We rejoice in these clear results of Geology agreeing with the Bible. And no geological facts can be pointed out, which in themselves, contradict the Bible.* An apparent contradiction can result only from immature hypotheses built precipitantly upon premises wholly unable to support them. It was this precipitancy which gave birth to those innumerable geological systems of which Cuvier speaks, as we have seen. We must thoroughly understand the account of Moses, and also the mountains of the earth, before we shall be able to compare them with each other. But as Buckland well remarks," thorough geological investigations lead back to the Holy Scriptures, while superficial investigations lead from them." 11. ASTRONOMY AND THE BIBLE. The second alledged opponent of the Bible, according to Bretschneider, is Astronomy. He says (p. 70,) "It was this exalted science which first made a fatal assault upon the notions of antiquity respecting heaven, earth, hell, resurrection, judgement, and the end of the world, which still remained unaltered at the time of the Reformation." He then puts down Melancthon as a man very limited in his astronomical views, because he called the Copernican doctrine of the motion of the earth round the sun, foolish and visionary, "being led to this probably," as Bretschneider goes on to say, "by recollecting the words of Joshua, stand still, O Sun, upon Gibeon." One remark here. Every country schoolmaster now teaches by hearsay, that the earth moves round the sun, without once thinking of giving himself or his scholars, the trouble of comprehending the planetary motions. But Tycho Brahe, Riccioli, Bacon, and other great spirits of antiquity, did not allow themselves to dispose of this subject so easily. Bretschneider seems to suppose, that Melanc * As, for example, the appearance of Fossils. As the geologists now connect the Volcanic with the Neptunian theory, there is no possibility of fixing the epochs of formation, with any tolerable degree of probability. One example may suffice to show this. Brogniart, in the work before cited, considers Granite as a body sometimes projected, sometimes precipitated. Suppose a granite summit, to project above a layer of clay, which encircles it. If it is regarded as precipitated, it is older than the layer of clay covering it, and cast upon it. If it is regarded as projected, it is more recent than the layer of clay which covers it, and through which it broke forth from beneath. The ambiguity and arbitrariness of the geological interpretation is clear. I mention this in reference to Dr. Bretschneider's "indefinite, but long epochs of formation." thon could have been led to his decision, only by a blind adherence to the Bible. But if a man of as much genius as Melancthon possessed, gave himself to the diligent study of the heavenly bodies, it is not to be wondered at, if, in his best endeavours to understand the Copernican system, many things in it should have seemed to him, if not against reason, yet above it.* Suppose that on the 21st of June he had beheld from his window in Wittenberg, the Polar star exactly over the point of a neighbouring spire; and that, on his seeing again on the night of the 21st of December, the same star, from the same window, and exactly over the same spire, his Copernican colleague Rhaticus had told him, that he was now more than forty millions of miles distant from the place, in which he was on the 21st of June, i. e. that since that time the earth had moved on so far:-I put it now to Dr. Bretschneider's conscience, what would the rationalist theologians have decided respecting this fact of the Copernican Astronomy, if it had been mentioned, not in an astronomical book, but in the Bible? Would they not have declared it mathematically impossible? But truly these theologians believe science in every thing upon its mere word; while in nothing do they repose trust in their rightful Lord and Master. It is a remark of Pascal, "that we must doubt in the right place, be decided in the right place, and submit ourselves in the right place. One who does not this, understands not in what the strength of reason consists." But these theologians doubt in just the wrong place, are decided in the wrong place, and in the wrong place submit their reason; and therefore know but little of the strength of rea A distinction which Bretschneider particularly insists upon in his work against Rose. It would be well for him to annex the more accurate distinction of Quenstedt. 1. "Articuli fidei non in se sunt contra rationem, sed solum supra rationem: per accidens vero fit ut sint etiam contra rationem, quando ratio judicium sibi de illis sumit ex suis principiis, nec sequitur lucem verbi, sed eosdem negat et impugnat. 2. Articuli fidei sunt non solum supra, sed et contra rationem corruptam et depravatam, quæ illos stultitiam esse judicat." 1. Articles of faith are not in themselves contrary to reason, but only above it. It sometimes indeed happens, that they are also contrary to reason, when reason assumes judgement over them on its own principles, and does not follow the light of the word, but denies and assails them. 2. Articles of faith are not only above, but contrary to depraved and corrupt reason, which judges them to be foolishness. + It will be obvious, that by these remarks I only design to show, how much easier it is to receive the Copernican system on faith, than to understand it thoroughly enough, not to be perplexed by facts regarding it, which appear to us to be truly miraculous. son, and so can be called Rationalists, only by the same privative etymology, by which lucus is derived à NON lucendo. I come now to those scriptural doctrines which are said to be endangered by the Copernican Astronomy. How the passage in Joshua which has already been cited, might, on a superficial view, appear to be irreconcileable with the hypothesis of Copernicus, is very obvious: but how many of the things mentioned by Bretschneider are so, it is impossible for me, after my best endeavours, to understand. To cite only a single example: "Whereas," he says (p. 73,) "the ancients felt a necessity of having an under world for the souls of the deceased, because they could neither leave them upon the surface of the earth, nor transport them to heaven; this necessity ceased now to be felt any longer. Indeed the whole notion of an under world and a hell, was destroyed by Astronomy and Geology, and with it all the traditionary notions about the punishments of the damned. With the loss of the old belief about heaven and hell, the Devil also, with the Evil spirits, lost his place as a fallen angel, banished from heaven. The idea, too, of Christ's descent to hell became very troublesome to theologians, after the under world had been taken from them." "It now became a question with our theologians, where the soul of Christ was, while his body lay in the grave." This seems then to imply the thought, that Christ was only apparently dead. The reader will perceive that Bretschneider understands the art of drawing consequences. Were the premises only true, the conclusion would certainly be so. The premises are, that the notion of an under world is destroyed by Astronomy and Geology. But what does the Astronomer or the Geologist know of the interiour of the earth? I must refer again to what has been said before, that the depth to which the miner has penetrated, may be compared with the scratch of a needle on the varnish of a common globe. Can the texts, Eph. 4: 9, and 1 Pet. 3: 19, 20, be so easily set aside? But how comes it to pass, every intelligent reader will be ready to enquire, that these inconsistencies between the Copernican system and the Bible, if they really exist, have been unobserved during nearly three centuries? The three great heroes of Astronomy, Copernicus, Keppler, and Newton, were certainly Christian believers, and any thing but Newton's firm and pious. known, to make it necesHis work on Chronolo indifferent to such contradictions. adherence to the Bible is too well sary for me to dwell upon it here. gy is based upon the Bible. This man, whom his age admired as its greatest genius, wrote a commentary on the Prophet Daniel and the Apocalypse. Hence we may infer (a majori ad minus), what was the degree of his orthodoxy. What Keppler thought of the apparent contradictions between the Bible and the system of Copernicus, appears from the following passage. "Astronomy," he says,* " unfolds the causes of natural things; it professedly (ex professo) investigates optical illusions. The Bible, which teaches higher things (sublimiora tradentes,) makes use of the common modes of speech, in order to be understood,-speaks only in passing of natural things, according to their appearance, since it is upon their appearance, that human language is built. And the Bible would speak in the same way, even if all men had insight into these optical illusions. For even we astronomers do not pursue this science with the design of altering common language; but we wish to open the gates of truth, without at all affecting the vulgar modes of speech. We say, with the common people, the planets stand still, or go down, the sun rises and sets, it comes forth from one end of heaven, like a bridegroom from his chamber, and hides itself at the other end;-it mounts into the midst of the heavens, these forms of speech we use with the common people; meaning only, that so the thing appears to us, although it is not truly so, as all astronomers are agreed. How much less should we require that the Scriptures of divine inspiration, setting aside the common modes of speech, should shape their words according to the model of the natural sciences, and by employing a dark and inappropriate phraseology about things which surpass the comprehension of those whom it designs to instruct, perplex the simple people of God, and thus obstruct its own way towards the attainment of the far more exalted end at which it aims.t" Epitome Astronomiæ Copernicanæ, p. 138. + A certain author, in a poetic address to the morning, attempted, in opposition to these views of Keppler, to adapt his language to the Copernican system: The first verse is as follows. When the majestic king of day, Ascends the flaming eastern skies, The author's well meant scientific zeal has occasioned some confusion here; Thus plainly and excellently does this great Astronomer answer the objections which were made at his time, from the apparent inconsistencies between the Copernican system and the Bible. Still more readily does Copernicus himself dispose of those who attempted to prove such inconsistencies. He had so good a theological conscience in the construction of his system, that he dedicated his celebrated work, de revolutionibus orbium celestium, to Pope Paul III. In this dedication he says, "Should there, perchance, be any foolish praters (paralóhoyo), who, while they know nothing of mathematical matters, yet assume to pronounce judgement concerning them, and on account of some texts of Scripture which they wickedly pervert to their own purposes, venture to blame and denounce my work;-for such persons I concern myself not at all, and despise their opinion, as stupidly impudent."* Copernicus, like Keppler, and afterwards Newton, were therefore firmly persuaded, that the new system of the world was not opposed to the Bible. But the monks who condemned Galileo thought differently, and agreed with Dr. Bretschneider. He and the monks place the matter in this position, either the doctrines of the Bible, or the doctrines of Copernicus are true, one or the other must give place. The monks, and with them the Pope, decided for the Bible; Bretschneider for Copernicus, and against the Bible; "since it is obvious," as he says, "that the sciences, which rest upon experience, cannot be refuted." "And even the Pope," he says, (p. 77,) "saw himself compelled, after a number of years, to allow the condemned Copernican system in Rome." Does Bretschneider then really think, that in allowing the Copernican system, the Pope at the same time pronounced, as carelessly as he himself does, many of the doctrines of the Bible erroneous, and that he assailed the book of Joshua? On the contrary, science rather appeals de papa male informato, ad papam melius informandum-from the Pope ill-informed, to the Pope to be better informed, and the Pope is now convinced, that those who find such contradictions since he not only makes the earth revolve, but the sun ascend the sky, and thus puts them both in motion. The passage is thus in the original: "Si fortasse erunt paratóXoyoi qui cum omnium mathematum ignari sint, tamen de illis judicium sibi sumunt, propter aliquem locum scripturæ, male ad suum propositum detorsum, ausi fuerint meum hoc institutum reprehendere ac insectari, illos nihil moror, adeo at etiam illorum judicium tamquam temerarium contemnam." |