Eastern times., 1854-03-23
Mist&llan
The Bible and Geology.


the following interesting report of one of DR.
Hltchcock's lectures before the Young Mems
Christian Association of Boston
" In commencing his fourth lecture, the
Professor said that great injury had been done
to both science and revelation, by represent
ing that as collision which was only an il.
lustration. Skeptics had exultingly quoted
Solomon's allusion to the effect of pouring
vinegar upon nitre, as being contrary to the
facts Of chemistry; but further examination
of the subject had shown that the article spok-
en- of by Solomon was not the ratre of oul
chemical nomenclature, but sulphate of potash
or soda.
When the Copernican system was an
nounced, the theologians thought this was
certainly in conflict with Revelation but
they were at length compelled to acknowledge
that it was only in conflict with their false in
terpretations Of certain passages of Scripture.
Up TO the present time the impression had
been very general, that Geology was in con-
fiict with Revelation /; but the fact was, it on
ly served to illustrate our misinterpretation Of
some particular passages. The object of this
lecture would be to call attention to some of
those illustrations.
l. He said Geology served to illustrate
this in relation to the chronology and cosmo-
poity Of the Bible The Interpretation gen
orally given to the narrative of Moses made
the origin of this world coeval with the crea-
ton of man. whereas Geology goes to show
the immense antiquity of the globe. But in
stead of admitting that there was a conflict,
the part of wisdom was, to take the Bible, and
examine, and see if there had not been a mis-
Interpretation. Many of the ancient fathers,
whom he named, he said believed in the ex-
istence of this world for long period before
the creation of man, and this opinion they de-
rived not from Geology, but from the language
of Scripture.
We read that In the beginning, God Gre
ated the heavens and the earth This annun-
citation was separate from the account Of the
six days of the creation and in his view re-
ferred to the original creation of the world
ages before the six days occupied in the crea-
| ton of the present system. Was not this a
case, he inquired, where well-established
fact in Geology might put different interpre-
tation upon a passage of Scripture He
could see no objection to supposing that long
time had elapsed after the creation of the
world before the events named in the succeed
ing verses. If such an interval be admitted
before the beginning of the six days, all diff
fculty between Revelation and the facts Of Ge.
ology will at once disappear.
But some have adopted the theory that the
six days were long periods Of time, and not Sc
many of our days.
But he could never himself see occasion tC
adopt this theory first, because it was no
necessary in order to reconcile Scripture with
Geological facts; and, second, it put forced
construction upon the language Of Scripture
And yet, his objection to it was more Geo
logical than Scriptural. Vegetation was no
produced till the third day, and if these were
long periods of time, then we ought not to fine
any traces of vegetation till after the thirC
formation, which was contrary to the fact
And then again, the animals were not created
till the fifth day and according to this theory
We ought not to find the fossil remains of ami
mails in any of the lower formations, wherea!
they were found in them ALL Yet there were
some eminent Christian men, among whom
was Prof Silliman, who adopted this latter
theory.
Then there was an Interpretation of the pas
sage, sand the earth was without form, ant
void,' which was corrected by Geology
This had been understood as meaning that i
was in a state Of confusion and disorganiza
ton. But Geology showed that it had never
been under any other laws than those which
govern it now and critical examination o
the passage showed that it merely meant tina
the earth was empty and unfinished.
2. Geology in connection with Zoology il
lustrates the deluge of Noah. The opinion
prevails, to some extent, that all the fossil:
found in the rocks were produced by the del
uge But, if this were so, they would be
found thrown together in confusion whereas
they we're found in regular systematic order
In the fact Of Geology that various deluges
of limited extent occurred, we find presump:
ton in favor of the Scripture deluge. He
said of limited extent, because facts showed
that it could not have been universal unless
miraculous. If miraculous, then all objec
tions on this score would cease.
But the Scriptural account did not favor
the idea that it was miraculous, but the rath-
er, Providential ordering Of natural causes
We find several difficulties in the way Of its
universally. One is, the limited quantity o.
| water, which would have been insufficient tC
cover the whole surface of the earth, above
the tops of the highest mountains. Another
was. the limited dimensions Of the ark, which
could not have held animals of all the i'm
mense number of species, whose remains are
found on the earth But the greatest diff
Guilty was, the geological fact, that the differ
ent species Of animals are limited to particular
districts, from which they cannot safely emf
CRATE. The more rational conclusion was
that the deluge was confined to the distric
where 1t occurred. And he showed tina
this correspQnded with the Oriental style o
speaking, Of which he gave number OF ex
amples from Scripture.