Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-06-23 00:00:00

LITERATURE.

GEOLOGY AND GENESIS : or, the- Two Teachings Coo.
trasted. By "C." London: Whittaker and Co. ;
Liverpool: William Ming.
The_volttme now lying before us came into existence in
consequence of a controversy recently carried on in one of
our local papers, and which attracted to itself consider-
able attention. A reverend gentleman having delivered a
lecture, containing some very amazing geological views,
the author of the volume now published entered into a
critical examination of its teachings, in .a Liverpool news-
paper, under the signature of " C." In this essay, the
writer declared the facts of geology decidedly at variance
with the Mosaic narrative. The Rev. Dr. Baylee, of St.
Aidan's College, Birkenhead, issued a challenge to the
writer to maintain his statement, which, after some short
delay, was accepted, and a controversy was carried
on for a considerable time, the re-publication of which
forms the principal portion of the present volume.-yao
render the discussion fully intelligible to those whose minds
have not been occupied to any extent by its subject,
the author has introduced the controversy in this edition
by a clear, succinct, and very able exposition of the gene-
ral views he:entertains as to the light thrown by the dis-
coveries of geology upon the teachings of the narrative of
Genesis. The arguments of the author tend to maintain
the conclusion that the literal interpretation of the Mosaic
narrative "presents a method of creation which, if true,
is the perfection of disorder, inconsistency, and discord-
ance, while, on the other hand, paleontology reveals to
us, in nature's works, a system of order and harmony
both in the introduction and the distribution of her several
forms." On the other hand, Dr. Baylee declares himself
prepared to prove that, " not only upon geology, but upon
every Scienttfic subject, the Holy Bible is infallibly true."
It would be an übter injustice to such a question, involv-
ing some of the most important considerations our age can
entertain, and preluding a struggle which some day must
come to be decided on the grounds of physical science,
to attempt any independent inquiry of our own, within the
limited space of newspaper columns, into the reconcil-
ability of the Mosaic narrative, taken in its ordinary and
obvious sense, with the established results of geological
discovery. We rather confine any remarks we have to
make to the character of the discussion actually before
us, and the manner in which it has been conducted,
while expressing, at the same time, our very decided
opinion, that every day which adds a new discovery to
the great researches of astronomical and geological
science, must place an additional obstruction in the way
of those who would force upon the public mind a dogmatic
and literal interpretation of the whole narrative of
Genesis.

The reader will not be surprised /o find that a contro-
versy of this kind contains much that is wholly irrelevant
to the question. Indeed, an almost insurmountable diffi-
culty stands in the way of a fair discussion of such a
question under such circumstances. The ordinary mode
by which any reasonable man would arrive at a decision
upon the literal accuracy of a disputed statement, is to
examine every one of its parts, and ascertain calmly and
inductively, how far each consists with the recognised
standard furnished by established fact. In this instance
one of the disputants proceeds by a process exactly the
reverse. He starts with the determination that every
portion:of the narrative is, and must be, infallibly correct ;
and, proceeding on this ,basis, 'he examines, not the nar-
rative by the light of positive science, but positive science
by the light of the narrative. Wherever a fact seems to
throw a doubt upon the narrative, the disputant proceeds,
on the basis that the narrative must be true, to discredit
and endeavour to disprove the fact ; or, at least to
find'in-the words of the narrative some remote possibility
of a meaning which may not be wholly inconsistent with
It. With an opponent who thus argues—and this, it must
be added, is the usual manner in which theological dis-
putants conduct such inquiries—one can hardly conceive
what possibility there can be of a fair discussion being
afforded to one who proposes to begin from the other end,
and to pursue the controversy on the ordinary basis of
argument. It is to be regretted, moreover, that on both
sides so much of the reader's time and patience should be
occupied with matter which could not in any case have
anything whatever to do with the question. •On a subject
of such a character, the disputants might surely have
avoided what we cannot help calling the tricks of ordinary
newspaper controversialists. It is by no means necessary
that each writer should begin every letter by complaining
Of the personalities of his opponent, and disclaiming any
Personalities on his own part; by declaring that nothing
said on the other side has had anything to do with the
subject, and that only his own arguments have the slightest
reference to it. As unconcerned spectators, we cannot
help thinking that a'good deal. of needless personality has
come from each side, and that a considerable amount of
irrelevant dissertation has been frequently introduced by
both the disputants. One very objectionable style of pro-
ceeding is, however, remarkable in these pages, from
which " C'' is wholly free. The Rev. Dr. Baylee, on
More than one occasion, assumes his views of the meaning
of the narrative of Genesis to be " God's holy word," and
calmly describes " C." as a person who has "volunteered
a public denial of its scientific truth." He declares his
Own letters to be " the defence of God's holy word." He
considers it "a great sin for a person to speak so (as
" C." has done) of God's revealed truth." He challenges
"C." to show "one single discrepancy between God's
holy word and the facts of geology." He says, " Great
indeed would be the unfaithfulness of the ministers of
religion, if they permitted God's blessed word to be
assailed and its truth denied, without standing forward in
its defence ;" and intimates to " C." that " he will find it
to be true when Christ will vindicate that word at the
Judgment seat." ! We think that when such weapons came
to be used by one of the disputants, the other might fairly
have declined carrying on the contest any longer. If
`` C." had undertaken to prove any discrepancy between
God's holy word and the results of God's own work, his
task would, indeed, have been a rash and a hopeless one.
If he had, come forward as an assailant of God's truth'
One could hardly blame very severely the hint which his
opponent charitably gives of the day of reckoning to
Come, when the judgment seat of heaven itself would de-
cide the argument. But as every professor of every
creed, however fantastic, extravagant, or monstrous, has
invariably arrogated to himself the position of au in-
fallible expounder of God's word, it may be some comfort
to C." to know that he is only the object of the very
same denunciations which somebody else hurls at Dr.
Baylee himself, and a third, in some remote corner, flings
out against Christianity in whatever form. This being
precisely the style of lauguage which every one may em.
ploy against every one else who happens to differ from
him, it would have been more creditable to an enlightened
Churchman, to have omitted altogether the weapons
Which are only fitted for boisterous controversial plat-
forms, where neither party can avail of argument, all being
upon a level of equal ignorance. It would, indeed, be a great
sin, to use Dr. Baylee's phrase, to deny the word of
God, and attempt to assail its truth. But it is a very
different thing to deny the correctness of Dr. Baylee's in -
terpretation of that word, and to assail his geological
knowledge. Until Dr. Baylee is accepted by Christendom
as the infallible interpreter of that Word, it would be
better ho should avoid the arrogance of assuming a doubt
of his opinions, and a contempt for his geological attain-
ments, to be synonymous with a denial of God's truth,
and a sin calling for the vengeance of heaven.
Much of the argument, on both sides, resolves
itself into a critical examination. of the precise
form and significance of certain words in the
nebrew Bible. Without a thorough and critical know-
ledge of Hebrew, we are told by Dr. Baylee
the subject cannot be even approached. ".I may fear-
lessly appeal to the understanding of all reflective persons
Whether it is not to Moses' own words, and not to any
translation, that we are to appeal when his'statements are
to be subjected to the closest scientific scrutiny." In a
subsequent letter Dr. Baylee says:—"A. critic would
expose himself to ridicule who should attempt a critical
investigation of Homer's Greek, by a, sole appeal to the
English translation." It is obvious, of course, that a
critical examination of an author's literary merit, or a
Philological investigation of his style, cannot possibly be
carried on . through the medium of a translation. But a
Plain narrative and statement of fact may surely be
compared with recognised physical truths, even by men
not acquainted critically with the language of the narra-
tive. A translation which cannot adequately render the
Meaning of a writer for this_ purpose, must surely be good
for nothing. Homer's Greek it is, of course, physically
impossible to examine in Pope's English ; but, when
Homer relates series of events, it 'is
.certainly not

expecting too or !!' co-, to suppo,' '!'

Carty •VS rtiZahl.,

rnea:l;.:;. If the recognised English versi,,a i
ins. t an obvious meaning, intelligible:and capable 0,, :y
of, oae construction to ordinary min upan a M )3t
important theme, and the Hebrew original be found on
reference, to bear a meaning quite different, and leading to
perfectly opposite conclusions, our Saxon Bible can
scarcely be the boon to the country Dr. Baylee declares
it. A more conclulive argument for an amended transla-
tion cannot well be furnished, than the statement that on
a point of the highest importance, and on which the
gravest differences of opinion arise, the present transla.
tion conveys an interpretation which, to say the least, is
utterly inadequate, and which Dr. Baylee explains by a
circumlocutory sentence, filled with a purport no ordinary
Individual could ever have conjectured from the received
rendering. No one will be surprised, however, to hear
that Dr. Baylee's version is disputed by other authorities
in Hebrew. We are. thus placed in the very disagreeable
position of being ass;red that Onr true understanding of
the first chapter in the book of Genesis, depends upon the
precise force of two or three phrases of a language very
few men in this country understand, and of which very
phrases:three different authorities give us three different
interpretations.

Having,remarked these po!nts, negd hardly say that
the scope of the controversy has not been such as, in our
opinion, fairly to deal with the great question opened
up.

We have only spoken of the mode of argument. The
merits of the controversy we leave for the consideration

of our readers.

It would be needless to add that the author of this
work is charged with infidelity. Infidelity of late has
come to mean a doubt of any interpretation which any-
body puts forward as the true meaning of Bible passages.
Every sect declares every other sect infidel : every dog-
matist thunders the name at every inquirer. The phrase
at last, loses its terrors, and the infidels of yesterday be-
come the believers of to-day. It will, no doubt, be re-
cognised before long, that sincere desire for truth, ani-
mated by -a reverential spirit, cannot push-its inquiry
too far. Themore we know of God's works, the more we
must reverence his power. In every branch of scientific
knowledge modern inquiry has changed the ideas of men
since the. English Bible was published, 'and not one man
the les's receives that Bible as his moral and religious
guide. The truths which Moses was inspired to teach,
are no more discredited by the fact that modern science
has developed geological and astronomical systems un-
known to his age, than by the fact that he was born too
soon to know of the printing press and the steam-engine.
The teachings he was specially sent to promulgate in-
quiry can only supplement, but cannot contradict. To
insist upon a literal interpretation and an infallible
acceptation of his testimony on subjects not involved in
that special object, is to do the heaviest injustice to the
truths he has made known. Men are sometimes deterred
from inquiry by a conscientious, but 'very needless fear,
that they may shake the basis of established belief. There
is some vanity in the idea. We need not have the slightes t
dread that any of us can discover anything which can
discredit the faith sent from heaven. We may rest well
assured that God's word can never be contradicted by
God's works.

THE LEAD LINE ONCE MORE.