be of the mammal class, what is its particular order, and afterwards what is its family, genus, species, and sex. "Thus," the author remarks, "the embryo of each grade of being (i.e., each animal sub-kingdom) passes through the general conditions of the embryo of the grades beneath it." In this statement, however, he appears to me to affirm more than the facts which he has mentioned strictly warrant. All that they show is, that embryos are at first undistinguishable from one another, and that afterwards, at different stages of their growth, the character of their particular orders, families, and so forth, become successively discernible. I do not, however, object to his speaking of these facts as "tending to establish a parity or identity of plan between the succession of animals on the earth and the stages of embryonic development in those which have last come upon the scene." It is obvious to every thoughtful observer of nature that, amidst their manifold diversity, there is a marvellous mutual resemblance and closeness of connection one with another pervading all the works of God. Such a "parity or identity of plan" is therefore very probable.

But the question before us is, Will these facts support the hypothesis which the author has founded upon them? They are really all that he alleges; and I trust that I have stated them, although necessarily with great brevity, yet with sufficient clearness to enable you to judge whether it is a reasonable suggestion which he grounds upon them, that "embryonic development shadows forth the principle which was employed, or followed, by the Uncreated in filling the earth with the organic creatures by which it is inhabited!" When this idea is proposed to us, does it. "appear" to quote his own words, "as if the clouds were beginning to give way, and the light of simple unpretending truth about to break in upon the great mystery?" Can you, my friends, with the author "embrace, not as a proved fact, but as a rational interpretation of things as far as Science has revealed them, the idea of progressive development?" Can you, with him, "contemplate the simplest and most primitive types of being as under a law, to which that of like production (i.e., the production of animals of a like kind with their parents) is subordinate, giving birth to a type superior to it, this again producing the next higher, and so on to the highest?" Can you, for example, page 8 imagine a kangaroo, in a quite natural manner, without an "circumstances of some startling or miraculous kind," bringing forth—it might be a deer, or a horse or some mammal of a species altogether unknown? This is the author's theory of creation. He frankly admits, that "in nature's government there is no observable appearance of such promotion;" but he thinks "that it does not seem, after all, a very immoderate hypothesis." To me it does seem a very immoderate and, as I have said, an altogether arbitrary and unphilosophical hypothesis. Do you agree with him or with, me? or, I would rather ask, do you agree with him or with the Bible, which says that God created "every living creature after his kind?"

Darwin's book On the Origin of Species was published some years subsequently to the Vestiges. I will now endeavour to state, as clearly as is consistent with extreme brevity, the hypothesis which he propounds, the grounds on which it is based, and some of the most conclusive objections to its acceptance.

The author rejects the idea proposed in the Vestiges as an assumption, which does not explain the phenomena; and he proposes in its stead another, which he calls "natural selection." This phrase he uses to designate "the preservation of favourable, and the rejection of injurious variations," which he supposes to have been going on continually throughout all past ages in the visible world. Its operation, according to his conception of it, is described by him as follows:—" It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising throughout the world every variation, even the slightest, rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good, silently and insensibly working whenever and wherever opportunity offers at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life." In this manner he imagines "species have been modified during a long course of descent by the preservation, or the natural selection, of many successive slight favourable variations." And not only species in the scientific meaning of the term, but also genera and families and orders; so that all "animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. I shall here omit all notice of plants, for the truth of the hypothesis can be tested as surely and more simply by confining our attention to animals only.

The grounds on which this hypothesis is based are substantially the three following—the order in which I place them is different from that in which they occur in the book, but appears to me the more logical. The first is the struggle for existence, caused by the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase, in connection with the fact that the greatest amount of life can be supported by the greatest diversification of structure. The second is the variability observable in what arc called the varieties of particular species in the animal world; and the power of man, by care in breeding and other means, to produce in domestic animals, such as sheep and cattle, and especially pigeons, changes so great as to form, in appearance at least, new species. The third is the care which nature takes of all organic beings. This last is not expressly mentioned by the author, but is evidently implied throughout his work.

Now, assuming all this—that such a struggle for existence is continually going on upon the earth, that man has been able to produce such wonderful results, and that nature does take care of all that are under her keeping—it does not prove, it does not even furnish any argument for, such a gradual development of all the various kinds of organic being as is supposed by the hypothesis of natural selection. It may have suggested the idea, but it can do no more. Unless the author can adduce some facts in evidence of its truth, his proposed solution of the problem of creation must be regarded as at least merely conjectural. Has he then adduced any such facts? I have looked carefully through his book, and can find none—none whatever, He certainly relates a large number of very curious and interesting facts concerning the structure, habits, and instincts of different animals; some as illustrating, in his opinion, the action of natural selection, some as showing the advantages of intercrossing, some as exhibiting the manner in which he supposes varieties may have been introduced, and others for various purposes. Also, in relating these he frequently points out how, as he thinks, they elucidate or accord with, or may be explained by, his hypothesis. But after very careful examination I do not hesitate to affirm, that no one of them alone, nor therefore the whole of them together, in any the slightest degree corroborates it. The page 9 most plausible is the following, and what weight ought to be attached to it, you will judge for yourselves. There exists, the writer tells us, in individual animals, a tendency to revert to sonic of the characteristics of their ancient progenitors. Thus several breeds of pigeons (which you will remember are all only varieties, not distinct species) are descended from an ancestral pigeon of a bluish colour, having certain bars and other marks upon it: and when any breed assumes by simple variation a bluish tint, these bars and other marks invariably re-appear, but without any other change of form or character. Now, the horse, the ass, the hermionus, quagga, and zebra are species, not varieties, of the same genus; and, among other characteristics by which they are distinguished from one another, are certain bars and stripes in different parts of the body, which are peculiar to some, and wanting in the other species. But Darwin states, on the authority of certain persons whom he names, that mules and other hybrids have in a number of instances been known to be marked with bars and stripes, not to be found in the species to which their parents belonged, He also mentions that in the north-western part of India there is a breed of horses, the Kattywar, so generally striped, that a horse without stripes is not considered as purely bred. From these facts he draws a conclusion, which he states as follows:—"For myself. I venture confidently to look back thousands and thousands of generations, and I see an animal striped like a zebra, but perhaps otherwise very differently constructed, she common parent of our domestic horse and ass, the hermionus, quagga, and zebra." Am I not justified in saying that a theory, which rests upon no stronger argument than this, is no more than an arbitrary and unphilosophical hypothesis?

But this theory of Darwin is deserving of yet stronger condemnation; for it is not only unsupported by any facts, but it is liable to several obvious and insuperable objections. Some of these the author himself mentions; and he frankly acknowledges, that, although he does not think them fatal to it, he can never to this day reflect, upon them without being staggered. Some of them are indeed sufficient, one would think, to stagger his most unreflecting partisans. I will briefly enumerate the principal.

First, by natural selection, the author must mean some faculty naturally inherent in animals, and exercised independently of any external influence, whether of man or any superior being. It is also clearly a faculty, which implies forethought; for it looks forward to the future well-being of the animal, or community of animals, on whose behalf it is supposed to be exercised. But, with the exception of man, no animal appears to be endowed with any forethought beyond that which is required for providing food and other necessaries for itself and family. We have no example in any of such looking forward to futurity. This appears to me a fatal objection in [unclear: timine] to the hypothesis of natural selection.

But passing by this, and not stopping to inquire how far the aggregate amount of animal life has been increased by the production of carnivorous or insectivorous animals—the swallow, for example, which devours I know not how many thousand insects in a day—or to ask whether it was for the benefit of the antelope, that its flesh was made such tender and tasty food for the lion or tiger—not stopping to waste your time with such trifling questions as these, I proceed to the consideration of those difficulties and objections to which he has himself alluded. Among them are the following:—the difficulty of conceiving how the peculiar structure and habits of each particular animal (e.g., the bat), and how the most perfect and wonderful organs (as, for instance, the eye) could be formed by any such gradual modification; the difficulty of accounting for the acquisition and modification of the peculiar instincts of different animals, as the hivebee; and the difficulty of explaining how the various races of animals became distributed over the earth. These are certainly such as primá facic render the hypothesis of gradual development of species by natural selection extremely improbable; but still they are not such as might not be overcome by a sufficient number of well-authenticated facts. Does, then, the author attempt so to overcome them? No; all that he tries to prove is that, while they render this hypothesis extremely improbable, they do not prove it to be impossible. Thus he argues, that remembering the great variety of animals existing upon the earth, and the dissimilarity of habits among those of closely allied species (e.g., the upland and the common goose), we should be cautious in page 10 concluding that the most different; structures and habits of life could not graduate into each other. Again, he alleges that if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then under changing conditions of life there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection (of any organ) through natural selection. He does not, however mention any instance of such a series of gradations existing in the animal world. His manner of dealing with the difficulty of accounting for the present geographical distribution of the various kinds of animals over the earth on the hypothesis of all having descended, through modification by natural selection, is very characteristic. As is his custom, he frankly acknowledges the difficulty to be "grave enough." "Nevertheless," he says, "the simplicity of the view that each species was first produced within a single region captivates the mind;" and then he adds, "He who rejects it, rejects the vera causa of ordinary generation with subsequent migration, and calls in the agency of a miracle."

But, besides these difficulties, there are two other acknowledged facts, each of which would alone disprove his hypothesis. The one is the absence of all transitional forms, either among living or fossil animals; the other is the very general if not universal sterility of hybrids produced by crossing between species of the same genus, and the absolute impossibility of crossing between different genera. These facts constitute objections, which no evidence, if any existed, for the probability of the hypothesis, however strong, could overcome. They are absolutely insuperable. For, if this natural selection had been going on in the world during the long succession of past ages, the earth would now necessarily be filled with a multitude of transitional forms. If the hive-bee the comb of which is such an exquisite structure, had been developed by natural selection from the humble bee, which uses its old cocoons for holding its honey, there must have been between these two kinds, besides the Mexican [unclear: mettijpona], which alone Darwin mentions, an innumerable series of intermediate bees, But none such are known to exist. Again, if all the various kinds of animals have been gradually developed by natural selection, what reason can be assigned for that sterility of hybrids, by which nature now seems peremptorily to forbid the formation of any new species, and for that impossibility of crossing between animals of different orders, which yet more strongly shows their distinctive peculiarities of structure to have been originally inherent and indelible? The answers which the author attempts to give to these objections are really undeserving of notice.

Your patience has, I fear, been severely tried by this long discussion, but I could not abridge it. The hypothesis against which I have been contending holds so important a place in the pseudo-science of the modern sceptical school, that I have felt obliged to scrutinise it, and the book in which it is propounded, very carefully, for the purpose of showing you that it is altogether unworthy of the favour which has been accorded to it. To what that favour with the public generally, and with some men of high scientific character in particular, is to be attributed, cannot easily be explained. I can only ascribe it to one or other of two causes, or to a combination of them both. The one is, that the multitude of curious and interesting facts of natural history, with which the book abounds, draws off the reader's attention from its argument, and at the same time disposes him to take for granted whatever a writer, who appears to have such a perfect acquaintance with his subject, chooses to assert. The other is, that there exists a credulity of scepticism which makes men who are disposed to reject the authority of the Bible blind to the fallacies of any argument, and ready to accept any theory which may help to confirm them in their unbelief. They have not received the love of the truth; and, therefore, according to the prophetic saying of St. Paul, God sends them strong delusion that they should believe a lie. I would ask those who possess Darwin's book to compare the description of his idea of creation, in its last two paragraphs, with the 104th psalm, and the 38th, 39th, 40th, and 41st chapters of the book of Job, and then say whether his theory or that of the Bible most commends itself to the natural reason.

Protoplasm.—Another work, entitled Protoplasm, the Physical Basis of Life, by Professor Huxley—as it has lately excited much attention, and, in fact, suggested the request that I would deliver this lecture—must not be passed unnoticed by me; but I shall not occupy much time by my remarks upon it, for the aim of its author is not so much to controvert the Bible, as to root out those page 11 instinctive convictions of human nature, which are the foundation of all religious belief. I will state to you the result of a careful analysis of his pamphlet, He professes "to demonstrate that a threefold unity, namely, a unity of power or faculty, a unity of form, and a unity of substantial composition," pervades "the whole living world." This unity is produced by "protoplasm," ''a single physical basis of life, underlying all the diversities of vital existence." what this protoplasm is he illustrates by two particular instances, the hair of a nettle and a drop of human blood, which he takes occasion to introduce. I will quote his words:—"The whole hair (of a nettle) consists of a very delicate outer case of wood, closely applied to the inner surface of which is a layer of semi-fluid matter, full of innumerable granules of extreme minuteness. This semi-fluid lining is protoplasm," and "when viewed with a sufficiently high magnifying power, is seen to be in a condition of unceasing activity." Again, in a drop of blood, similarly viewed, are seen a "number of colourless corpuscles," which likewise "exhibit a marvellous activity. These, also, are a mass of protoplasm." In another passage he states, that "all the forms of protoplasm which have yet been examined contain the four elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, in very complex union."

Now, these may be observed facts; and as they are perfectly consistent with the statements of the Bible, that "God made man (and doubtless all plants and other animals) out of the dust of the ground," and that "the blood is the life," I am not concerned about them. But how does he demonstrate the threefold unity that he speaks of? Leaving out all extraneous matter, his argument is simply this:—As to the unity of power and faculty; "all the multifarious and complicated activities of men are comprehensible," he tells us, "under three categories. Either they are immediately directed towards the maintenance and development of the body, or they effect transitory changes in the relative position of parts of the body, or they tend to the continuance of the species." "But the scheme, which is large enough to embrace the activities of the highest form of life, covers all those of the lower creatures. The lowest plant or animalcule feeds, grows, and reproduces its kind." Therefore (here follows the Q. E. D. of the geometrician), "the acts of all living things are fundamentally one;" and, to use his own illustration, thereis "a community of faculty" between "the bright-coloured lichen" on the rock "and the painter to whom it is instinct with beauty, or the botanist whom it feeds with knowledge." Again, as to form; "beast and fowl, reptile and fish, moluse, worm, and polypa," together with plants of every kind, "are all," as he informs us, "composed of structural units of the same character, vis., masses of protoplasm," either with or without "a nucleus." Hence he concludes that there is between all living things, "between the animalcule and the whale," and "between the fungus and the great pine of California," "a community of form or structure." Lastly, as to substantial composition; his proof of this consists simply in the statement already quoted, that all forms of protoplasm contain the same four elements, and further that "they behave similarly to several re-agents," Hence, according to his conception, there is, as to their substance or material composition, no difference between "the flower which a girl wears in her hair, and the blood which courses through her youthful veins." Such is his mode of demonstrating this threefold unity. Does it not remind you of the reasons by which a horse-chestnut can be most conclusively proved to be a chestnut horse?

But it may be asked—what has all this to do with the Bible, or with our religious belief? Nothing whatever. But the author, whose object evidently is not to teach science, but to propagate infidelity, grounds upon it the inference, that all vegetable and animal life, including therein what we usually call spiritual life, is "the product of a certain disposition of material molecules," and that "matter and law have swallowed up spirit and spontaneity." At the same time he assures us that he is "no materialist;" for that, in fact, he does not believe in the real existence of either matter or spirit. Nevertheless—so inconsistent are writers of this kind with themselves—he does not hesitate to use such phrases as "I do not think he has any right to call me a sceptic," "I conceive that I am simply honest and truthful." What does it signify that a man calls him a sceptic, or what is to be honest and truthful, if "spirit, gesture, and every form of human action, are," as he tells us, "resolvable into muscular contraction, and muscular contraction is but a transitory change in the relative positions of the parts of a page 12 muscle?" Again, he says that "our volition counts for something as a condition of the course of events." But what is volition if law have devoured spontaneity? I will only remark further that, although I could not undertake to prove the existence of matter and spirit, there is certainly nothing in his pamphlet to shake my belief in the Bible statement, that not only did God form "man of the dust of the ground," but He also "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and" so "man became a living soul."

I now gladly turn from this painful branch of my subject. If I have spoken of these three works with severity, it has been because the object of the writers obviously is to produce in their readers a disbelief of the Bible; and, therefore, it appears to be a plain duty for the lovers of the Bible to point out that herein—observe, I only speak of them in reference to this particular matter—herein they have shown themselves, to use the language of the apostle Paul, "fools."

The next proposition which I have to submit to you is this:—

Science although it sometimes has, for a while, appeared to contradict the statements, and, in many instances, has neccssitated modifications of the received text and interpretations, yet has always borne not only negative, but, upon every question which has been thoroughly investigated, positive testimony to the truth of the Bible. You will bear in mind that, although the Bible is a volume of writings inspired of God, yet the copyists by whom these writings have been transmitted to us, and the translators who rendered them into our language, were liable to err equally with the copyists and translators of other ancient books. We have, therefore, no reason to be surprised or troubled if Science have shown, as undoubtedly it has, both that the Hebrew and Greek text from which our English version was made is, in many places, corrupt, and also that in that version many words and sentences have been incorrectly rendered. On the contrary, it is a strong confirmation of our faith that not only do not the errors, although numerous, seriously affect any point of faith or duty, but the correction of them has frequently furnished an answer to some previous objection. You will also remember that, although the diligent and humble student of the Bible may confidently expect, in answer to prayer, that the Holy Spirit will teach him and guide him into all truth, yet he cannot so depend upon divine inspiration as to be able to say that his interpretation of every particular passage is certainly correct; and this liability to error, which attaches to every Christian individually, attaches also to the whole Church collectively.

We cannot wonder, therefore, that Science, as it has detected spurious readings and false renderings, so likewise should have shown some generally received interpretations to be incorrect. At the same time we can readily understand how, when these various errors were first exposed, an outcry arose that the truth of the Bible was at stake; and that if Science were permitted to teach such things, man's belief in the sacred volume would be gradually undermined and destroyed. But it has not been so. We now have no difficulty in believing that the earth is a globe suspended in space, and that it rotates daily about its axis, and revolves annually round the sun. The language of the Bible, which seems to represent it as a vast-stationary plain, and to ascribe day and night to the motion of the sun, we now readily interpret with reference to things as they appear to us, not as they are in reality. Such language is not inaccurate, any more than it would have been for one of us, when leaving England for Australia, to speak of the shores of our native land rapidly receding from our view. In the same manner we are now quite content, I suppose, to give up 1 John v. 7, although some of our fathers of the last generation contended most earnestly for retaining so distinct an affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. I, therefore, have no difficulty in admitting, not only that Science sometimes has for a while appeared to contradict the statements, but that in many instances it has also necessitated modifications both of the received text and interpretation of the Bible.

I now proceed to consider the testimony of Science to the truth of the Bible. This testimony is both negative and positive. The negative has been usually overlooked; but it is very remarkable, and to my mind in itself quite conclusive. Reflect for a moment of what a variety of writings the Bible consists. In the Old Testament we have a collection of distinct books of the most page 13 diversified kind—historical, didactic, devotional, prophetical, in prose and in poetry—written at intervals extending over a period of about 1100 years, by men of the most various characters and in the most different circumstances. In the New Testament, also we have another collection of a very various, although not so various, description. Yet, if we except the first eleven chapters of Genesis, there is no one portion of the whole volume, in which it can even plausibly be alleged that Science has found a flaw. There are many things difficult to be explained in the Bible. There are discrepancies, real or or apparent, between the books of Kings and Chronicles, between the narratives of the several Evangelists, between the historical references of the martyr Stephen and the apostle Paul. But all these difficulties and discrepancies lie upon the surface. They have not been brought to light by scientific research. Any reader of ordinary intelligence may perceive them. Science, so far from adding to, has, by the explanations which it has suggested, greatly diminished both their number and their force. In not a few instances where Science seemed to have detected an error, Science has itself confirmed the accuracy of the Bible. Some of these I shall mention presently. What I now want to impress on your minds is, that neither the science of history nor that of language, neither the investigation of the archaeologist nor that of the geographical explorer, neither natural history nor natural philosophy, has convicted one of the sacred writers of any actual mistake. In the Bible there is found no such fabulous animal as the phoenix, referred to in the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, no such absurd reasoning as that of Plato for the immortality of the soul, no such contrariety with any trustworthy historian as Xenophon's Cyropedia exhibits to the narrative of Herodotus. It is quite that the Bible was not written to teach us general history, or geology, or natural history, or natural philosophy; but statements relating to these several branches of science incidentally occur in it, and what I now assert is, that Science has not shown any of them to be false. Taking into consideration the character of the Bible, this negative fact is alone conclusive testimony to its truth; and I might add, not only to its truth but its inspiration also.

But, further, Science has, upon every question which has been thoroughly investigated, borne positive testimony to the truth of the Bible. The time at my disposal does not permit me to adduce proofs of this assertion from the discoveries of Layard in the ruins of Nineveh, the large additional knowledge we have recently acquired of Egyptian history, and the inscriptions upon the rocks of the Sinaitic desert; but I will notice one or two particulars which can be briefly told, as showing in a remarkable manner how Science has removed difficulties which itself had suggested. You remember that a king of Babylon is related to have sent messengers to Jerusalem to congratulate King Hezekiah upon his recovery from his sickness, and his success against, the Assyrians. But, during a long period of before and after the reign of Hezekiah, Babylon was under the government of the kings of Assyria. Here, then, seemed to be an historical mistake. But the more exact knowledge recently acquired has shown, that, precisely at the time when the Bible mentions this king, Babylon had revolted from Assyria, and Baladan had established in it an independent monarchy, which, however, was overthrown a few years afterwards by the Assyrians. I will take another instance from the New Testament history. Sergius Paulus, the ruler of Paphos when Paul and Barnabas visited the island, is described as the deputy, i.e., the proconsul, of the country. This was the title of the governors of those Roman provinces which were under the Senate, and was never given to the rulers of provinces which were under the direct government of the Emperor. The rulers of these latter were called proprætors, or legati. Now, Paphos was originally an imperial province, and so it was thought that the title of proconsul was incorrect. But it has since been pointed out that a Roman historian relates the Emperor Augustus to have exchanged this with the Senate for another province; and hence the title is proved to be correct.

The following instances are of another kind:—The ancient idea that the earth was enclosed by a solid concave canopy, in which the stars were fixed, has been shown by science to be erroneous, and, therefore, the word "firmament "used in Gen. i., which expresses that idea, is clearly wrong. But while the science of natural philosophy condemns our English Bible, the science of language clears the original Hebrew of all responsibility for the error; the word used in it meaning, page 14 not a "firmament," but an "expanse." Again, natural history has taught us that whales do not belong to the class of animals related in Gen. i. to have been created on the fifth day, but to the order of mammals which were created on the sixth day. Here appears an incongruity; but again the science of language helps us, by pointing out that the word rendered "whales" properly signifies "monsters," and aptly describes those saurians which occupy so prominent a place in that geological epoch.

Two other proofs of the confirmation of the truth of the Bible by Science I will mention. One, which I have never seen noticed, and which, therefore, may perhaps not strike others as it, strikes me, is afforded by the discovery of Galileo, to which I have already alluded—the rotatory motion of the earth, by which the alternations of day and night, and the rising and setting of the sun and moon, are produced. Through this rotation of the earth the apparent motions of the sun and moon are so connected with each other, that, if the one was stayed in its course, the other would be stopped likewise; whereas, if the earth were stationary and each of them revolved round it, their motions would be independent of each other, and there would be no reason why, if one were stopped, the other should not go on its course as before. Now, we have an account in the Bible of the sun being miraculously stopped, and we are expressly told that the moon, in accordance with the true theory of the earth's motion, was stopped also: "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies."

The other, and the last that I shall refer to, is the most remarkable of all; inasmuch as it distinctly demonstrates not only the truth, but the inspiration of Genesis i. It is the correspondence of the geological with the Bible record of the creation. Bear in mind that Moses, or whoever wrote that chapter, must have been wholly ignorant of geology, for there is not a trace of the existence of this science among mankind in the early ages of the world. Bear in mind also, that he could have obtained no information concerning the creation of the world from any human source. Upon this subject neither he nor any other man could have known anything, except by revelation from God. His account, therefore, must have been either inspired of God, or else a pure fiction of the imagination. Now, that it was not the latter is irrefragably proved from the confirmation of its statements by geology. Suppose any one thoroughly acquainted with geology to be required to give a summary history of this earth, the succession of plants and animals upon it, and the laws which have regulated their production. Could he do it in the same space—with the same accuracy? I will venture to affirm that he could not. Let us just call to mind the several steps in the work of creation as they are related in Genesis, and observe how graphically they describe a series of events, each of which is verified by the discoveries of geology.

The Bible history commences by telling us that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;" and it proceeds to represent the earth as entirely destitute of all vegetable and animal life, and Immersed in darkness. This description exactly agrees with the conclusions of geology; the darkness, doubtless, being occasioned by the thick vapours, through which the sun's rays could not penetrate. The creation of light upon the earth, which we can conceive to have been produced by the thinning of those vapours, is afterwards related; but, in the mention made of the Spirit of God brooding upon the face of the waters, there is an intimation of animal life having been previously produced in them; and this is quite consistent with the geological record. Next comes the creation of the expanse, the space occupied by the air, when the larger portion of the surrounding vapour was gathered into clouds, forming the waters above the expanse, which were thus divided from the waters under the expanse. The latter still continued to cover the earth. But the Bible story tells us that the next step in the progress of creation was the gathering together of those waters, and the consequent appearance of the dry land. This would be the natural result of the upheaval of all the great chains of mountains, which geology tells us occurred at that particular epoch. Here, again, the two records agree. Upon the earth being thus prepared, we read that the dry land was immediately covered with vegetation: and this fact, too, is attested by geology. And now we come to a very remarkable part of the Bible story: the making of the two great lights, or rather luminaries, for the earth— page 15 the sun and the moon. At first we are perplexed at this statement; for we cannot doubt that the sun and moon were created with the earth at the beginning, but this perplexity is removed by the explanation, that then these luminaries first became visible—shone clearly forth upon the earth. And it is very remarkable that the effect of sunshine is, at that epoch, first distinctly indicated by geology. The manner in which it is indicated is exceedingly curious. During a long series of ages the plants (I use the word as including all manner of trees), with which the earth was thickly covered, were all of a character that required for their growth heat, moisture, and shade; and hence we may infer that the earth was then still overhung with thick fogs, which the rays of the sun were unable to penetrate. But at the end of that period, as their fossil remains show, there began to appear forests of trees, the hardness of whose wood, and their season rings, proved that the earth was then in sunshine. On the fifth day, as it is called, our Bible record relates the creation of all manner of aquatic reptiles and birds, and this likewise agrees with the geological history. For it was at this epoch that, as it tells us, all the great saurians abounded upon the earth, and that birds first began to fly in the heaven. Hitherto, according to both records, no mammals, i.e., no animals of the highest class of being, existed upon the earth; but now in this sixth and last era the Bible describes their introduction, and geology also bears its testimony to the fact. Nor is our comparative review yet complete. There is still one point more to be noticed. Whatever disputes exist among them about the antiquity of man, all geologists are agreed that he was the last created animal upon the earth. Thus they confirm the Bible narrative in this also, that, when all else was finished, and God saw that it was good, He said, "Let us make man."

Thus the brief record in Genesis is confirmed in every point by the results of geological science. That record may suggest many questions as to details which we are unable to answer; but this inability does not in the least impair the force of my present argument. What I affirm is, that such a perfect correspondence between Science and Genesis i., in so many particulars, upon a subject on which nothing could have been known except by divine revelation, can be explained only by the truth, and therefore the divine inspiration, of this portion of the Bible. I can only just remind you of the controversy upon this subject, and the doubt and perplexity occasioned by it, even up to a few years ago. Even now many hesitate to accept the interpretation which geology seems to me to render necessary, and to which I see no reasonable objection, that the days in the Bible record do not mean periods of 24 hours, but long eras of time. I must also content myself with simply mentioning that geology affords no countenance whatever for the hypotheses of Darwin and the Vestiges of Creation, but, on the contrary, confirms the statement of the Bible that God created every plant and every animal after its kind. The following out of this argument has compelled me to draw very largely upon your patience; but I trust, my friends, that I have succeeded in proving to your satisfaction the truth of my proposition—that Science, although it sometimes has for a time appeared to contradict the statements, and in many instances has necessitated modifications of the received text and interpretation, yet has always borne not only negative, but, upon every question which has been thoroughly investigated, positive testimony to the truth of the Bible.

The third proposition, which I shall now endeavour to establish, is this:—

There is no reasonable cause for us to doubt that all recent scientific discoveries, and the speculations to which they have led, will likewise issue in the confirmation of truth and inspiration of the Bible. The discoveries and speculations to which I particularly allude, are those relating to the antiquity and original condition of man, which have lately excited so much attention. A few weeks ago my friend Dr. Bromby delivered a very interesting lecture upon them in this building. The hypothesis, by which he would reconcile the facts of science with the Bible story, is not in my opinion admissible; and there were some expressions used by him in his lecture which I greatly regret, as seeming to indicate a doubt respecting the title of the Bible to our unqualified belief in matters of history, and as likely to be misapprehended by many of his brethren. But while I feel bound to say thus much, I am not going to run a tilt against my friend. I am quite sure that, although he may differ from me in some particulars, he has an equal page 16 reverence with me for the Bible as the divinely-furnished treasury of all religious truth, and, with respect to all matters of Christian faith and duty, would be equally earnest with myself in contending for its inspiration of God.

From the great variety of particulars comprehended in it, this branch of my subject is exceedingly difficult to compress within the short space that I am able to allot to it, and I must therefore strictly confine myself to those matters which are essential to my argument. The course which I shall adopt will be, first, to bring together the several classes of facts which Science presents to our consideration for determining the two points that I have mentioned—the antiquity and original condition of man, and to notice some of the inferences which have been drawn from them; and afterwards to examine what the Bible tells us upon the subject. We shall then be able to compare together the respective testimony of these two witnesses, and observe whether the conclusions of Science disagree, and if so, in what particulars and to what extent, with the statements of the Bible.

Several quite distinct classes of facts relating to the carly ages of man's existence upon the earth have recently caused scientific men to attribute a very great antiquity to the human race. Of these, the first to be considered is the evidence which history and tradition furnish of the existence at an extremely distant period of highly-civilised nations, and the establishment of powerful empires, such as those of Egypt and China. Little doubt appears to be entertained by persons capable of forming a correct opinion, that the Egyptian kingdom dates from at least 2700 B.C., and that the authentic records of the Chinese empire extend back upwards of 2000, and probably 2300 or 2400 years, before the Christian era.

Next, there is another class of facts, described at some length, and with much graphic power, by Dr. Bromby, in his recent lecture, which are thought to indicate that man was an inhabitant of the earth very long before that time. For my present purpose it is necessary that I should briefly re-state them. In England and France, in certain strata, and among the bones of certain extinct animals, of a kind that geologists had previously regarded as long anterior to the existence of the human race, have recently been discovered flint and other stone implements, known now by the name of celts, together with tools of bone, and broken pieces of a very rude species of crockery, which clearly show that a race of men in a very low state of civilisation was coeval in that part of the world with those extinct races of animals. Also in the extensive peat-bogs, which are found in various parts of Denmark, have been discovered implements of stone, bronze, and iron, lying in the successive strata of the bogs—the stone being in the lowest, the bronze in the next, and the iron in the most recent strata; and what is especially noticeable, in the lowest strata with the stone implements are found the prostrate trunks of Scotch firs; in the next higher, with the implements of bronze, the trunks of oaks; and in the most recent, with the implements of iron, the trunks of beeches. Hence it is inferred that there was in the country a succession of forests of fir, oak, and beech, with which the successive races of men who used these various materials were respectively contemporary. But neither the fir nor the oak has been for the last 2000 years known to grow, or can now be made to grow, in Denmark; and therefore it is argued that many ages must have elapsed since the existence of these ancient forests, and consequently since those ancient races of men dwelt in or near them. Denmark likewise furnishes other remarkable relics of its primeval inhabitants. The shores of its islands "are dotted" with numerous mounds composed of gnawed bones and shells of fish, such as are not now to be found in that neighbourhood, interspersed with stone implements. From the circumstance that in these old "kitchen heaps," as they have been appropriately called, no remains of any extinct animals, with the exception of the urus, or wild bull, which was alive in the days of Julius Cæsar, are found, and also that the flint knives and hatchets are of a more finished description, it has been inferred that these mounds belong to a later period than the relics in England and France, of which I spoke just now. This is therefore called the second stone period. In Switzerland, again, there exist very curious remains, which are of quite a different character, but which tell a similar story of its ancient inhabitants. A large number of the lakes in that country contain the ruins, if they may be so termed, of villages, which were built on platforms raised upon piles, in water from 5ft. to 15ft. depth. The sites of these villages—i.e., the mud page 17 under the platforms on which they were built—afford abundant evidence of the condition and habits of the people who dwelt in them. In some—principally those of the Eastern lakes—no implements, except of stone, horn, and bone, have been found; but yet, in these are indications of an advance in civilisation beyond the people of the stone age in Denmark. In others, which arc confined to the Western and Central lakes, bronze weapons and utensils have been dredged up, some of them bearing a close resemblance to those which have been found in Denmark. The inhabitants of all these villages appear to have domesticated the ox, the sheep, the goat, and the dog, and to have cultivated wheat and barley. But in those of the stone age, hunted beasts seem to have been eaten more commonly than the domestic animals, and the reverse in those of the bronze age.

There is yet another class of facts which are adduced in this argument, viz., those which ethnology and the science of language have made us acquainted with. It appears to be now generally acknowledged that, while all the manifold races of mankind blend into one another, they may be classified under three types: the Caucasian, which includes the principal European and many Asiatic nations; the Mongolian, of which the Chinese may be taken as representatives; and the negro. There seems also to be no reason to doubt that these three great divisions of the human family were characterised 3000 or 4000 years ago by the same broad distinctions as at present. This as respects the negro, is actually proved by ancient Egyptian pictures, in which he is clearly portrayed, and it may, I think, be not unreasonably assumed of the Mongolians also. In correspondence with this threefold division of mankind, there is likewise (and this is a very curious coincidence) a threefold division of the various languages of the human family. Science has now grouped these also in three classes; one of which, the Aryan—or, as it is sometimes called, the Iranian or Indo-European—constitutes, in its many modified forms, the language of the Caucasian race, and includes the Sanscrit, the Greek, and the German. Another, the Turanian, is the language of the Chinese, and (strange to say) that, although with some peculiarities, of the American Indians; and the third is the language of the negro race. Each of these families of languages may be regarded as having existed as long as the race of men which uses it.

In this brief summary of the principal facts which modern science has brought to light, relative to the antiquity and original condition of man. I have merely put together results, which I have taken, and which you might any of you have taken, from the common popular works upon the subject. I have not examined, and in many cases I should not be able to judge of, the evidence—historical, archæological, geological, ethnological, and grammatical—from which these results have been deduced; but I accept them, as I accept the phenomena of natural history described by Darwin, upon the authority of the various scientific men who have made these several branches their peculiar study, and whose characters justly entitle their statements to credit. They certainly present to us a problem the solution of which, while if; is a matter of no small interest, is one of very great difficulty. I do not pretend to be able to solve it; but I trust to be able to satisfy you that, If it ever be solved, it will be in a manner consistent with the truth of the Bible.

But, before proceeding to compare these facts with the statements of the Bible, it is necessary to notice some of the inferences which have been drawn from them, and which, although all conjectural, and some in my opinion certainly erroneous, are usually assumed to be as certain as the facts themselves. This is one: from the circumstance that Denmark, and perhaps Switzerland (although this is by no means certain), was occupied successively by races which used stone, bronze, and iron for their tools and weapons, it has been inferred that in the history of mankind a stone has everywhere preceded a bronze, and a bronze preceded an iron age. But this is a quite unauthorised generalisation, and, so far as I know, entirely unsupported by facts. I am not aware of any traces of a stone age in Egypt, or in any of the ancient Eastern empires. No [unclear: celts] or kitchen heaps have been found in those countries, which appear to have been the earliest abodes of man. No argument has been adduced against the hypothesis that, at the very time when the inhabitants of Denmark were forming their kitchen heaps, and those of Switzerland dwelling in their lake villages, the Egyptians and Assyrians page 18 had already attained a high state of refinement and skill in the arts. As has been remarked, the stone age has continued here in Australia even to our own day, and lake villages are mentioned by Herodotus to have existed in his time. The fact therefore, of a people rising only implements of stone or bronze does not prove them to have been more ancient than others which had learnt the art of smelting and manufacturing iron.

Again, it has been inferred that those ancient people, who at the first only used stone implements, gradually advanced in their knowledge of the arts—first finishing more highly their tools of stone, then discovering the art of manufacturing bronze, which, as bronze is a compound of two independent metals, would require no small degree of knowledge and skill, and afterwards becoming artificers in iron. But I have found evidence whatever of any such gradual progress. The lake villages of Switzerland were certainly destroyed by a hostile race; and the earlier races in Denmark may have been in like manner exterminated by others more warlike, and more skilled in the arts than themselves.

Of a similar character is a third inference, which, in my opinion, is utterly groundless—viz., that all the most highly civilised nations of the world emerged from the same original state of barbarism, and gradually advanced to their present condition of civilisation. Of this, the facts that I have stated afford no proof whatever. So far as we learn from Science, there never was a period, at which the Egyptian and the Chinese were ignorant of the arts. Nor would such ignorance, if it existed, necessarily imply a state of barbarism. It would not imply any moral or intellectual deficiency. We might as well speak of our great Alfred as a barbarian because he was ignorant of the use of the compass, and the art of printing, and the manufacture of gunpowder; or describe Bacon and Newton as living in a barbarous age because men were then unacquainted with the use of gas, the power of steam, and the electric telegraph, as infer that a race of men were barbarians because they could not manufacture iron or bronze. Science really gives us no date for determining, with certainty, what was the moral and intellectual condition of man, or what knowledge of the arts he possessed, when he first appeared upon the earth. It does not enable us positively to decide whether the savage races who have heretofore existed, or who now exist, have gradually sunk into their present low condition, or whether the civilised nations of the world have gradually risen out of a state of barbarism. For myself, however. I should have no doubt, even if I had only the light of Science to guide me, that the former alternative contained the true explanation of the phenomena. The indications of ancient civilisation in America and other parts of the world, the traces which many existing savage tribes exhibit of having formerly held a higher rank in the human family, the instances which history has recorded of the degeneration of nations—all appear to show that the natural tendency of man is to fall rather than to rise. I have dwelt at some length upon this question, because the view which we take of the condition of primeval man has a direct bearing upon his antiquity. If we assume that man originally was in the condition of the aboriginal Dane, or, to make the nature of the assumption more clear, the aboriginal Australian, we may certainly conclude that it must have taken many thousands of years for him to raise himself to the condition of the ancient Egyptian. I do not believe that he ever could have so raised himself. On the other hand, if we believe that man in his primeval condition was a being of high intellectual power, then there is no difficulty in conceiving that within comparatively a few years—so soon as the race had begun to multiply upon the earth—cities and empires, like those of Egypt and China, were built and established.

The inferences which have been deduced from geological calculations respecting the age of the relics in the caves at Brixham in England and at Abbeville and Amiens in France, and of those in the mounds and peat-bogs of Denmark, and in the lake villages of Switzerland, carry with them more authority. But the calculations from which they are drawn are based upon hypothetical data of a very uncertain nature, so that even they cannot claim to be regarded as certain conclusions which we are bound to accept as Science. At the best they are only probable conjectures.

One other circumstance I wish you particularly to observe, viz., that science, although it traces up the characteristic differences which now exist between the various races of man, and the languages spoken by them, to an unknown antiquity, page 19 does not enable us to discover the origin of these differences. In respect to language, Max Muller appears to have traced out with wonderful skill the affinities which exist between them, and the modifications which some of them have experienced in the lapse of years; but so far as I can learn from secondary information (for I have not been able to find time to read his works), he has not established the possibility, still less has he proved the fact, of all having grown out naturally from a common parent stock. Science, therefore, does not disallow the belief that the diversities both of race and language which now exist all originated at one and the same period, and not according to the order of nature, but by a supernatural agency.

Here let us pause, and before we turn to the Bible, let us review the classes of facts we have to deal with. First, there is the acknowledged existence of the Egyptian and Chinese, and the probable, existence of other empires at a period of not less than, say, 2700 years B.C. Secondly, there are the visible remains of a race of men who lived before many species of animals had become extinct, and when the surface and climate of the earth, at least in the northern parts of Europe, were very different from what they now are; also the remains of one or more uncivilised races, which inhabited Denmark and Switzerland in prehistoric times. Thirdly, there are the differences of races and languages, which can be traced up as far as we have any knowledge of the human family. These are, I think, the only facts which Science has, as yet, established. The length of time since these several races inhabited the countries where their remains have been found, the condition of primeval man, and the origin of existing races and languages, are all matters only of more or less probable conjecture.

And now what does the Bible tell us? It tells us, first of all, that God said, "Let us make Adam" (so it is in the original Hebrew, without the article) "in our image, after our likeness;" and in the following verse, "So God created the Adam '' (here the article is prefixed) "in his own image, in the image of God created He him, male and female created He them." In the next chapter of Genesis we have a more particular account of man's creation. "The Lord God formed the Adam of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the Adam became a living soul." I may here notice, in passing, that the Hebrew word for ground is Adamah, which, as you will observe, is closely allied with Adam. The Adam was formed out of the adamah. The narrative proceeds to tell of God placing the Adam in the garden of Eden, of the provision made for him, and the commandment imposed upon him; and then it relates how God brought all the various animals to him that he should name them, and how he gave them all their distinctive names. But it tells us that there was not found for Adam (not the Adam) an help meet for him, and therefore God took one of the ribs of the Adam, and of it He formed woman. From this account it is evident that Adam, or the Adam, was, according to the Bible, no savage, but a being of great intelligence, as well as of a perfect moral purity. Afterwards, as is related, by his transgression of the divine commandment he lost his moral purity, and so sin entered into the world, and produced its baneful consequences on all his descendants. Cain, who, as we infer from the Bible narrative, was his first-born son, became a fratricide, the murderer of his brother Abel. Thenceforward the corruption of morals rapidly increased, until the wickedness of the Adam became so great upon the earth that God, we are told, destroyed the whole race, with the exception of Noah and his family by a great flood of waters.

This catastrophe, which in reference to our present subject is the second great event related in the Bible, took place, according to the chronology of the Hebrew text, which is retained in our authorised version, in the 1656th year after the creation, We are able to fix this date from the genealogical record in the fifth chapter of Genesis, and a similar genealogical record in the eleventh chapter enables us to calculate the period from the flood to the birth of Abraham. According to our English Bible, this was 352 years; and from other data which the Bible supplies the period from the patriarch's birth to the commencement of the Christian era has been calculated at 1996 years. Thus, by this reckoning it appears that less than 6000 years have elapsed since the creation, and less than 4400 since the deluge. Both these numbers make the origin of man to be of a much more recent date than the facts which I just now stated, in the opinion of scientfic men, indicate. Hence, as formerly in respect to the six days' creation page 20 of the world, different attempts have been made to bring the Bible narrative into agreement with the received theory of Science. For effecting such an agreement two suggestions have been offered. One is, that in the account of the creation the word Adam, which appears to have been often used by the Hebrews of man in general, and is frequently rendered by "man" in our English Bible, denotes, not an individual called by that name, but the human race; and that many years may have elapsed, and many countries of the world may have been peopled, before Cain and Abel were born into it. This is the hypothesis of my friend, Dr. Bromby. The other, which has been proposed by M'Causland, in a work called Adam and the Adamite, and by an anonymous writer in a book entitled Genesis of the Earth and Man, is of quite an opposite character. It supposes Adam and his descendants to have formed only one of the races of mankind—the Caucasian; and that the two other races—the Mongolian and the Negro—existed long previously, but that of them the Bible tells us nothing.

But besides others, which I need not now stop to mention, there is one objection to both these hypotheses, which appears to me quite conclusive, viz., that they are inconsistent with the doctrine of the New Testament Scriptures. For, first, in his epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, St. Paul makes the personal individuality of Adam, which he assumes as an acknowledged fact, to be the foundation of his argument concerning our redemption by and resurrection with Christ. If you look at Romans v. and I Corinthians xv., you will see that not only the correctness of the apostle's statement, but the truth of his doctrine, would be invalidated by supposing that the first Adam by whom sin entered into the world, and death by sin, was not one man in the same sense as was the second Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ, who redeemed us from sin and death, and obtained for us the gift of everlasting life. Again, if there existed upon the earth races of men not descended from Adam, such races would be excluded from redemption by Christ. For only those who die in Adam shall be made alive in Christ; only those who have borne the earthy image of the first man shall bear the heavenly image of the second man. That none are so excluded we have also, blessed be God! experimental proof in the actual turning of men of every race from darkness to lights, and from the power of Satan unto God, by the power of the preached Gospel. I have therefore no hesitation in pronouncing each of these hypotheses to be inadmissible.

Nor does it appear to me that either of them is needed. For the facts of Science which we are now considering do not, furnish any sufficient cause for rejecting the plain statement of the Bible, that all the races of mankind now existing on the earth have descended, not only from one common parent, Adam, but also from a second common parent. Noah. What has Science to allege against this assertion? I have already pointed out that the ages of the aboriginal races, as we usually call them, in England and France, in Denmark and Switzerland, are at present altogether conjectural; and no mere conjecture can reasonably be urged to invalidate the truth of the Bible. There is, however, real historical evidence of the establishment of the kingdom of Egypt and the Chinese empire some hundreds of years before the date which our English Bible assigns to the deluge; and there is also the existence within a short space after that date of the same different races of men and families of languages, as at present, to be accounted. Can we reconcile these facts with the Bible story? Yes, I think we can; not, however, with the chronology of our English Bible. But here is to be noticed one of those providential circumstances which teach us, while we put entire confidence in the Bible as inspired of God, not to pledge the truth of God to the correctness of every particular word or sentence contained in the volume which we call by that name. Our English Bible was translated from certain Hebrew manuscripts, the oldest of which is not older than the fourth century after Christ; but there is a Greek version of the Pentateuch—the Septuagint—which was certainly made from manuscripts of a much earlier date; and there is also the Samaritan Pentateuch, the manuscripts of which are likewise older than the Hebrew. Now in both of these the number of years from the flood to Abraham is sufficiently lengthened to answer the requirements of Egyptian and Chinese history, and it has long been a question in dispute among Biblical scholars whether the Hebrew or the Septuagint numbers are the more correct, You have doubtless observed page 21 that in many editions of the Bible the dates, are given systems of chronology—the one being that of Archbishop Usher, which is founded on the Hebrew manuscripts; the other that of Dr. Hales, which is based chiefly on the Septuagint version, if we assume the latter, which we very properly may, to contain the true rendering of the Bible, the historical difficulty altogether vanishes. For when we reflect that Noah and his sons probably possessed all the knowledge of the arts acquired by mankind during the period of 1656 years between the creation of Adam and the deluge, and when we reflect further that during the next thousand years the length of man's life was only gradually shortening from 600 to 200 years, and, therefore, the increase of population must have been very much more rapid than at present, it is perfectly credible that great cities should have been built, and mighty empires founded within a very little while after Noah and his sons went out from the ark. Indeed, the Bible itself tells us as much; for it mentions the kingdom of Nimrod and the cities that he built, and Nimrod was only a great-grandson of Noah, and was probably born within fifty years after the flood.

There remains, however, for us to account for the differences of race and language which existed at so early a period. Science, as we have seen, does not in the least help us to explain their origin. Does the Bible? It does; for the next great event after the flood, which is recorded in the Bible concerning man, bears directly upon the question. In the accounts which the Bible gives of the confusion of tongues, and the simultaneous dispersion of the human race "upon the face of all the earth," we have, as is pointed out in a very able book written towards the close of the last century, and lent to me some time ago by a friend, not only a positive statement of the origin of all the varieties of language, but also another fact on which we may form a very probable explanation of the origin of all the different races of men now existing on the earth. The importance of this portion of the Bible story seems to have unaccountably escaped notice in the present controversy, but it well deserves that we should spend a few minutes upon its consideration,

As to language; The affinities which have been found to connect all the manifold languages of the world with one another, and their consequent arrangement into divisions and sub-divisions, are sometimes regarded as indicating a natural growth, and inconsistent with a sudden supernatural origin. But the affinities between all the manifold kinds of animals, and their classification in orders, families, genera, and species, might in like manner be regarded as inconsistent with their creation in the manner related in the Bible. Such a notion has, in fact, led to the absurd theories of progressive development and natural selection. But there is really nothing in such affinities inconsistent with a divine origin. On the contrary, they are in analogy with all the works of God, in which he has been pleased to combine a wondrous unity with the greatest imaginable diversity, and to connect together by an innumerable number of intermediate links things which appear most strongly contrasted with each other.

Again, as to the various races of mankind;—The arguments for the unity of the human family, independently of the Bible, appear to be generally admitted as conclusive; but Science can address no evidence of the possibility of the European ever sinking into the Mongolian or Negro, or vice versa the Mongolian or Negro ever rising into the European. Such a change I believe could only be effected by a supernatural agency, or, at least, by an agency of whose operation we have now no knowledge; yet it is to be observed that these races, widely different as they are from one another, have nevertheless, like the languages which they speak, their intermediate connecting links. Of many nations or peoples it is difficult to say to which race they properly belong. It is not unreasonable, then, to conjecture that when God changed men's speech, and "scattered them abroad (in what manner we do not know) upon the face of the whole earth," he also changed their bodily construction, so that they became fitted for the different climates in which they were thenceforth to live. The description of the peopling of the earth by the descendants of the sons of Noah, in the 10th chapter of Genesis, seems to favour this conjecture. It gives the result of that confusion of tongues which is related in the following chapter; and the points to which I would direct your attention are the systematic manner in which the dispersion appears to have been effected and its great extent. Thus, of the descendants of Japheth it is said. "By these page 22 were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." Observe the gradations—nations, families, tongues; and the same expressions are used in describing the settlement of the descendants of Ham and Shem—they are distributed in their lands after their families, after their tongues, after their nations.

So far we have been following the Bible history. Let us turn once more to Science. Has it anything more to tell us? Yes; it furnishes very remarkable testimony in confirmation of the fact for which I am now contending, that the whole earth has been peopled by the descendants of Noah, and that every race of man has sprung from some one of his sons. It tells us that a tradition of the deluge, from which Noah and his family alone were saved, has been preserved in every quarter of the globe—from China in the east to America in the far west; that it existed among the civilised Chaldeans and Greeks, among the Syrians and Armenians, among the Persians and Indians, and that it now exists even amongst the savages of the Fiji islands. Of all the great ancient nations, the Egyptian is the only one among whose records there is not found some trace of it. In the tradition current among the Chinese, the resemblance to the Biblical narrative is said to be extraordinarily close. How could such a tradition have originated, except in the fact that their progenitors had actually witnessed that great flood of waters, and been preserved in the almost universal destruction of the human race occasioned by it? You will observe that the tradition does not show the deluge to have extended over the whole earth, which seems to have been disproved by geology. It only shows that the waters overflowed all that portion of the earth which was then inhabited, and that all existing nations have sprung from the remnant of mankind that escaped from them. This traditional evidence in favour of the descent of all mankind from Noah alone appears to me greatly to outweigh the argument to the contrary, which has been drawn from the long periods of time calculated to be necessary for the changes in the earth's surface and destruction of extinct animals in the caves of England and France, for the formation of the kitchen heaps and peat-hogs in Denmark, and for the rise and fall of the series of lake villages in Switzerland. Hereafter Science will probably enable us to determine with more certainty the length of those periods. When it does, I, for one, shall be prepared to accept the result without any fear that my belief in the Bible will be at all shaken by it.

There is one other proposition which I think necessary for the due completion of my task to submit to you. It is this:—

The evidence which we have of the whole Bible being inspired of God and, therefore, substantially true, is so conclusive, that we cannot conceive of any facts discovered by Science, or any theories grounded upon such facts, being able to invalidate it. To adduce in detail the proofs of this would be to try your patience for another hour and a half; but I trust to be able within a very few minutes, by briefly bringing under your review the several kinds of evidence which combine to prove the divine inspiration of the Bible, to show you that I am not making an unphilosophical or irrational assertion.

The evidence to the inspiration of the Bible is manifold, and its weight can only be duly estimated by bearing in mind its cumulative character. First, there are the historical and philological proofs, by which the authenticity and credibility of the several books of the New Testament, regarded simply as human writings, are established. They are of the same kind as those on which we receive the works of Herodotus and Thucydides, Demosthenes and Cicero, Horace and Virgil, and other ancient authors; and I may affirm without fear of contradiction, that they are stronger than can be alleged on behalf of any of the standard classics. Similar proofs, not equally strong, yet conclusive, attest the authenticity and credibility of almost the whole of the Old Testament. As I have remarked, this evidence in itself only proves the various writings to be genuine and trustworthy; but in proving this it really proves also the truth of the miraculous events which they relate; for these are so interwoven with their context that it is impossible to separate the one from the other. We must receive or reject all together. Hence this external evidence would alone be a sure foundation for our belief in the New Testament Scriptures, and in the chief portion of the Old Testament Scriptures likewise, But besides page 23 this, there is the corroborative evidence which the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament mutually bear to each other. For it is to be remembered that, although we rightly regard the Bible as one whole, it consists of two part, and that one of them contains the sacred books of the Jews, who do no believe in the Lord Jesus as the promised Messiah. The harmony, therefore, which subsists between the Old and New Testament, the express testimony which the writings in the latter bear to the truth and inspiration of the writings in the former, and the fulfilment which is recorded in the one of the types and prophecies contained in the other, all afford strong presumptive proof of the truth and inspiration of both. Then, again, there is internal evidence of many various kinds—e.g., the composition of such a perfect whole out of so many diverse parts; the oneness of mind in so many writers of different ages, characters, and conditions; the numerous undesigned coincidences which have been observed both in the Old and New Testament; the morality which characterises the entire volume, and which, as fully set forth in the New Testament, is not only incomparably superior to that of any of the ancient schools of philosophy, but is in many particulars of quite a distinct character; and (not to mention any more) the unique, and in all the several narratives of Him, perfectly consistent, character of the God-man, Jesus Christ. Lastly, in addition to all these, there is in every true Christian the inward witness whereof the Apostle speaks—"He that believeth hath the witness in himself." This, although it cannot be alleged in argument with an unbeliever, is to him that hath it indisputable.

Now, what I affirm is, that no argument, based upon any discoveries of Science can at all impair the force of such cumulative evidence. Nor is this an unphilosophical or irrational assertion; for evidence of one kind may be so conclusive that no evidence of another kind, however strong, can shake our belief in it. Although we may not be able to rebut the one, we do not the less continue to believe the other. Whoever, then, is fully convinced by such evidence as I have referred to of the truth and inspiration of the Bible, will not be shaken in his belief, and ought not to allow his mind to be disturbed, by any allegations which maybe made in the name of Science to the contrary. If he cannot answer these allegations, he may put a way the thought of them, and may quiet himself with the assurance that they are grounded upon some false assumption, or some illogical inference, which will sooner or later be discovered.

But some of you, perhaps, may be disposed to ask whether the inspiration of the Bible, as a whole necessarily implies the correctness of every statement contained in it. I think that it does, but herein, I am aware, all true lovers of the Bible may not agree with me; and, therefore, I would not condemn every one who does not think so as a heretic or unbeliever. It is, however, to be observed, and on this account I attach so much importance to my present proposition, that the object of these writers who are now endeavouring by means of Science to disprove particular statements of the Bible, is not merely to persuade their readers that the Bible cannot safely be relied on in scientific matters, but to undermine the whole edifice of the Christian faith, and to banish from the minds of men in this enlightened age the unphilosophical idea (so they regard it) of a revelation from God. All who read their works must perceive that they disbelieve the New Testament as well as the Old, and that they would, if possible, make all other men unbelievers like themselves.

And now, if I may venture to do so, I will assume the privilege of an old man, and conclude my lecture by giving my younger friends in this assembly some advice, which has been suggested by its preparation.

In the first place, if you would escape having your faith shaken, or your minds disturbed, by unexpected discoveries of Science, and by the use made of such discoveries by sceptical writers, take pains to acquaint yourselves with the evidences, external and internal, for the truth and inspiration of the Bible. For this no great labour is needed. Any popular work upon the evidences of Christianity such as those of Archbishop Whately and Bishop M'llvaine, will give you all the information that you require; only you must really apply your minds to the subject, so as to understand and remember what you read, and thus be able to give an intelligent answer to every one who asks you a reason of your belief.

Secondly, if you are desirous of satisfying yourselves as to the relation in which Science stands to the Bible, read some of the excellent books which have page 24 recently been written upon this subject by true Christian philosophers, such as The Bible and Modern Thought, by Birks; Modern Scepticism and Modern Science, and Science and Scripture, by Professor Young; and The Reign of Law and Primeval Man, by the Duke of Argyle.

Thirdly, if any works such as I have been reviewing this evening, or any of the many pamphlets, now so common, impugning the veracity of the Bible, come in your way, do not read them cursorily; and do not, because of the scientific reputation of any author, assume the truth of his conclusions. Analyse every argument, distinguishing between what is an ascertained fact, and what a mere conjecture, what the record of an observation and what an idea of the imagination, what a crude hypothesis and what an established theory. You will thus be able to determine their real character, and the weight which is to be attached to them.

Fourthly, if any facts of science seem to contradict a statement of the Bible, do not at once assert that they cannot be true; but compare the facts and the statement carefully together, and see whether they do not admit of being reconciled with one another. If any new reading or interpretation of the text be proposed in order to reconcile them, give it due consideration, and if it appear reasonable, accept; if unreasonable, reject it. If no satisfactory solution of a difficulty can be found, regard it as intended to try your faith, and patiently wait. You may be sure that all questions relating to science will eventually be settled without any discredit to the Bible.

Lastly, and above all, read constantly, day by day, the Bible itself; and not only read the Scriptures, but "mark, learn," and pray that God will, by His Holy Spirit, enable you to "inwardly digest them." Then shall you be armed against all the wiles of the devil, and having heartily embraced, shall continue to "hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life" which God has given us in His Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

vignette

Mason, Firth and Co., Printers, Flinders Lane West, Melbourne.