GEOLOGY has no axioms, or generalized facts whatever, except those, first, which respect the materials of which the different strata of the earth consist; secondly, the relations which they sustain to each other, or the order in which they are super-imposed; and thirdly, the agents or media through which they are formed and placed in their present positions; and they furnish no means of a scientific demonstration of a different and higher class of truths, such as the existence of the world through an immeasurable round of ages. The facts, for example, that the strata are often very numerous and of great thickness, that they consist of certain substances, and are arranged in a specific or uniform order, is no basis for the logical deduction of such a conclusion, just as the fact that the great pyramid of Egypt consists of a certain series of stones of certain specific characters, and arranged in a certain order, is no logical ground for the inference that a vast series of ages was occupied in its erection—inasmuch as the time required for its formation did not depend on the magnitude of the effect, but on the measure of the forces by which it was accomplished.
It is not, therefore, a demonstrative science, in the usual sense of the term. Its facts do not furnish the media of deducing a set of general laws peculiar to itself, by which all the phenomena of which it treats can be explained. And consequently, it cannot, by possibility furnish a scientific confutation of the Mosaic account of the creation. The fancy of such a demonstration is a mere fallacy, veiled under the forms of a philosophical induction; and stated arithmetically, is simply equivalent to the following problem in the rule of three: As the depth of the primary strata or any one of them is to the period which was employed in its formation, is the depth of the whole series to the periods which their deposition occupied—in which, as the second term, on which the problem turns, must be arbitrarily assumed, the result, instead of being scientifically demonstrated, is necessarily a mere deduction from a conjecture, and without value.
Geology, accordingly, in place of a systematic body of truths deduced from a few primary axioms or laws, that are demonstrated by experiment, and furnish a scientific solution of all the phenomena presented by the strata of the earth, consists only of facts or truths that are ascertained by observation. It is no more a demonstrative science than any other branch of knowledge that is acquired solely by that method, such as the topography of countries. The investigation of the fallen capitals of Assyria, by Botta, Layard, and others, and their statements respecting their date and destruction, present a very exact parallel to it. Instead of an affair of axioms or laws, it is simply a question of substances and their relations and conditions, that is determined by inspection. It is entitled, therefore, to the name of a science in no higher sense than that it presents a minute and accurate description of the elements of which the crust of the earth is composed, the order in which the strata are arranged, their depth and extent, and the vegetable and animal relics that are embedded in them, and in some instances gives a probable hypothesis of the sources whence their materials were drawn, the means by which they were originally arranged horizontally, and the forces by which they have since been modified in structure, and thrown into their present conditions. To accomplish anything beyond this, to demonstrate that the date of the creation was infinite ages ago, is wholly without its sphere. It might almost as well be assigned the task of determining any other date in chronology, or resolving any other question with which it has no logical connection.
Another impression which needs to be corrected, to which the language and representations of writers on the subject have given birth, is, that no person can be competent to offer objections to the theories that are formed respecting it, except professed geologists. An attempt by men of other pursuits to controvert their deductions, and especially by expositors and theologians, is treated as an ill-judged and absurd intrusion into a sphere for which they can have no qualifications—as nothing else indeed than an attempt to solve the problems of one branch of knowledge by the principles of another with which it has no affinity. It is, accordingly, often met by mere appeals to prejudice, repelled with sneers as unworthy of consideration, or denounced in terms of discourtesy and passion quite inconsistent with the calmness and impartiality of philosophers who regard themselves as able to verify their doctrines by scientific processes, that have the force of unanswerable demonstration. That the works that are usually quoted as specimens of the ill-judged attempts of "the divine and man of letters" to treat of the subject, such as those of Penn, Nolon, and Cole, betray a very unfortunate inacquaintance with many of the topics which they discuss, and indulge in unjustifiable imputations on those whom they assail, we shall not deny. That they undertook a task for which they were inadequately qualified, is no ground, however, for the conclusions that no others who are not professors of the science can be warranted in discussing it. Great as their errors are, they are not greater than those into which some of the geologists of their period fell; nor do the asperities in which they indulge, transcend those that have disfigured the controversies which geologists have waged with each other. The objection is absurd indeed, in the absolute form in which it is often presented, inasmuch as the question whether an argument against the geological theory is entitled to consideration or not, must depend on its character, not on the class from which it proceeds.
In the first place, this opposition to the criticism of their theory by any except of their own profession, is chargeable with much the same inconsideration and injustice which they impute to the divines who venture to arraign their doctrines at the bar of the Bible, and show that they contradict the history God has there given of the work of the creation. For it certainly lies within the proper province of the sacred interpreter and the theologian to ascertain what the import of the record in Genesis, and of other parts of the sacred volume which treat of the creation, and to determine whether the dogmas of geology contravene it or not. They do not step out of their sphere in that part of their labors. It is their proper and peculiar province. They are equally in their sphere also when, on finding that the teachings of the sacred word are contradicted by the speculations of geologists, they point out the error, and defend the Bible from the inferences which might otherwise be drawn against its inspiration. It is a task to which their profession directly calls them, and which they cannot refuse to fulfill, without a gross dereliction of their office. When, therefore, these objectors charge them in this with transcending their proper profession, they are themselves guilty of the unfairness which they unjustly impute to them. It is the mere geologist, plainly, who quits his proper sphere, when he attempts to decide that the record of the creation in Genesis is not inconsistent with his theory of the age of the world—not the philologist and theologian who venture to decide that it is. How is it that geologists have any higher right to determine what the meaning of the first chapter of Genesis is, than divines have to pronounce upon the true theory of geology? How, indeed, is it that they have an exclusive title to treat of the subject, while divines are guilty of transcending their province, when they venture to interpret and maintain what God has revealed respecting the creation? This important question seems not to have occurred to these objectors; but while in effect denying to divines the right not only to treat of geology, but even to interpret and teach the word of God, which is the peculiar business of their office, they themselves not only claim it as their special function to treat authoritatively of geology, but usurp the right also of determining the philological meaning of the inspired history of the creation, which lies out of their peculiar sphere.
This objection, then, to the interference of divines and philologists with the subject, so far as the interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, and a protest against the theories of geology which contradict the testimony God has there given, are concerned, should be withdrawn. It is not only unauthorized and unjust, but it is more obnoxious to the charge of illiberality and intolerance, than the most intemperate denunciations in which "the divine and man of letters" have indulged, whom they spurn with so much contemptuousness and resentment.
In the next place, the objection indicates an unfortunate misapprehension of the premise from which geologists deduce the vast age they ascribe to the earth. They proceed in it as though there were a class of direct and specific evidences of the existence of the earth through past periods, graven, as it were, on the strata themselves, that can be learned only by inspection, in the same manner as the number, position, depth, and contents of the strata themselves are. But that is altogether mistaken. The age of the strata is not to be ascertained by the hammer or pickaxe, by chemical analysis, by touch, or by inspection. The chronology which they represent as inscribed on the rocks, instead of being wrought by the finger of the Almighty, is the work in a great measure of metaphor and fancy. The strata themselves are not, in fact, the premise from which they deduce the age they ascribe to the earth. They furnish no direct data for such a conclusion, as may be seen from the form the argument from them assumes, as in the following premise and conclusion.
The strata which have been deposited since the creation of the earth are numerous, and in many places of great depth, and are interspersed with vegetable and animal fossils, which indicate that much time was occupied in their formation. Therefore the creation must have taken place innumerable ages ago.
But this inference is plainly irrelevant to the premise. There is nothing in the facts stated in the proposition that can generate such a conclusion. Inasmuch as the period occupied in the deposition of the strata is not determinable from their number, depth, and contents, but depends on the species and energy of the agents by which they were formed; to treat the inference from such an irrelative premise as a truth established by scientific deduction, is an extraordinary inaccuracy. Instead of being graven in legible characters on the strata themselves, or directly deduced from the facts of geology, their alleged chronology of the world is in reality drawn from a mere hypothesis respecting the forces or processes by which the strata were constituted, as is seen from their argument when expressed in a syllogistic form.
Each of the several strata deposited since the creation of vegetables and animals, having been formed by essentially the same forces as are now in activity, and thence by a very slow process, must have occupied a long period.
But in many localities the series of separate beds amounts to several hundreds and even thousands.
Therefore the period which the deposition of the whole series has occupied, must be immense beyond computation—a round of innumerable years—myriads and millions of ages.
This, or an equivalent proposition is the only one from which that conclusion can be logically deduced. It is not possible to frame a major excluding the element of time, that shall be a logical ground for the induction of such an age of the earth. But here the inference is drawn plainly, not from the number, dimensions, and contents of the strata, but from an hypothesis respecting the nature of the forces and processes by which they were formed. Take away that hypothesis, and the inference becomes, like the other, a non sequitur. But that hypothesis is not found graven on the rocks, nor is it legitimately deduced from them; as there is nothing, as we shall hereafter show, in the strata that compels or authorizes the assumption that they were formed by a slow process, but instead, their structure indicates that they were deposited very rapidly, and under the agency of forces immensely more energetic than those of the fire, water, and chemistry that are now in activity.
As the inference of the age of the world which geologists dignify with the name of a scientific induction, is thus drawn from a premise that lies outside of the facts of geology, and is a fallacy, it is plain, that philologists, and "the divine, and man of letters," if logicians, are as competent to detect its deceptive character, and criticise and confute it, as though they were practical geologists.
It is entirely within their sphere as reasoners. A minute inspection of the strata of the earth is not requisite to it. Though an intimate acquaintance from observation with all the great facts of the science must naturally give a more vivid apprehension and realization of them, yet it is not necessary in order to avoid the error into which geologists themselves have fallen, of confounding them with an hypothesis respecting the process of their formation. The great facts themselves of geology, let it be considered, that are in question. It is not a direct and logical deduction from those facts even. It is only a deduction from an assumption respecting the causes to which they owe their origin, which men "of letters" and theologians are gains capable of distinguishing a fallacy from a legitimate induction, as are adequate to confute those of any other profession. That this consideration, which, of itself, overturns their theory respecting the age of the world, should have been overlooked by geologists, and an objection thus confidently urged which indicates such a misapprehension of the point at issue, is truly singular, and shows that however eminent they may be in their peculiar sphere, it is not the part of prudence to acquiesce in their deductions and hypotheses, without an examination of the grounds on which they rest.
But in the third place, the objection, if legitimate, is applicable in a large degree to geologists themselves, and invalidates their speculations as effectually as it can the views and reasonings respecting them, of those who are not of their profession. For what share of the facts on which geologists professedly found their theories have they severally observed? Not one probably in fifty, perhaps not in five hundred. It is physically impossible that such a writer, for example, as Sir Charles Lyell, should have personally inspected all the localities of which he treats, all the processes he describes, and all the facts which he alleges in support of his theories. Of the localities, those of South America, the islands of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, the seas, rivers, lakes, mountains and plains of Eastern Asia, to say nothing of the processes, many have extended through centuries and could not have been inspected through their whole period by a single individual; and many of the facts had their dates ages ago, and are not now within the sphere of observation. And so of other writers. Instead of relying exclusively on their own personal investigation, they avail themselves of the observations and discoveries of others, and build their speculations with as much confidence on the facts of which they thus gain a knowledge, as on those which they derive directly from their own examination. And this is as legitimate, as safe, and as indispensable as it is in mineralogy, chemistry, geography, history, or any other branch of knowledge. It were to impeach geologists themselves of inaccuracy, and invalidate their reasonings, to suppose that the descriptions they give of the facts they have severally observed, are not intelligible and entitled to reliance. What claims can their systems have to be regarded as scientific inductions, if the facts on which they professedly found them are of a doubtful nature, or questionable reality? They are not, however, generally obnoxious in any measure to doubt. The number of practical geologists during the last thirty years has been very large; many of the most important localities have been explored by the most competent observers, and their descriptions are distinguished in a high degree, by minuteness, intelligibleness, and accuracy, and fully justify the use that is made of them by such authors as Lyell, La Beche, Murchison, Buckland, Conybeare, Sedgwick, Phillips, Macculloch; and together with theirs, and the works of other eminent writers, furnish the most ample means to such as are not professed geologists, of an accurate knowledge of all the great facts of the science, and just judgment of the validity of the inductions that are founded on them. Were it otherwise; were a practical acquaintance with all the facts that are made the basis of theoretical geology necessary, there is not a solitary treatise on the subject, that would not be in a large measure obnoxious to the objection, and as unworthy of consideration as the counter speculations of the mere "divine and men of letters." This objection is thus in every relation ill-considered and unfortunate.—Geognosy, by D. N. Lord.
An Inanimate Detective
THE microscope is an invaluable agent in the detection of crime. Some years ago, it was discovered by the authorities of a railway in Germany that a barrel which, on being dispatched from a certain station, contained silver coin, had, during the journey to its destination, been emptied of its contents and filled with sand. For some time no clew to the perpetrator of the robbery could be discovered; but at length a learned professor having been consulted on the subject, called in the aid of the microscope. The professor went to work on the right track at once. He, knowing that, even though in the very minutest degree, there was a distinctive difference in the sand found near the various stations along the railway line, sent for samples of it from each of the places through which the train containing the silver coin had passed. With the microscope he then carefully examined each sample, compared it with the sand found in the barrel, and thus identified the station from which the latter had been procured. Having, in this ingenious manner, found out the station he wanted, little difficulty remained; for the railway servants employed at it, by one of whom the robbery had been committed, were so few in number that the culprit was readily detected. In this ingenious manner the thief was found out.
To Correspondents
By Editor
To Correspondents.
To S. J. P.—The argument for the Sabbath does not apply to the yearly festivals given to Israel. They are parts of a typical system which found its fulfillment in Christ. Paul said of those feasts, they "are shadows of things to come, but the body is of Christ." Col. 2:17. We have reached the work and service of Christ, and the shadow ceases. But the Sabbath—the rest-day of the Lord—has a different origin and significance. It is not a type, but a memorial; not reminding of man's sin, but of God's work of creation. Its reasons never run out; its significance as a memorial does not expire with the ages.
To R. T.—We did not intend to give any offense by publishing the Dialogue from Wesley's Works. We supposed that his quotations were correctly made; some of them we know were—others we do not, never having seen the writings from which he quoted them.
Our brother will bear in mind that many spoke of predestination and foreordination, a century or two ago, in terms which would be considered ultra by the most decided Calvinists of the present day. Calvin was not alone of the reformers who spoke in a manner which few, if any, of their most ardent admirers would be willing to imitate now. Even in our own day there has been a marked change in the method of stating their belief on this subject. We are acquainted with only one denomination—that popularly known, and mostly in the South, as Hard-Shell Baptists—which retains
the old, decisive terms of the sixteenth century on this subject.
It is well also to bear in mind that religious controversy ran high in the days of Wesley. His opponents were not always models of a Christian spirit. We really think that of the two parties the Methodists had the advantage in that respect. Wesley was not as harsh in expression as was Luther. Of course we do not indorse every expression of Wesley in his controversial writings, but we do indorse his conclusions on the subject in question. Having once belonged to a "Calvinistic" body, we speak from conviction.
When one of our associate editors requested us to insert these Dialogues, it was a question between us whether to make any changes or omissions, but it was decided to let him represent himself, giving the proper credit.
To understand this text we must note carefully the connection. Two things are introduced, 1. Sacrifices and offerings, 2. The will of God. The prophecy quoted, Ps. 40:8, says, —"I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart." Here the will and law are identical. The sacrifices and offerings under the first covenant did not take away sin—they did not vindicate the righteousness of God's law which condemns sin. But the blood of Jesus does. In his work the law is written in the heart. The sinner is reconciled to God; the carnal mind, which is not subject to the law of God, is removed. And, as is said in Rom. 3:31, "we establish the law" by faith. The former sacrifices were removed, and the old priesthood abolished, that this work of establishing the will of God might be accomplished.
Alexander Campbell, in his version of the New Testament, did great violence to this text by an addition to it, as follows: "He taketh away the first will that he may establish the second." The first has reference to the sacrifices which are taken away; the will established has reference to the law of God which was in the heart of the Saviour.
Some contend that if two laws are spoken of in the New Testament there must of necessity be confusion in regard to them as there is no means of distinguishing between them. But the claim is not valid. We find the two laws easily distinguished by their characteristics. And if there is but one it is readily seen that the writers of the New Testament indulge in the most hopeless contradictions.
Some commentators have blinded their readers, rather than aided them in their readings, by a careless method of commenting on the statements of the apostles, especially those of Paul. Thus Dr. Clarke, who was not at all tinctured with antinomianism, interchanged in his remarks from one law to the other as if both were referred to in the same connection or the same text. But Paul was singularly guarded in this respect, and we take occasion from this question to point out that fact, as follows:—
1. In Heb. 8:10 the apostle quotes from Jer. 31:33. But where the prophet uses the singular, my law, the apostle uses the plural, my laws. We can see no reason for this except to distinguish the precepts which are written in the heart of the follower of Christ, from the ceremonial law of which the apostle had been discoursing in this letter, and in speaking of which he had several times used the singular.
2. In Heb. 10:7, is a quotation from Ps. 40:8. The psalmist represents Christ as saying, "I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart." The apostle quotes only the first part of the declaration, omitting the term thy law, because in this connection he had been speaking of "the law" which had only "a shadow of good things to come"—the Levitical law. In other places, see Rom. 2:17, 18, he had identified the will of God as his law. But to mention the two words, as the psalmist did, would make his expression in Heb. 10 ambiguous, and leave the way open to confound the two laws, a liability against which, we repeat, he carefully guarded. If it could be shown that the apostle referred to the two laws in the same terms in close connection, then the objection would have force.
We further only call attention to the fact that "we are sanctified" by the will of God which was in the heart of our Saviour, and which it is the work of the gospel to write in the hearts of all his followers. Seeing that our hearts are purified "in obeying the truth," 1 Peter 1:22, and the law of God "is the truth," Ps. 119:142, we again see reason to refer "the will" to "the law" which we are required to obey.
Sunday Not the True Seventh Day.
By John Nevins Andrews
(Continued.)
THE first chapter of Genesis contains a record which commences with what the Holy Spirit calls "THE BEGINNING." Of what is this the beginning? Of eternity? Mr. F. will not assert it, though he places this beginning in eternity; i. e., he asserts that the events of the six days of creation belong not to time, but to eternity. Perhaps Mr. F. will say that "THE BEGINNING," is simply the beginning of our world's history. But is it not true that God caused Moses to count time from that very point? What if Adam could not of his own knowledge count the number of days which preceded his existence? Could not Moses do it by the Spirit of inspiration? And cannot we do it now by Moses' help?
But observe, Mr. F. has the last six days of the eternity of the past, numbered, measured, and recorded. Then he teaches that time begins where those six days end. But is not eternity, as distinguished from time, unmeasured duration? And is not time, as distinguished from eternity, that part of duration which is measured by the Bible? And if these definitions be accepted as just, is it not manifest that "THE BEGINNING," of which Moses speaks, is the commencement of measured duration; i. e., the beginning of time, the point which marked it, being the creative word that gave existence to the heavens and the earth?
Mr. F. says that the six days of Gen. 1, are the last six days of the eternity of the past; we say that they are the first six days of time. Which is right? If the remarks already made have failed to settle the question, let the reader give attention to the following point which cannot be evaded. Mr. F. acknowledges the rest-day of the Creator to belong to time, but he denies this of the days which God employed in the work of creation. But observe that the day of God's rest is called the seventh day. Gen. 2:1-3. This shows that the rest day of the Lord belongs to a series which commenced with what Moses calls, "THE BEGINNING." Mr. F. must therefore admit that the six days belong to time, or else assert that the seventh day belongs to eternity. As he cannot ascribe the seventh day to eternity, he must acknowledge the six days of creation to be the first six days of time.
The first of the three propositions on which Mr. F. bases his assertion that God's rest-day was the first day of the week, is, therefore, proved to be false. We will next examine the second of the three.
2. He says that the day on which God rested was the first day of Adam's existence. But for this to be true, Adam must have been created on the seventh day of the week; or, if such a thing be conceivable, he was created on the very line which divides the seventh from the sixth. But neither of these conclusions is truthful. Adam was created on the sixth day of the week, and at a period in the day when very much of it remained unexpired. That he was created on the sixth day is plainly taught in Gen. 1:26-31. After the creation of Adam, the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden, intrusting it to him to be dressed and kept. Then he stated to him the conditions of his probation. Gen. 2:15-17. And after this, the Lord God brought to him every beast of the field and every fowl of the air, "to see what he would call them." "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field." Gen. 2:19, 20. This must have required several hours of time. When Adam had thus viewed "every living creature," and given to each its proper name, he found not one that was fitted to be his own helper. So it is added that "for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." Verse 20. Next we are told that God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept. While he thus slept, God took one of his ribs, and of that rib formed Eve. Then he brought her to Adam, who at once gives her a name, and recognizes her as his helper which he had failed to find in all the creatures that he had viewed and named. Verse 23. And God gave her to Adam for a wife. We are informed in Gen. 1:28; 2:24; Matt. 19:4, 5, of what God said to them on this occasion. The marriage of Adam and Eve is placed, by Gen. 1:28-31, on the sixth day of the week, the day of their creation. And Gen. 5:1, 2, plainly teaches that the creation of Eve was upon the same day with that of Adam, and intimates unequivocally that their marriage occurred on that very day. After all this, God announced the food of man and beast, and when everything was completed, "God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good. AND THE EVENING AND THE MORNING WERE THE SIXTH DAY." Gen. 1:28-31. Let us enumerate the several events which followed the creation of Adam on the sixth day of the week:-165
(1) God placed him in Eden to dress and keep it, which implies that he gave him instruction on the subject.
(2) He stated to him the conditions of his probation.
(3) "All cattle," "every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air," were brought to Adam for names.
(4) Then God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam while he created Eve.
(5) Then Adam and Eve were united in marriage.
(6) Then God announced to man the gift of his food.
(7) Then God saw that everything he had made was very good, and the sixth day of creation closed.
To these facts should be added the announcement which follows their accomplishment: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Gen. 2:1-3.
What shall we say to the statement of Mr. Fuller that the day on which God rested was the first day of Adam's life? Shall we not pronounce it a most inexcusable falsehood? Did Adam take a wife the day before his own existence commenced? Did God cause the animals to pass in succession before Adam that he might give them names suited to their several organizations, and yet no Adam exist till the following day? Did God place Adam upon probation and threaten him with death in case he sinned, and Adam himself have no existence till the ensuing day? And what about intrusting him with the garden before there was any Adam to intrust with it? Will Mr. F. deny that these things required time? Dare he assert that they took place on the day of the Creator's rest? But whatever answer he may return to these questions, we have the plain testimony of Gen. 1:26-31, which shows that the events of Chap. 2:7-25, transpired upon the sixth day of creation. We have now examined the second proposition on which Mr. F. bases his assertion that God rested from his labor on the first day of the week. The reader will agree with us that this second proposition is of the same character as the first, an inexcusably false statement. Mr. F.'s third proposition furnishes the remaining proof on which he relies to show that the Creator rested upon the first day of the original week.
Here it is:-
3. That Adam reckoned the day of the Creator's rest the first day of the week. But how does Mr. F. know this statement to be true? The Bible says nothing of this kind. Indeed, the real ground of this assertion is found in the two propositions already discussed. For if, as Mr. F. asserts, the six days of creation belong to eternity, then the Creator's rest-day was the first day of time; and if time began with Adam's existence, and his existence began with the seventh day, then we may well conclude that Adam reckoned God's rest-day as the first day of the week. But these two propositions are absolutely false. For the first week of time, as has been fully shown, was made out of the six days of creation, and the rest-day of the Creator; whence it follows that the rest-day is rightly termed in the Bible "THE SEVENTH DAY." Gen. 2:2, 3. And that Adam's existence began quite early on the sixth day has been clearly proved. It is certain, therefore, that Adam could not reckon the rest-day of the Lord, as first day of the week on the ground that it was the first day of time, when the record shows it to have been the seventh day; and it is equally certain that he could not reckon it the first day of the week as being the first day of his own existence when it was not his first day, but his second. To say, therefore, that God's rest-day was the first day of time, is to say that Adam was created in eternity. To say that the week began with Adam's first day, is to assert that it began with the sixth day of creation. And to assert that God rested upon the first day of the week on the authority of the three propositions already examined, is to handle the word of God deceitfully. The theory of Mr. Fuller that God's Sabbath is the first day of the original week, is therefore not founded in truth, and only exists in consequence of his corrupting the word of God to justify his own violation of the fourth commandment.
J. N. A.
A Specimen of Knowledge.
By Editor
"In the Scientific American of May 17, 1879, appears an article headed, 'A New Estimate of the World's Age.' From this it appears that a Mr. Millard Reade, of Liverpool, has contributed to the Royal Society, a paper in which he claims to have found a new and satisfactory clew to the age of the earth. His argument may be summarily stated thus:—
"Limestone has been in process of formation from the earliest period. Mr. Reade 'estimates,' the sedimentary crust of the earth at one mile in average thickness. Of this he says, 'probably one-tenth consists of calcareous [limestone] matter.' Seeking the origin of this calcareous matter, the article continues, 'it is assumed that the primitive rocks of the original crust were the nature of granite or basaltic rocks.' Then the amount of lime salts in water drained from such rocks is found to be 3.73 parts to 100,000 parts of water. We quote again. 'It is further assumed that the exposed area of igneous rocks, taking an average throughout all geological time, will bear to the exposures of sedimentary rocks a ratio of about one to nine.' From these and other data it is then 'concluded' that the elimination of the calcareous matter found in the sedimentary strata 'must have occupied about 600 millions of years.'
"In the foregoing quotations, the italics are our own. The reader will see at once the basis of this wonderful conclusion: first an 'estimate,' then a 'probability,' then an 'assumption,' then a fact which is available only if the assumption is correct, then another 'assumption,' then the grand 'conclusion.' And having thus positively proved Moses to be five hundred and ninety-nine millions, nine hundred and ninety-four thousand years from the truth, they are happy! How nice it is to have such clear and positive knowledge about these things!"
The above, which we copy from the Review and Herald, shows the manner in which learned men and learned societies palm off their vagaries, and expect the world to give them credit for real wisdom. Their folly would be more endurable were it not for the effrontery with which they claim implicit reliance upon their speculations, and the cool scorn with which they treat the believer in the Bible who questions the force of their statements, and the legitimacy of their conclusions. A paper which rests so much on "estimates" and "assumptions" would be unworthy of notice, were it not that it receives character from being received by the Royal Society.
We commend to our readers the article in this paper, Dr. Lord on False Notions of Geology. It will bear a second careful reading. Every one who studies the argument, and becomes interested in the reasoning, will consider its length one of its merits.
An Exciting Doctrine.
IN the Baptist State Convention, held in Oakland last week, Dr. Frost delivered what the report called "an able and instructive address" on the subject of "No Millennium till Christ Comes," in which he spoke of the great utility of the study of prophecy. In the discussion which followed, Dr. Kalloch said, "the doctrine has an exciting, unpleasant, and dividing effect on the church."
If we have been correctly informed, for we were, much against our will, prevented attending the Convention, it proved an exciting theme at the session referred to above. But it is well worthy of remark that the unhealthy excitement, the feeling of unpleasantness and division, is on the side of those who oppose the doctrine. That it is a Bible theme none can deny. That we are commanded to take heed to the sure word of prophecy, is plainly written. But that they who oppose it are stirred so deeply in their feelings at the mention of this Bible theme, this subject of prophetic promise, does not speak well for their professed reverence for the words of inspiration, or for their profession of love for our absent Lord who has promised to return to redeem his waiting people. We are required to "look for him," and to "love his appearing," which is spoken of as "that blessed hope," by one whose inspiration led him to hold it and to present it to the church in its beauty and importance.
But we are not at all disappointed that it has this "exciting" effect, and that strong feelings of opposition to this glorious event (which Jesus spoke of as a sweet assuring promise, John 14: 1-3, and for which his apostles longed and prayed, Rev. 22:20), are manifested by those who have set their hearts against it. This is also a matter of prophecy. When our Saviour discoursed to his disciples concerning his second coming, and pointed out the condition of the world when that coming is near---even at the doors, he said that the evil servant whose heart suggests to him that "my Lord delayeth his coming," "shall begin to smite his fellow-servants," who are watching for his coming, and who are giving the household of faith "meat in due season." Matt. 24:44-51.
There is another Scripture which we will not mention in this connection, which is very explicit on this point. But do not these things go to show the fulfillment of "our Lord's great prophecy?" We are in the last days. "The coming of the Lord draweth nigh." The disposition to smite, and to make the most of this world's pleasures, is manifest wherever men set themselves in opposition to the "blessed hope" of the Lord's coming.