An examination of certain recent assaults on physical science

\l

c^

.J

S'EX

AN EXAMINATION

OF

CERTAIN RECENT ASSAULTS

ON

PHYSICAL SCIENCE

fro .

1

.{%Vi-\'i(^l "^

Reprinted from the Southern Preslff/terian Revieiv for Juli/, 1873.

PRINTKD AT THE PKESBYTJ<;RIAl<I*Pli'BLtSHlVG HOUSE.''

1873. V ', 'i/Li\^

AX EXAMINATION

OF

CERTAIN RECENT ASSAULTS

Theological Education. A Memoir for the consideration of the
General Assembly of 186G, in Memphis. Central I^reahyte-
rian, Oct. 3, 10, 17, 24, and 31, ISGG.

3Iemorial from the Rev. UohertL. Balmey, D.D., on Theological
Education. Presented to the General Assembly at P»Iobile,
May 21st, 1869.

Syllahiis and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic
Theology taught in Union Theological Seminary, Virginia.
By R.'L. Daijney, D. D. Published by the Students. Rich-
mond: Shepperson k Graves, Printers. 1871.

A Caution against Ant i- Christian Science. A Sermon on Colos-
sians ii. 8. Preached in the Synod of Virginia, October 20,
1871, by Robert L, Dabney, D. D. This sermon is printed
by request of Lieutenant-Governor John L. Marye, Major T.
J. Kirkpatrick, George D. Gray, J. N. Gordon, F. Johnson,
and others, elders of the Presbyterian Church. Richmond ;
James E. Goode, Printer. 1871.

The "Memoir" on Theological Education published in the
Central Presbyterian as intended for the consideration of the
Memphis General Assembly, was not brought to the notice of
that body; but in a somewhat modified form was presented as a
*' Memorial" to the General Assembly which met at ^Mobile in

4 An Examination of Certain Recent

18(j0. 1 1 \v:is respectfully received by the Assembly, but was not
read. On the recommendation of the Committee on Theological
Seminaries, it ■was referred to the Faculties and Directors of the
('olumbia and Union Theological Seminaries, with the request
that they report the results of their deliberations to the Assem-
bly of 1870. The Columbia Faculty prepared and submitted
a report; but nothing was ever brought before the Assembly on
the subject, until at last, in 1872, a committee to which it had
been intrusted was at its own request discharged. The titles of
the other two publications named sufficiently indicate their gen-
eral nature.

In these Memorials, Lectures, and Sermon, their author, the
llev. \)v-\ Dabney, Professor of Theology in Union Theological
Seminary, has been keeping up for a number of years an unre-
mitting warfare against Physical Science. In the weekly journal,
in a memorial presented to our highest ecclesiastical court, in
lectures to those who are to be ministers in our Church, in the
stately volume now published which contains the substance of
these lectures, in a sermon preached before the large and influ-
ential Synod of Virginia, a sermon which at the request of
leading gentlemen in that Synod has been sent forth in printed
form to thousands who did not hear it delivered with the living
voice — in all these and in other ways he has been sounding forth
the alarm, calling upon the Church, as far as his voice and pen
can reach, to rise in arms against Physical Science as the mor-
tal enemy of all the Christian holds dear, and to take no rest
until this infidel and atheistic foe has be^n utterly destroyed.
With the exception of a notice of the sermon published in the
Central Presbyterian^ not a word has been publicly uttered in
opposition to his views during all these years; and therefore it
would not be strange if they should come to be regarded by
multitudes as the doctrines of our Church and of Christianity
universally, seeing they are proclaimed with such persistent
earnestnes?, by one occupying so high an official position in the
Church, and almost without being called in question. Looking
upon Physical Science, as Dr. Dabney does, as "vain, deceitful
philosophy," by which "incautious souls are in danger of being

Assaults on Physical Science. 5

despoiled of their redemption," he deserves commendation for
his zeal in seizing every opportunity and every channel of access
to the minds of men to warn them of their danger, and thus to
endeavor to save them from being despoiled of eternal life by
Physical Science. Whether this commendation should be con-
fined to his zeal, and whether it may not be a zeal without
knowledge, can better be determined after a careful examinatiou
of his teachings.

Believing that Dr. Dabney's views respecting Physical Science,
as set forth in these writings, are not only not true, but also dan-
gerous, because certain to lead to the rejection of the Sacred
Scriptures so far as he is here regarded as their true interpreter,
the writer feels impelled to utter his dissent, and to attempt to
show that true Christianity does not allow us to accept such
championship. To one who believes firmly in every word of
the Bible as inspired by the Holy Ghost, as the writer does with
all his heart, its truth is too precious to allow him to be
indifferent to a professed defence of this truth which is based
upon principles which must inevitably lead to its rejection. It
is with the sincerest reluctance that an examination of these
principles is now entered on, seeing the result must be to prove
them wholly erroneous and fraught with peril to all who adopt
them and logically follow them to their necessary results. It
would be vastly more gratifying to cooperate with Dr. Dabney in
defending the truth against assaults from without; but external
assaults against our impregnable citadel are harmless in com-
parison with these efforts on the part of those within, which, if
it were possible for them to be successful, would undermine its
walls and tear up its foundations, reducing the fair and hitherto-
unshaken structure to a mass of shapeless ruins. Hence there
seems to be no course left but for the truth's sake to show the
unsoundness of Dr. Dabney's opinions, however much the writer
would prefer to stand by his side making common cause with
him against error wherever found.

Dr. Dabney's attacks on Physical Science in the different,
publications named, are not made in the same order; hence in.
the present examination of their real strength, they will be tiikeiii

• > -1// F.raiuination of Certain lleccnt

up without sj)eei;il rcTcreiice to the order followeil in any one
of them.

In the Sermon, before reachini^ the nuiin subject. Dr, Dabney
refers to tlic sad consequences of the fall of man; and with the
intention of preventing our belief in Physical Science, insists that
fallen minds can never reach results free from uncertainty and
error, except in the "exact sciences of magnitudes." He says:

"Every Christian should be familiar with the fact that the
human mind, as well as heart, has been impaired by the fall.
Men, 'so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the facul-
ties and parts of soul and body.' From the nature of the case,
the misguided intellect is unconscious of its own vice; for con-
sciousness of it would expel it. Its nature is to cause him who
is deceived to think that error is truth, and its power is in
masking itself under that honest guise. Why, then, need we
wonder that every age must needs have its vain and deceitful
philosophy, and 'oppositions of science, falsely so-called?' And
how can the Christian expect that uninspired science will ever be
purged of uncertainty and error, by any organon of investiga-
tion invented by man? Even if the organon were absolute, pure
truth, its application by fallen minds must always insure in the
results more or less of error, except in those exact sciences of
magnitudes, where the definitcness of the predications and few-
ness of the premises leave no room for serious mistake." Ser-
mon, p. 1.

lie then illustrates these principles by referring to the admit-
ted fallibility of Church courts, and justly extols the Prophet
and Teacher, Christ, as an infallible guide.

In all that he says on this point, there is some truth ; as,
indeed, there is always some truth in every dangerous error.
But before settling down in despair of ever being able to gain
uninspired knowledge, before yielding to the agony of universal
iloubt with regard to everything except mathematical truth, it
becomes us to inquire whether these are true principles, or errors
rendered dangerous to the unsuspecting by the irUermixture of
truth which they contain.

Perhaps the easiest way to see that Dr. Dabney misapplies
the doctrine of the fall is to observe that if we embrace the
scepticism which he recommends as to the results of the applica-

Assaults on PJtysical Science. 7

tioii of our Go<.l-given reason to the -works of God's hands, we
must be equally sceptical as to God's word. The Sacred Scrip-
tures, we assert and believe, are absolutely true in every part;
but are not the facts presented to us in God's works, which
"uninspired" science investigates, equally true? When it is
admitted that the facts in themselves are absolutely true, but
that we are so liable to misunderstand their real meaning that
we cannot trust our conclusions, we ask wherein we are differently
situated with reference to the Holy Scriptures. Our minds are
equally fallen when we inquire into the meaning of statements
in the Scriptures, and when we inquire irito the meaning of facts
in nature — that is, in God's material universe; and if we must
regard ourselves as incapable of arriving at a knowledge of the
truth, if we must be sceptics in the one case, we must be in the
other also. It is to be observed that Theology is as much a
human science as Geology or any other branch of Natural
Science. The facts which form the basis of the science of Theo-
logy are found in God's word; those which form the basis of
the science of Geology are found in his works; but the science
in both cases is the work of the human mind. The Bible was
indeed given specifically for the instruction of man, while the
material universe was not so directly created for this purpose;
and the lessons taught in the Bible are of infinitely higher value
than those which we learn from nature; but still the science
of Theology as a science is equally Iniman and tininspircd witli
the science of Geology — the facts in both cases are divine, the
sciences based upon them human. Unless, therefore, we are
ready to give up the certainty of our knowledge of the great
central truths of Theology, we must reject the suggestion
that Vr'e can never become certain of anything in Geology, or
other branches of Natural Science. With such grounds for
thinking that Dr. Dabney misapplies the doctrine of the fall, it
is not necessary to show that it is clearly implied in a large
part of the Bible's teachings that we are capable of gaining a
knowledge of the truth by the use of our reason.

It is singular that Dr. Dabney should have fallen into this
error, since he has so properly condemned it in his Lectures.

8 A7i Examination of Certain Ilecent

Speaking of Natural Tlieology, wliich is the science that treats
of the nature and attributes of God as revealed in the same
works which all Natural Science investigates, Dr. Dabneysays:
*'Some old divines were wont to deny that there was any science
of Natural Theology, and to say that without revelation man

would not naturally learn its first truth These divines

seem to fear, lest, by granting a Natural Theology, they should
grant too much to natural reason ; a fear ungrounded and extreme.
They are in danger of a worse consequence: reducing man's
capacity for receiving divine verities so low that the rational
sceptic will be able to turn upon them, and say: 'Then by so
inept a creature, the guarantees of a true revelation cannot be
certainly apprehended.' .... Some profess to disbelieve axioms,
as Hume that of causation ; but this is far from proving man
incapable of a natural science of induction." Lectures on
Theology, p. 0.

Dr. Dabney here so satisfactorily disproves the doctrine of
his Sermon that we might perhaps safely leave this point with-
out further remark. But as he intimates in the second para-
graph that we have "infallible guidance" in the one case which
we lack in the other, this intimation must be briefly noticed.
The question Avill not be discussed whether the heathen are
really "without excuse" for having failed rightly to apply capaci-
ties which they do not possess, or whether "the invisible things
of God from the creation of the world" can be "clearly seen"
by unregenerate men without the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
But granting that our reason could not form one correct judg-
ment on any subject without divine guidance, would Dr. Dabney
maintain that God denies this guidance to his children when
they devoutly seek it in the investigation of his works? Do
they become orphans, do they forfeit their right to their Father's
guidance, when they seek to know more fully how the heavens
declare the glory of God, how the firmament sheweth his handy-
work ? when they eagerly listen as day unto day uttereth speech,
and strive to gain a fuller measure of the knowledge which night
unto night showeth, though there is no speech nor language, and
though they utter no audible voice? Surely he would not take

Assaults on Pliysical Science. 9

this ground. Let us not fear to "speak to the earth," for "it
shall teach us;" even "the fishes of the sea shall declare" the
truth to us. If indeed the "Lord rejoices in his works," and
if he would have us "sing praise to him as long as we live,"
contemplating his glory as reflected in them, he will not refuse
us his fatherly hand as we walk forth seeking to drink in more
and more of the wisdom in which he has made them all, or to
see more and more clearly the value of the riches of which his
earth is full.

Thus it appears that there is no reason why we should be
blighted by the cheerless scepticism which Dr. Dabney incul-
cates ; on the contrary, we can with certainty know something,
and as loving children we should labor to know much, of the
glorious workmanship of our heavenly Father, of the wonderful
creation which he has brouojht into existence throuo;h his Son.

After his attempt to show that we can know nothing with
certainty except mathematics and the Christian religion. Dr.
Dabney endeavors to excite hostility against Physical Science
by showing the wicked and dangerous character of something
else which has nothing whatever in common with Physical
Science. He very correctly describes the vain and deceitful
philosophy against which the Apostle Paul warns the Colossians,
as "a shadowy philosophic theory — a mixture of Oriental, Rab-
binical, and Greek mysticism, which peopled heaven with a
visionary hierarchy of semi-divine beings, referred the Messiah
to their class, and taught men to expect salvation from their
intercession, combined with Jewish asceticisms and will-worship."
lie says further, that "the Apostle solemnly reminded them
that this philosophy was vain and deceitful; and, moreover, that
the price of preferring it to the Christian system was the loss of
the soul." All that he says on this point is very true: the vain
philosophy condemned had no observed facts for its basis, and
even its assumptions were not connected together by principles
according to which right reason acts; therefore it should be
rejected by all who love the truth. And as it was not only
not true, but was also deadly in its effects upon all who embraced
it, inasmuch as it taught them to look for salvation elsewhere

10 -1// ExainiibitioH of Cvrlaiii Jli'ceiit

than to the only Saviour of niaiikiiid, tlic wariiiiigs against it
could not be too earnest.

But how does Dr. Dabncy upply all this to the subject of his
discourse ? In a most reuuirkable wiiy — by nicknaming physi-
cal science " vain, deceitful philosophy." Although the false
and deadly philosophy Avhich is spoken of by St. Paul con-
fessedly had no observed facts for its foundation, Avhile physical
science is based exclusively upon facts uhich any one may
verify for himself; and although in the former case the fantastic
guesses were woven into a fanciful and visionary scheme in
defiance of reason, while physical science arranges its facts and
deduces inferences from them in accordance with intuitive prin-
ciples which are believed by all — yet Dr. Dabney warns us
against physical science because the philosophy which was seek-
ing to spoil the Colossians was vain and deceitful I It is as if
one should prove to us the deceitful and deadly character of the
Christian religion by depicting to us the abominable rites of
some ancient Pagan religion, or the absurdities and atrocities of
false religions which still enslave myriads of our race in the dark
places in the earth. It is even worse; for there is no religion
so utterly false that it does not contain some truths taught by
Christianity ; but physical science has not one single point in
common with that with which Dr. Dabney classes it. lie could
not possibly have made a greater mistake than he has done in
regarding as similar two things which are so utterly unlike.

Dr. Dabney concludes his introduction, which is devoted to
exciting prejudice against physical science, as follows :

" The prevalent vain, deceitful philosophy of our day is not
mystical, but physical and sensuous. It affects what it calls
•positivism.' It even makes the impossible attempt to give
the mind's philosophy a sensualistic explanatiorj. Its chief
study is to ascertain the laws of material nature and of animal
life. It refers everything to their power and dominion ; and
from them pretends to contradict the Scriptural account of the
origin of the earth and man. Does it profess not to interfere
v/ith the region of spiritual truth, because concerned about mat-
ter? AVe find, on the contrary, that physical science always has
some tendency to become anti-theological. This tendency is to

Assaults on Physical Science. It

be accounted for by two facts : One is, that man is a depraved
creature, whose natural disposition is enmity against God.
Hence this leaning away from him, in many worldly minds, per-
haps semi-conscious, which does 'not like to retain God in its
knowledge.' The other explanation is, that these physical
sciences continually tend to exalt naturalism — their pride of
success in tracing natural causes, tempts them to refer every-
thing to them, and thus to substitute them fcr a spiritual, per-
sonal God. Again, then, is it time for the watchman on the
walls of Zion to utter the Apostle's 'beware.' Again are in-
cautious souls in danger of being despoiled of their redemption
by 'vain, deceitful philosophy.'" Sermon, p. 2.

In this paragraph it is correctly stated that the chief study of
natural science is " to ascertain the laws of material nature and
animal life." Beyond this there is hardly an accurate statement
in it. It is true, indeed, that the students of this science do use
their senses to ascertain facts ; they do not invent them, or guess
at them, as we shall hereafter see is Dr. Dabney's liabit when he
is acting the part of a natural philosopher. If it is meant by
"sensuous" and " sensualistic " that the senses are used in ob-
servation, then no objection can be made. But if, as many
readers would understand them, these words are intended to con-
vey a meaning involving the condemnation of physical science,
nothing could be more inexact. Further, his statement that it
"makes the impossible attempt to give the mind's philosophy a
sensualistic explanation," is equally without foundation. It is
doubtless true that students of physical science have made the
attempt here attributed to them ; just as leading Presbyterian
theologians, personally known to Dr, Dubney, have taught that
" every obstacle to salvation, arising from the character and
government of God, is actually removed, and was intended to be
removed, that thus every one of Adam's race might be saved,"
and that "the Father covenants to give to the Son, 'as a reward
for the travail of his soul,' a part of those for whom he dies."
But as this is not the doctrine of Presbyterians, so physical
science does not undertake to "give the mind's philosophy a
sensualistic explanation," even though some scientific men may
have attempted this impossibility. On the contrary, the leading

12 An Examination of Certain Recent

representatives of natural science maintain that the connexion
between uiind and matter lies wholly beyond the limits of that
science ; that it does not now know, and it can never hereafter
know, anything concerning this subject. The doctrine of scien-
tific men was well stated last August by Professor Du Bois-
Reymond, a leading professor in the University of Berlin, in a
discourse before the German Association of ^len of Science as-
sembled at Leipzig. No one who knows this eminent man of
science will suspect him of an inclination to claim too little for
Natural Science, or anything at all for Revelation. lie says :
"That it is utterly impossible, and must ever remain so, to un-
derstand the higher intellectual processes from the movements
of the brain-atoms, supposing these to have become known, need
not be further shown. Yet, as already observed, it is not at all
necessary to refer to the higher forms of mental activity in order

to give greater weight to our arguments In this we

have the measure of our real capacity, or rather of our weakness.
"Thus our knowledge of nature is inclosed between these two
boundaries, which are eternally imposed upon it: on the one side
by the inability to comprehend matter and force, and on the
other to refer mental processes to material conditions. Within
these limits the student of nature is lord and master ; he ana-
lyses and he reconstructs, and no one knows the boundaries of
his knowledge and his power ; beyond these limits he goes not
now, nor can he ever go." Ueber die Grenzen des Naturer-
kennens. Zweite Auflage, pp. 27-29. Thus modestly and
truthfully is the real position of science set forth.

It cannot fail to be the cause of amazement as well as of deep
regret, that Dr. Dabney should maintain the position which is
to be next noticed. Having tauglit that we can never arrive at
any certain knowledge of nature, that physical science is vain
And deceitful philosophy ready to despoil incautious souls of
their redemption, he caps the climax by asserting that "physical
science always has some tendency to become anti-theological"
(Sermon, p. 2) ; that the "tendencies of geologists " are "athe-
istic" (Lectures, p. 178); that the "spirit of these sciences is
essentially infidel and rationalistic ; they are arrayed, in all

Assaults on Physical Science. 13

their phases, on the side of scepticism" (Memoir in Central
Presbyterian, October 31, 18G6) ; "this is, therefore," he says,
" the eternity of Naturalism — it is Atheism. And such is the
perpetual animus of material science, especially in our day"
(Lectures, p. 179). If he had confined himself to saying that
" the tendency of much of so-called modern science is sceptical,"
(Sermon, p. 5,) he might easily have substantiated this assertion.
But from the passages quoted, it is seen that he maintains no such
partial proposition ; he does not limit himself to the assertion that
" much of so-called " but not real " modern science is sceptical,"
but boldly proclaims that " the spirit of these sciences is essen-
tially infidel and rationalistic ;" that " they are arrayed, in all
their phases, on the side of scepticism ;" that '''■ ih.Q\v peril etual
animus " is towards " atheism.'' What assertions could be made
more damaging to belief in the Scriptures which are the source of
theology, and in the existence of God himself? What frightful
consequences must necessarily flow from the general reception of
Dr. Dabney's teachings on this subject ! That a firm believer
in the Bible could say that the systematic study of God's works
always tends to make us disbelieve his word, and even his ex-
istence, would seem incredible but for the sad evidence here pre-
sented. In such an opinion of God's works may perhaps be
found an explanation of the contemptuous scorn of the epithets
which Dr. Dabney employs in speaking of the "musty" and
"rotten" fossils. Sermon, pp. 7 and 19. Should we not instead
listen to the words, "Remember that thou magnify his work
which men behold;" and see in these" musty" "rotten" fossils
rather the "medals of creation," and from them and all the
other wonderful things which God has made, reverently and
humbly learn his glory and power ?

Surely the statement of Dr. Dabney's teaching on this point
carries with it its own refutation, so as to render further arguments
to refute it unnecessary. It has often before been asserted that
"ignorance is the mother of devotion," but this has been repelled
as a slanderous attack upon our faith made by the unbeliever; it
could not have been anticipated that it would receive such sup-
port from an enlightened teacher of our holy and true religion.

14 All h\r(j))iinatio7i of Crrdu'n lucent

The " two facts " by which Dr. Dabiiey woultl iiccount for
tlie supposed evil tendency of physical science — depravity and
pride — are of universal application to all men, whatever their
pursuits. Those who study natural science, equally Avith meta-
physicians, theologians, lawyers, physicians, farmers, etc., are
men ; and men unrenewed by the Spirit of God have a "natural
disposition which is enmity against God." So "pride" is
among the " evil thoughts which proceed out of the heart of
men." And since students of physical science are men, what-
ever may be truly said of the human race may be said of them.
But what right has Dr. Dabney to single out this class and rep-
resent it as made up of sinners above all other men ? It would
be just as fair and as true to assert the anti-Christian tendency
of a careful study of the Bible, of theology, and of the evidences
of Christianity, and to attempt to prove the assertion by fjuoting
the example of Renan, De Wette, Ewald, Theodore Parkei",
Strauss, Baur, and a host of others like iliem, as it is to assert
the anti-theological and atheistic tendency of the study of physi-
cal science because infidel sentiments may be found in the writ-
ings of some diligent students of nature — it would be no more
fair or true, and no less. It is very strange that it should have
escaped the notice of Dr. Dabney that the dangerous tendency
is not at all in the study, but wholly in the student.

Having shown, as he supposes, that physical science never can
reach undoubted truth and that its study in various ways endan-
gers the soul's salvation, Dr. Dabney proceeds in his Sermon to
enumerate some of the "continual encroachments" which "phy-
sicists" are "making upon the Scripture teachings." He says:

" I perceive this in the continual encroachments which they
make upon the Scripture teachings. Many of you, my brethren,
can remember the time when this modern impulse did not seek
to push us any farther from the old and current understanding
of the Bible cosmogony, than to assert the existence of a Pre-
Adamite earth, with its own distinct fauna and flora, now all
entombed in the fossiliferous strata of rocks. '■' * *

"But now, we are currently required by Physicists to admit,
that the six days' work of God was not done in six days, but in
six vast tracts of time.

Assaults on Physical Science. 15

'•That the deluge did not cover 'all the high hills which were
iunder the whole heaven,' but only a portion of central Asia.

"That man has been living upon the globe, in its present dis-
pensation, for more than twenty thousand years, to say the least,
-as appears by some fossil remains of him and his handiwork; and
that the existence of the species is not limited to the five thousand
nine hundred years assigned it by the ^losaic Chronology.

"That the 'nations were not divided in the earth after the
flood by the families of the sons of Noah ;' and that God did not
' make of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the
face of the earth ;' but that anatomy and ethnology show there
are several distinct species having separate origins.

''That God di'l not create a finished world of sea and land, but
only a fire-mist, or incandescent, rotating, nebulous mass, which
•condensed itself into a world.

'• And laet, that man is a development from the lowest type of
animal life." Sermon, pp. -3, 4.

Before examining ia detail the points embraced in this
■enumeration, it may be remarked that the Synod of Virginia,
before which the Sermon was delivered, must have contained
many patriarchs of almost antediluvian years, since their memo-
ries reached back to the time when only one of the alleged
"encroachments" had been made. Bishop Stillingfleet, in the
seventeenth century, maintained the opinion that the flood had
not "been over the whole globe of the earth;" more than sixty
years ago both the development hypothesis and the nebular hy-
pothesis had their vigorous supporters; and for ages the antiquity
of man has been believed by some persons to be greater than the
commonly received Mosaic Chronology Avould allow. Hence, Dr.
Dabney either had many most venerable patriarchs among his
hearers, or else he was attributing to them no small amount of
ignorance as to the extent of this " modern impulse," in a way
■which was not very flattering to their intelligence.

It is not a little surprising that Dr. Dabney, supposing him to
have some acquaintance with physical science, should have erred
so signally in this formal statement of what he regards as the
teachings of science. lie is right as to the first point — geology
■does teach, as proved beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt,
^ihat the earth was in existence for at least more than a week

16 An Kxamination of Certain llecent

before Adam ; and this pre-Adamite time may be subdivided into
six, or sixty, or any other number of tracts, without affecting the
geological truth. But wlicn it is divided into six parts, it is not
geology that makes the division, but interpreters of the Bible,
who think (erroneously, in our opinion) that the narrative in
the first chapter of Genesis refers to certain periods of geologi-
cal history. But science does not "require us to admit " one
other proposition here presented. We do not say that certain
scientific men have not made the statements in question; they
liave done so, just as certain Christian theologians have taught
that bread is every day changed into the real body of Christ,
that Jesus Christ is not God, that God will not punish sinners,
that the Bible is not inspired, etc. But what would be thought
of one who would caution us against believing in the Christian
religion, and who would enforce the caution by the statement
that " we are currently required by Christian theologians to
admit" these doctrines? "We are now concerned only with Dr.
Dabney's similar statement as to the teachings of science — not
even turning aside to inquire as to the amount of possible truth
in each or any of the propositions.

The question as to the extent of the deluge is one of Biblical
interpretation, and does not belong to any department of natural
science. It is true that, if the Bible narrative leaves it unde-
cided, natural science may be able to help us to determine which
interpretation is the more probable; and we may properly ask its
help, just as we may ask the help of geography in deciding the
situation of Melita, if it is not clearly pointed out in the narra-
tive of Paul's shipwreck on the coast of that island.

How long man has been living upon the globe, science has not
yet succeeded in determining. This question has been under
discussion amongst scientific men for a long time ; and within
the last twenty or thirty years many facts have been observed
Avhich may aid in answering it ; but no conclusion has yet been
reached which commands the assent of the scientific world, and
which can therefore be regarded as taught by science.

Further, science does not teach the plural origin of the human
family. It is true that many eminent men of science do main-

Assaults on Physical Science. IT

tain that there are several distinct human species ; but there are
many others, of at least equal eminence and authority, who
maintain the unity of the human species on purely scientific
grounds. Not to refer to others, a recent writer, whose rank as
a scientific man is shown by his position as President of the
French Academy of Science, M. de Quatrefages, has written
an admirable work to prove this unity on these grounds. (Unite
de I'Espece Humaine, 1861.) But it is hardly worth while to
proceed with the proof that the plurality of origin is not taught
by science when Dr. Dabney tells us in almost the next para-
graph that science teaches that not only all men, but all animals
of whatever grade, have a common origin !

That science does not teach the nebular hypothesis, is suffi-
ciently evident from the use of the term "hypothesis." "Hy-
pothesis" is exactly equivalent to "supposition ;" and by speaking
of Herschel's and Laplace's suggestions as to the possible origin
of the universe as a " supposition," scientific men have shown
their great care to avoid having these suggestions regarded in
any other light. Of course Dr. Dabney knows the meaning of
this anglicised Greek word ; and therefore it is surprising that
he should represent "physicists as requiring us to admit" what
they are careful to call a mere " supposition." He is fully
aware that this is the term applied, as he shows by his own use
of it in his Lectures and Sermon. Lectures, p. 178, line 3-3 ;
Sermon, p. 10, line 25.

Similar remarks would apply to the last item in Dr. Dabney's
enumeration of anti-Christian errors — the development hypothe-
sis. But to prove that "Physicists do not require us to
admit " this supposition, it may be enough in this instance to
quote the following truthful observations from Dr. Dabney's
Lectures : " The attempt to account for them" (namely, " the be-
ginning of ^(/^wera") "by the development theory (Chambers or
Darwin), is utterly repudiated by even the better irreligious
philosophers ; for if there is anything that Natural History has
established, it is that organic life is separated from inorganic
forces, mechanical, chemical, electrical, or other, by inexorable
bounds ; and that cjenera may begin or end, but never transmute

18 All Examhvxtlon of Certain Recent

themselves into other //<>/? r'/vr." Tjccturcs, pp. 17, IH. Surch'
this is conclusive on this head.

It thus appears that the only '• encroachment which physicists
make upon Scripture teachings " is in their doctrine that the
world was in existence at least ten days or a fortnight before any
human being. This tliey certainly do teach. We say ten or
fourteen days, because it makes not the slightest dilTcrence, as
regards the supposed "encroachment," whether the pre-Adamite
earth existed only ten days, or ten thousand million ra3-riads of
centuries. The "encroachment " is as great when it is shown
that the earth existed six days and five minutes before Adam, as
if tlic longest time were admitted that could enter into the im-
agination of man. Hence is manifest the irrelevancy of all dis-
-cussions relating to the length of time during which the pre-
Adamite earth existed, after the fortnight or the six days and five
minutes have been admitted or proved. Whether the doctrine
of geology, that the earth was in existence at least a fortnight
before man, is an encroachment upon Scripture teaching, or upon
an "old and current [mis-]understanding of the Bible," will not
be discussed here. The doctrine itself is very easily proved; and
it is also very easily proved that it is vastly more reasonable to
believe both the Bible and geology to be true than to disbelieve
either. While not disposed usually to rely upon mere authority
in scientific matters, and, as perhaps need hardly be said, not
inclined ordinarily to accept Dr. Dabney as the highest geologi-
cal authority, yet in this case it may be best to prove the geo-
logical heresy in question by accepting his teachings respecting
it. In Lecture II, on the "Existence of God," he asks, "Can
the present universe be the result of an infinite series of organ-
isms?" lie shows that "metaphysical answers" to the error
of those who would reply affirmatively to this question are
"invalid;" and then proceeds to give "the true answers to the
atheistic hypothesis." The fifth "true answer" is: "(5.)
Science exalts experience above hypothesis even more than testi-
mony. Now, the whole s>;ate of the world bears the appearance
0^ recency. The recent discovery of new continents, the great
progress of new arts. since the historic era began, and the partial

Assaults on Physical Science. 19

population of the earth by man, all belie the eternity of the
human race. But stronger still, geology proves the

CREATION, IN TIME, OF RACE AFTER RACE OF ANIMALS, AND
THE COMPARATIVELY RECENT ORIGIN OF MAN, BY HER FOSSIL

RECORDS." Lectures, p. 17. Surely after reading this decisive
testimony, which we have sought to make duly prominent by
capitals, no one "who regards Dr. Dabney as a safe teacher can
hesitate to accept tiie only doctrine which is really taught by
science among the " encroachments " enumerated by him. But
is Saul also among the prophets ? is Dr. Dabney also among
the geologists ? So it would appear. The difficulty does
remain, it must be admitted, which it is not for us to attempt
to remove, of explaining how he can, consistently with fairness-
and logic, on page 178 of his Lectures maintain that the '" ten-
dencies of geologists" are "atheistic," and on page 17 prove the
existence of God by the teachings of these same atheistic geolo-
gists.

"We have stated that the hypothesis of Ilerschel and Laplace,
that the matter of the universe once existed in a nebulous con-
dition, is not taught by science as an established truth, but is
still held only as an hypothesis ; and perhaps it can never be
either completely proved or disproved. But suppose we should
believe it to be true, how would this belief "encroach upon
Scripture teachings ?" As soon as the earth is shown to be
older than Adam by ten days, and this is perceived to be not
contradictory of Scripture teachings, it becomes a matter of no-
consequence as regards the interpretation of the Bible how muck
more than ten days the time may have been. Nor does it con-
cern us as students of God's holy word how he created the
world — whether he "created a finished world of sea and land,"'
(whatever that may mean,) or nebulous matter which he endowed
with properties such that it would pass through successive
changes until it reached the condition in which we now see it-
Is God less truly the Creator of the magnificent oak which to-
day adorns the forest because he did not by a word bring it into-
its present condition, but endowed the tiny acorn with tlie won-
derful properties that caused it to becomQ,the stately tree whicL

20 An Examination of Ccrlain Hcccnt

we behold ? And is he less truly the Creator of this oak than
of the one that produced the acorn from \vliicli it sprang ? And
are "wc dislionorin;^ God or trying to exchnle him from our
thoughts, arc wc practical atheists, when we trace with admiring
awe the laws by which he produces the development of the em-
bryo into the full-grown organism ? If not, how are we atheists,
or how arc we dishonoring God, if we suppose he may have
brought the universe into its present state 9^ a gradual process
instead of by an instantaneous act ? If it be replied that we
thereby deny the truth of his word, the answer is : Ilis word
gives us no information on the subject ; it informs us that he
created the world, but it does not tell us hoiu he created it.
Until it is proved that his word teaches the method as well as the
fact, there is no reason for regarding the nebular hypothesis as
dangerous or atheistic, merely because one of those who first
suggested it was an unbeliever — "the atheistic astronomer, La
Place." Sermon, p. 10.

.. It is in connexion with this hypothesis that we first have oc-
casion to observe Dr. Dabney on the field as a physical philoso-
pher. He certainly exhibits great boldness, and is ready to
break a lance with all comers. But wc are apprehensive that he
has proved neither his lance nor the joints of his harness. With a
single touch of his spear's point, he flatters himself that he has
unhorsed this hypothesis, and has made its bloody remains roll
lifeless on the turf. He tells us that " Lord Rosse's telescope
has dissolved the only shadow of a probability for it, in resolving
the larger nehulce.'' (Lectures, p. 178, and Sermon, p. 10.) This
statement will no doubt create great surprise, if not amusement,
in the minds of all who know that while Lord Rosse's telescope
resolved some nebulrc, many others have been brought to view
which show no sign of being resolvable. The surprise will be all
the greater to those who have really studied the reasons for
thinking that the hypothesis may be true ; and who therefore
know that, although nebuhc in the sky may have first suggested
the hypothesis to Sir William Ilerschel, the reasons in its favor
would be almost if not quite as strong if every nebula should
be seen to consist of completed stars. And although the Lectures

Assaults on Physical Science. 21

and Sermon are dated 1S71, their author does not give any in-
dication of his havinor hea^d of the amazing discoveries of Bun-
■sen and KirchhofF about fifteen years ago, or of the applications
of the spectroscope with which they have enriched the world — an
instrument by which not only the chemistry of the heavenly
bodies can to some extent be ascertained, but by which incan-
descent gases — nebulous matter — can be distinguished from
solids and liquids. Therefore, though Dr. Dabney's demolition
of the nebular hypothesis may be satisfactory to those patriarchs
who can remember when it did not exist, it will be necessary now
to use other arguments. Ancient weapons are of no avail in
modern warfare; and the mediaeval armor of the most gallant
knight is no protection against a conical ball projected from the
chassepot or needle-gun.

Closely connected with Dr. Dabney's erroneous statement of
the teachings of science, and with the errors into which he is
betrayed by his want of acquaintance with physical science, are
his groundless assertions respecting the aims and motives of
students of science. In his Lectures, he says :

" Tendencies of - GEOLoaiSTS Atheistic. — Again ; why
should the Theistic philosopher desire to push back the creative
act of God to the remotest possible age, and reduce his agency
to the least possible minimum, as is continually done in these
speculations ? What is gained by it ? Instead of granting that
God created a kosmos, a world, they strive continually to show
that he created only the rude germs of a world, ascribing as
little as possible to God, and as much as possible to natural law.
Cui bono; if you are not hanJcering after Atheism?" Lec-
tures, p. 178.

In his Sermon, he says :

"And I ask, with emphasis, if men are not in fact reaching
after atheism ; if their real design is not to push God clean out
of past eternity ; why this craving to show his last intervention
as Creator so remote ? Why are they so eager to shove God
back six millions of years from their own time rather than six
thousand ? Is it that ' they do not like to retain God in their
knowledge ? ' It is not for me to make that charge. But have
I not demonstrated that the validity of their scientific logic, in
reality, gains nothing by this regressuaf • Sermon, pp. 16, 17.

22 An Examination of Certain Recent

It is to be earnestly hoped that no one who is inquiring as to
the truth of Christianity will regard these as the means by which
that truth is maintained. The world must always suspect the
justness of a cause when its advocates resort to virulent abuse of
their opponents by attributing to them unworthy motives. Not
by such weapons can our holy religion be defended. Every
student of science who is worthy of the name the world over,
will reject with indignation the imputation here made of such
designs ; and no more fatal stab could be given to Christianity,
wherever Dr. Dabney is regarded as its faithful representative.
The geologist is guilty of no such crime against the sovereign
majesty of truth as is here laid to his charge. He examines the
materials of which the accessible part of the globe is composed,
he studies their arrangement, he investigates the laws by which
God brings about such arrangement of such materials ; and
then he accepts as true the conclusions to which he is in this
way led. He does not undertake to determine beforehand what
the conclusion shall be, and then ransack nature for seemiog
facts to defend his opinion ; he does not dictate to God what his
works shall teach ; but asking only what is true and indifferent
to all else, he goes forward cautiously, yet fearlessly, and accepts-
as true whatever the phenomena of nature combined according,
to the God-given laws of his mind may require. The true
student of nature does just what is done by every true student
of the Bible who believes, as he should do, in the plenary in-
spiration and consequent truth of that holy volume. Such a one
does not go to the sacred word for proofs of his preconceived
opinions ; he seeks cautiously, yet fearlessly, to know what is
taught, and that he accepts with unquestioning faith. Just so
far as any other method is adopted in either case, just so far is
there manifest dishonesty. That there are those who profess to
be students of nature who are merely Darrow-minded partisans,
indifferent to truth and eager only to support what they wish
to be true, may well be believed in view of the number of those
who profess to be students of Scripture who are of similar char-
acter. But Dr. Dabney does not limit his charges to these.
He is indeed charitable enough to say that he does " not charge

Assaults on Physical Science. 23

infidelity upon all physicists." Sermon, p, 5. But of course
in his opinion it is only by being illogical that they can be be-
lievers ; for he insists in his " Memoir" on " Theologica'l Edu-
cation," as we have seen, that the "spirit of these sciences is
essentially infidel and rationalistic ; they are arrayed, in all their
phases, on the side of scepticism." Hence, nothing but the
■want of mental capacity can preserve one imbued with their
spirit, as every true student of nature is, from being an infidel
and rationalist.

This charitable admission that all physicists are not infidels,
does not extend to all who profess that they are not ; for Dr.
Dabney tells us that many who really "disclaim inspiration"
are base enough to "profess a religion which they do not be-
lieve." lie tells us not merely that many students of science
are infidels, as might be expected if his assertions respecting its
spirit and tendency are correct, but that many of them are
hypocrites as well. He says :

"We have the explicit testimony of an eye-witness in the
scientific association of the year (held at Indianapolis), that the
great majority of the members from the Northern States openly
or tacitly disclaimed inspiration ; and this, while many of them
are pew-holders, elders — yea, even ministers — in Christian
churches. When asked why they continued to profess a religion
which they did not believe, some answered that the exposure
and discussion attending a recantation would be inconvenient ;
some, that it would be painful to their friends; some, that Chris-
tianity was a good thing for their sons and daughters, because
of its moral restraints." Sermon, p. 6.

Does Dr. Dabney think he has sufficient evidence to sustain
charges so grave ? Surely his evidence ought to be very decisive
before he permits himself to say from the pulpit and to publish to
the world that many "pewholdcrs, elders, even ministers, in Chris-
tian churches" are living and acting a lie. If indeed he has the
"explicit testimony" of which he speaks, he ought fearlessly to
declare what he knows and to prove it to the world, that the
mask may be torn from the hypocrites whom he describes, and
that all true men may be on their guard against them. But if
he has been betrayed by warmth of zeal into an unconsidered

24 An Exa7ninatio7i of Certain Recent

assertion, lie surely ^vill lose no time in retracting it. As he
states the evidence, it certainly iloes not seem sufiicient to con-
vict the-culprits arrai;!;nc(l. The "eye-witness," it would seem,
must have inquired of each of the memhers of the American As-
sociation for the Advancement of Science which met at Indian-
apolis as to his belief in our religion, and must have received as
a reply from many of the ministers of that religion and elders in
Christian churches that they did not believe it; whereupon the
"eye-witness," naturally enough amazed, nmst have inquired as
to the cause of this hypocrisy, and then the different causes were
assigned which Dr. Dabney mentions in his Sermon. AVithout
this examination or a similar one, the statement could not be
justified. Now, the probability that the " eye-witness" pursued
no such course, and that the hypocrites in question would not so
readily proclJSm their baseness, is so strong, that we may be par-
doned for failing to give full credence to testimony so indirectly
reaching us. Let it be hoped for the sake of all concerned that
this charge will be either substantiated or speedily withdrawn.
From the importance attached by Dr. Dabney to the alleged
attempt to push " back the creative act of God to the remotest
possible age," to "shove God back six millions of years" or
more, it might be supposed that the firmness of our belief in
God as Creator varies inversely as the length of time which has
elapsed since he began to exercise his creative power. Other-
wise it is very diflScult to understand on what ground he objects
to the student of science going back as far as facts or even pro-
babilities may lead him. As regards any supposed contradiction
of Scripture, the contradiction is as complete when we admit
with Dr. Dabney "the comparatively recent origin of man"
(Lectures, p. 17) as when we suppose that he originated the
matter of the universe more millions of years ago than human
arithmetic can numerate. Therefore it is hard to see why he
lays so much stress on this point, when he himself teaches the
geological doctrine at least far enough to involve the only sup-
posable contradiction ; unless indeed, as before suggested, it is
because the law of this belief is like the law of attraction of
gravitation, which diminishes as distance increases. But is it

Assaults on Pliysical Science. 25

true that we to-day believe less firmly in a Creator than we did
yesterday, or than the men of last century, or the men of two
thousand years ago, or of the days of Methuselah ? And if a
thousand million centuries hence, we shall be permitted to
examine some part of God's creation now in existence where
changes are in progress which are leaving indications of the time
they occupy, and as the result of this examination we shall say
that here is evidence of the lapse of some millions of years, must
we expect some future Dr. Dabney to attribute to us "insane
pride of mind" (Lectures, p. 178,) "rationalism," "infidelity,"
"atheism"? Will the evidence of creative power and wisdom
be then less clear than it is now, or than it was when first the
morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for
joy ? Hence, apart from the fact before stated, that true
students of science do not desire to "shove God back," but
desire simply to know the truth, it is reasonable to suppose that
they are endowed with at least sufficient intellect, however dis-
honest, to see that, if they wish to promote atheism, it cannot be
done by any amount of "pushing" or "shoving" in the
manner and in the direction attributed to them by Dr. Dabney
in his Sermon and his Lectures.

We have already alluded to Dr. Dabney's use of the terms
"sensuous" and "sensualistic " in connexion with physical
science in a way fitted to excite groundless prejudice against it
in the minds of those who are likely to be reminded of " earthly,
sensual, devilish," on hearing the words, and who do not know
there may be a sense assigned to them which would convey a very
different idea. He may have intended no injustice in employing
the terms in question. But he has been more unfortunate in
using the terms "naturalist," "naturalistic," and "naturalism."
On pages 12, 15, and 16, of the Sermon, and pages 176 and 177
of the Lectures, he properly applies the first two of these terms
to the investigation of facts and the drawing of inferences from
them in accordance with the intuitive belief in the law of
uniformity; but on pages 18 and 19 of the Sermon, and page
170 of the Lectures, he uses them all in a way which conveys a
totally different meaning. He says :

26 An Examination of Certain Recent

"The best antidote, my hearers, for this naturalistic unbelief is
to remember your own stake in the truth of reilemption ; and the
best remedy for the soul infecteil is conviction of sin. 'Beware
lest any man despoil you through a vain, deceitful philosophy.'
Of what will they despoil you ? Of a divine redemption and a
Saviour in whom dwell the divine wisdom, power, love, and truth,
in all their fulness; of deliverance from sin and guilt; of immor-
tality; of hope. Let naturalism prove all that unbelief claims,
and what have you ? This blessed Bible, the only book which
ever told perishing man of an adequate salvation, is discredited ;
Ood, "with his providence and grace, is banished out of your exist-
ence. . . . Naturalism is a virtual atheism ; and atheism is des-
2^air. Thus saith the apostle: they Avho are 'without God in the
world ' are ' without hope.' Eph. ii. 12. Young man, does
it seem to you an alluring thought, when appetite entices or
pride inflates, that this false science may release you from the
intern restraints of God's revealed law 'i Oh, beware, lest it de-
spoil you thus of hope and immortality. . . .

" Look back, proud Naturalist, upon history ; your form, and
iill other forms of scepticism, have been unable to hold their
ground, even against the poor fragments and shreds of divine
truth, which met you in Polytheism, in INIohammedanism, in
Popery. Man, however blinded, will believe in his spiritual
ilestiny, in spite of you. Let proud Naturalism advance, then,
and seek its vain weapons groping amidst pre-Adamite strata
and rotten fossils. The humble heralds of our Lord Christ will
lay their hands upon the heartstrings of living, immortal man,
and find there always the farces to overwhelm unbelief with
defeat." Sermon, pp. 18, I'j.

In these passages, the modern meaning of the term '• natur-
alist " is entirely lost sight of; and Dr. Dabney could justify
the amazing assertions and warnings uttered only by saying that
the words as used some hundreds of years ago had the significa-
tion which he here wishes to convey. It is true that centuries
ago it would have been proper to say that a "naturalist" was
one who held the doctrine of " naturalism " taught by Leucip-
pus, Democritus, and others, among the ancients, and by some
unbelieving philosophers of later days. That " naturalism " was
"virtual atheism," indeed it was professed atheism ; for it attri-
buted the phenomena of nature to a blind force acting necessa-
rily. But the ancient "naturalist" and the modern " natural-

Assaults on Physical Science. 27

ist " have nothing in common. How, then, can Dr. Dabney
justify his passing from the modern meaning of these words to
the ancient and obsolete one, without giving his readers and
hearers notice that he had done so ? If he were to say that he
uses them in the same sense throughout, and that he intends to
assert that the "naturalist" of to-day is one who embraces
the "naturalism" of the atheist, he would take a position to
which the self-respect of a modern naturalist would forbid any
reply to be made.

Perhaps the whole difficulty on these points arises from Dr.
Dabney's utter failure to recognise the province of natural
science. That he is not aware of the limits of this province is
very evident from the following passages :

" Does the professor of natural science say of geology, that
because the fact which it attempts to settle by empirical deduc-
tion, is the fact of a creation, the work of an omnipotent agent,
therefore in the very approach to this question the validity of
such deductions fails, and all such speculations are superseded ;
because this fact of a supernatural creation, if it has occurred,
has transcended all natural law ? Does he hence briefly infer,
as I do, that such speculations about the mode and date of crea-
tion must, by a logical necessity, always be incompetent to nat-
ural science, no matter how extended ? " Memoir, October 31,
1866.

"Because geology is virtually a theory of cosmogony, and
cosmogony is but the doctrine of creation, which is one of the
modes by which God reveals hiaiself to man, and one of the prime
articles of every revealed theology." Lectures, p. 175.

It is a grievous mistake on Dr. Dabney's part to suppose that
natural science has anything whatever to do with the "doctrine
of creation." If he should become acquainted with geology, he
would learn that it is not a " theory of cosmogony," either virtually
or really. The truth is that natural science is neither Christian
nor anti-Christian, neither theistic nor atheistic, any more than
the multiplication table. "When we can speak of a Christian
law of gravitation, or an infidel law of definite proportions, or a
rationalistic order of succession in the strata composing the ac-
cessible part of the earth, then we shall be able to speak of
Christian and atheistic natural science, and not until then. For

-8 An Ej.a)ni)nttivn of Certain Ju'cent

what is natural science ? Dr. Dabncy gives us a sufllciently
good description wlien he says : " Its chief study is to ascer-
tain the hiws of material nature and of animal life." Sermon,
p. 2. (Dr. Dabney docs not profess to be defining natural
science here, but is describing what he calls " the prevalent vain
deceitful philosophy of our day ;" but this is merely his not very
ilattering way of speaking of what others mean by natural
science.) Accepting this description, then, is it not clear that
the consideration of creation is necessarily excluded ? For
what are "laws of nature?" Dr. Kcid replies, as almost
every other philosopher would do, that the "laws of nature
are the rules according to which effects are produced." Ac-
cordingly, the student of natural science, by experiment and
observation, seeks to learn what these rules are ; he watches
the order of sequence in nature ; and thus he gains the knowl-
edge he desires — in no other way can he gain it. This
knowledge cannot pass beyond what may be observed. And
it is only the order of sequence in nature that can be observed.
Hence everything that lies beyond the observable order of se-
quence lies beyond the province of natural science. Now,
how will natural science proceed to ascertain either the fact or
the mode of creation ? Can the order of sequence in creation
be observed ? Has man ever been able to see what the regular
steps in that process are? If not, all "speculations about the
mode of creation must always be incompetent to natural
science," as Dr. Dabney rightly says.

In like manner, all speculations as to the origin of forces and
agents operating in nature are incompetent to natural science.
It examines how these operate, what effects they produce ; but
in answer to the questions. Is there a personal spiritual God
who created these forces ? or did they originate in blind neces-
sity ? or are they eternal ? natural scienoe is silent. It hum-
bly declares that such questions transcend its highest powers ;
it shows what truths it has gathered, and with free hand delivers
them over to a higher philosophy or to natural theology as use-
ful materials with which to construct arguments demonstrating
the being and wisdom of a personal God ; but such demonstra-

Assaults on Physical Scieiice. 29

tions lie wholly beyond its humbler sphere. And should any
one, whether theologian or student .of natural science, infidel or
Christian, represent his discussions respecting the existence and
attributes of God as belonging in any way to natural science, it
would show clearly that he has yet to begin to learn what its
rightful province is. And it would be as unjust to hold science
responsible for the infidel views respecting the Bible and its
teachings proclaimed by a Vogt, a Moleschott, a BUchner, a
Tyndall, or a La Place, as to hold the Bible responsible for
the astonishing views respecting natural science proclaimed by
Dr. Dabney.

While natural science is itself incapable of inquiring into the
origin of the forces which produce the phenomena it studies, and
while it is impossible for it to be either religious or irreligious
(anti-religious rather) any more than mathematics, or grammar,
or logic, or farming; yet by the truths which it brings to light, it
not only enables natural theology to illustrate the wisdom and
power and greatness of God as nothing else can, but also inim-
itably expands the significance of multitudes of passages in the
Scriptures where the meaning is already clear, and sometimes
aids in gaining a clearer insight into that meaning where it is
obscure. To the most ignorant peasant the heavens declare the
glory of God ; but in how infinitely higher a degree to the as-,
tronomer, who knows something of the real magnitudes, motions,
constitution, and relations of the heavenly bodies. And the
earth showeth his handiwork to the stupidest savage ; but with
what vastly greater clearness and impressiveness to the geolo-
gist, who knows, however imperfectly, at least some parts of its
wonderful past history. Every department of natural science
sets fortli truths which must fill the loving heart of the child of
God with new emotions of admiration and reverence towards his
Father whose thoughts he sees expressed in his works. But on
the other hand, the scofiing unbeliever may pervert the truths
discovered by natural science, just as the unbelieving farmer
may pervert the fruits of his successful labor by using them to
promote every kind of wickedness. It would hardly be proper,
however, in this latter case, to begin a series of sermons, memo-

80 An Examination of Certnin liccent

rials, etc., cautioniiii; the (Jliurcli against anti-Christian corn
and cotton.

That natural science is neither atheistic nor Christian in
itself, may be seen further from the fact that the results reacheil
are not in the slightest degree affected by the religious views or
character of its students. Two chemists, the one an atheist and
the other a Christian, who study side by side in a laboratory
and examine the same substances, will see the same chemical
•changes and arrive at a knowledge of the same laws. Their re-
ligious differences will have no more effect than the differences
in their stature or the color of their hair. So if they go to the
•mountain's side as geologists, they will see the same strata in
the same order filled with the same fossils, and they will draw
the same conclusions from what they see. Perhaps when the
atheist retires to his study, and, putting off the character of
student of science, begins to discuss the origin of things, he may
say that he believes that the fossils he had seen are the result of a
fortuitous concourse of atoms, and that the order and constitu-
tion of the strata are one of the possible combinations brought
about by blind chance. And the Christian, in like matiner, when
the glorious workmanship of God is no longer before his eyes, may
strive to persuade himself that the forms which he had seen had
never been parts of living beings, but for some reason unknown
to him had been created as they now are by the God whom he
had just been worshipping as the God whose truth endureth for
•ever, and of whom he had exultingly exclaimed : " The word of
the Lord is right ; and all his works are done in truth." But
when again atheist and Christian return together to their inves-
ligations in the light of day, the former is as far from uttering
his absurdities respecting the power of chance as the Christian
from repeating the horrible thought that perhaps the God of
truth had crcntcd these fragments of bone, and shells, and de-
cayed wood, and dead leaves, in the condition in which they are
now before him. But wo are not left to speculation as the only
means of reaching the truth on this point, when we see the
Christian Newton and the unbeliever La Place teaching the very
same astronomical truths, and when we see that in every branch

Assaults on Physical Science. 31

of science the same results are reached, whatever the religious
views of the investigators. Even among the hypotheses outside
of the ascertained truth, bj which every branch of science is sur-
rounded, no line could be drawn which would separate Christians
from infidels, any more than one which would separate Ameri-
cans and Frenchmen from Germans and Englishmen.

Dr. Dabney's argument, which is next to be noticed, is that on
which he lays most stress to prove that there can be no certain
conclusions reached respecting the antiquity of the globe and
similar questions. It is this : "The admission of the possibility
of a creation destroys the value of every analogy to prove the
date and mode of the production. The creative act (which, if it
ever ocurred, may have occurred at any date, when once we get
back of historical testimony) has utterly superseded and cut
across all such inferences." Lectures, p. 177. The remarks
above made with reference to the universal scepticism necessarily
resulting from Dr. Dabney's eifort to show that we cannot pos-
sibly reach the truth because we are fallen beings, here apply
with special force. If we adopt his principle, we shall be sure not.
to believe anything. But since bespeaks of it as the most vital
point in his argument, it is proper that it should now be stated
more fully. He says:

" Finally, no naturalistic argument from observed effects to
their natural causes, however good the induction, have any force
to prove a natural origin for any structure older than authentic,
human history, except upon atheistic premises. The ari^ument
usually runs thus : We examine, for instance, the disposition
which natural forces now make of the sediment of rivers. We
observe that when it is finally extruded by the fluvial current
into the lake or sea where it is to rest, it is spread out horizon-
tally upon the bottom by the action of gravity, tidal waves, and
such like forces. The successive deposits of annual freshets we
find spread in strata, one upon another. Time, pressure, and
chemical reactions gradually harden the sediment into rock, en-
closing such remains of plants, trees, and living creatures, as
may have fallen into it in its plastic state. The result is a bed
of stratified stones. Hence, infers the geologist, all stratified
and fossil-hearing beds of stone have a sedimentary origin, (or
other such like natural origin). Hence winds and waters must
have been moving on this earth, long enough to account for all

o'2 Aji Examlnntion of Certain liecciit

tlic bcils of sucli stone on the globe. Such \^ the argument in
all other case?.

"Grant now that an infinite, all-wise, all-pf)werful Creator has
intervened anywhere in \\q past eternity, and then this argu-
ment for a natural origin of any structure, as against a super-
natural, creative origin, becomes utterly invalid the moment it is
pressed back of authentic human history. The reason is, that
the possible presence of a difl'erent cause makes it inconclusive. . . .

"It may be asked : 'Must we then believe, of all the pre-
Adamite fossils, that they are not, as they obviously appear, or-
ganized matter ; that they never were alive ; that they were
createil directly by God as they lie ?' The answer is : That we
have^'no occasion to deny their organic character ; but that the
proof of their pre-Adamite date is wholly invalid, when once the
possibility of creative intervention is properly admitted, with its
consequences. For the assumed antiquity of all the rocks called
sedimentary, is an essential member of the argument by which
geologists endeavor to prove the antiquity of these fossils. But
if many of these rocks may have been created, then the pre-
Adamite date of fossils falls also. Moreover, when we arc con-
fronted with an infinite Creator, honesty must constrain us to
admit, that amidst the objects embraced in his vast counsels,
there may have been considerations, we know not what, prompt-
ing him to create organisms, in numbers, and under conditions
very different from those which Ave now term natural. After
the admission of that possibility, it is obviously of no force for
us to argue : 'These organisms must have been so many ages old,
supposing they were produced, and lived, and died, under the
ordinary conditions known to us.' This is the very thing we are
no longer entitled to suppose." Sermon, pp. 12, 13, 14.

" Our modern geologists find that wherever stratified rocks are
formed, since the era of human observation, the cause is sedi-
mentary action. They jump to the conclusion that therefore the
same natural cause produced all the sedimentary rocks, no mat-
ter how much older than Adam. I reply : 'Yes, provided it is
proved beforehand, that no other adequate cause was 2^^'ese?it.'
Unless you are an atheist, you niust admit that another cause,
creative poiver, may have been present ; and j^^^seyit anywhere
jprior to the ages of authentic hintorical testimony. Thus, the ad-
mission of the theistic scheme absolutely cuts across and super-
sedes all these supposed natural arguments for the origin and
age of these structures." Lectures, pp. 175, 176.

"Objection from Fossils Axsavered. — Another objection,
supposed to be very strong, is drawn from the fossil remains of

Assaults on Pltysical Science. 33

life. The geologists say triumphantly, that however one might
admit my view as to the mere strata, it would be preposterous
when applied to the remains of plants and animals buried in
these strata, evidently alive thousands of ages ago. The reply
to this is very plain, in two Avays. First : How is it proved that
it was thousands of ages ago that these fossil creatures, now
buried in the strata, were alive ? Only by assuming the grad-
■ual, sedimentary origin of all the strata ! So that the reason-
ing runs in a circle. Second : Concede once (I care not where
in the unknown past) an almighty Creator of infinite under-
standing, (as you must if you are not an Atheist,) and then both
poiver and motive for the production of these living structures at
and after a supernatural creation become infinitely possible. It
would be an insane pride of mind, which should conclude that,
because it could not comprehend the motive for the production,
death, and entombment of all these creatures under such cir-
cumstances, therefore it cannot be reasonable for the infinite
mind to see such a motive. So that my same formnla applies
here also. Once concede an infinite Creator, and all inferences
as to the necessarily natural origin of all the structures seen, are
'fatally sundered." Lectures, pp. 177, 178.

Before discussing the main argument presented in these pas-
•sages, it will be proper to notice two questions incidentally
introduced. The first is Df. Dabney's statement when speaking
of fossils, that "we have no occasion to deny their organic
character." It is very difficult to see what he can mean by this
■statement; for his whole argument rests on the supposition that
the fossils may have been created as we find them. He says : "If
many of these rocks may have been created, then the pre-Adam-
ite date of fossils falls also." But if the rocks may have been
■created with the fossils in them, then certainly we are very
decidedly "denying their organic character." It may be pre-
sumed that even Dr. Dabney would not wish to be understood as
representing God as thrusting the fossils into the previously-made
rocks, after the death of the animals and plants of which the
fossils are the remains. But perhaps it would be rash to say
•that any one does not mean this who can believe that God may
have directly created the fossil-bearing rocks at all. lie is
clearly right in one particular — that the only way to escape the
•conclusion that the fossils are pre-Adamite is to assume the

34 An Examination of Certain Recent

"possibility of creative iutcrvcntioii." Bat be cannot assume
tbis witbout so far fortb "denying tbeir organic cbaractcr." It
sure!}' ^voubl bave been more consistent witb logical propriety
if be bad not sougbt to escape tbc consequences of tbe assump-
tion of creative intervention by saying we have no occasion to
deny Avbat is by tbat assumption directly denied,

Tbe next preliminary point is Dr. Dabncy's anxiety to escape
the consequences of bis principles by insisting again and again
on restricting tbe range of natural science to tbe period embraced
within human history. Now our belief in the laws of nature
has nothing whatever to do with human history. He himself
teaches the truth on this point very clearly in his second and
sixth Lectures. He says: ^^ It is not expeinencc vih'ich teachea
us that every effect has its cause, but tbe a priori reason.
Neither child nor man believes that maxim to be true in the
hundredth case because he has experienced its truth in ninety-
nine; he instinctively believed it in the first case. It is not a
true canon of inductive logic that the tie of cause and effect can
be asserted only so far as experience proves its presence. If it
were, would induction ever teach 7is anyiliing we did not Jcnow
before? Would there be any inductive science? Away with
tbe nonsense!" Lectures, p. 15. (The italics are Dr. Dabney's.)
"It thus appears that tbis intuitive belief [tbat 'every effect has
its own cause, which is regular every time it is produced,' page
53,] is essential beforehand to enable us to convert an experi-
mental induction into a demonstrated general law. Could any-
thing more clearly prove that the original intuition itself cannot
have been an experimental induction?" Lectures, p. 53. In
these passages he very clearly and correctly sets fortb the exact
truth. The fundamental beliefs in natural science are intuitive;
they are entirely independent of experience, which, when
recorded, becomes human history. Dr. Dabney Avould have
been more logically accurate, if in tbis crusade against physical
science be bad adhered to his own teachings in his second and
sixth Lectures.

Let us now endeavor to ascertain whether it is true tbat crea-
tive intervention supersedes and cuts across all inferences such

Assaults on Physical Science. 35

as the student of God's works draws respecting the formation of
fossil-bearing layers of rock. Of course every believer in a
personal God believes that he can produce in an extraordinary
way just such effects as he ordinarily produces by the usual
laws by which he governs his material universe — the laws of
nature; and every believer of the Bible believes that he has
often done so. The numerous miracles recorded are suspensions
of the laws of nature as we know them, deviations from the ordi-
nary "rules according to which effects are produced." It is not
necessary here to inquire whether miracles are "violations" or
"suspensions" of the laws of nature, or are the regular results
of other and higher laws of nature than those with which we are
acquainted; for whatever view may be held respecting their
character, all would agree that they are at least deviations from
the ordinary order of sequence. Now, does this admission that
effects have been produced in such unusual ways vitiate all
inductive science, which is certainly based upon the belief in the
uniformity of the laws of nature? Does the admission that fire
on some occasions has not burned, render us incapable of be-
lieving that fire does burn? Does it vitiate all conclusions
based on this belief? We can best learn what common sense
and the right use of reason teach us by examining a few cases
in detail.

On one occasion, at a marriage festival, wine was presented to
the guests, which was pronounced to be of excellent quality — it
was real wine. Had one of the guests been questioned as to its
origin, he would unhesitatingly have said that it was the ex-
pressed juice of the grape. But by unexceptionable testimony.
it could have been proved that it had been water a few minutes
before, and had never formed part of the grape at all. Now, in
view of this fact, according to Dr. Dabney's reasoning we are for-
ever debarred from concluding that wine is the juice of the grape
unless we shall have first proved the absence of God's interven-
ing power. Is this the dictate of common sense ?

One of the laws of nature with which we think we are best ac-
quainted, is, that fire burns, and that it consumes wood, flesh, or
any other organic substance. And yet, once a bush burned with
3

3G An Kuamindtion of Certain Recent

fire, ami was not consuaied. Uii another occasion, there was a
burning fiery furnace, exceeding liot, which had no power over
the bodies of three men who were cast into it, and could not even
singe a hair of their head. Now, with regard to our daily appli-
cation of the law that fire burns. Dr. Dabncy would have us re-
nuiin in perpetual doubt ; he would tell us that "honesty must
constrain us to admit, that amidst the objects embraced in his
vast counsels, there may have been considerations, we know not
what, prompting him" to give to fire the next time we wish to
kindle it on the hearth properties "very different from those which
we now term natural" — in short, such properties that it will no
longer burn. He has done so in the past ; and " after the ad-
mission of that possibility, it is obviously of no force for us to
argue": This wood must burn, and roast so much flesh, etc.,
" under the ordinary conditions known to us. This is the very
thing we are no longer entitled to suppose." Sermon, p. 14.
We must first "ascertain the absence of the supernatural," be-
fore we can be sure that fire will produce the effects we
had been anticipating. In like manner, we cannot be sure that
every rod we see will not change to a serpent ; that iron will
not swim upon water, or that we cannot Avalk upon water, or
that water will not stand in heaps as a wall ; we cannot be
sure that an inscription on a stone tablet in the grave-yard is the
work of human hands ; we cannot be sure that the strangers we
meet were not dead at one time ; for we cannot have forgotten
the rods of Moses and Aaron, the passage of the Red Sea and of
Jordan, the axe of Elisha's pupil, or the writing on the two tables
of stone ; we cannot have forgotten the son of the widow of
Nain, and Lazarus, and Jairus's daughter, and the Shunamite's
son, and others who were dead but afterwards came to life.

What conclusion must every right-thinking person reach from
the examination of these instances ? Must he not insist on be-
lieving that wine is the juice of the grape, except where the con-
trary is proved by competent testimony? He cannot give up his
belief that fire burns because it has not always done so — he will not
wait to have the rule further proved, he reasonably asks that the
extraordinary exception shall be proved ; he believes that water

Assaults on Physical Science. 37

as long as it has existed and sball exist, has had and will have
its present properties, but yet is ready to believe any proved ex-
ception ; he is not afraid to say that he knows that not one of
all the human beings he has seen during his whole life was ever
dead, while he readily accepts the evidence which informs him
that there have been exceptions to the ordinary law of mortality.

Is it not clear, then, that the rule cannot be that on which
Dr. Dabney insists — that we must be able to prove the "absence
of the supernatural" before we have a right to attribute an effect
to the operation of God's ordinary laws ? On the contrary,
are we not required by the very constitution of mind which God
has given us, to believe that every effect we see has been pro-
•duced by God's ordinary laws, until we have valid testimony to
the contrary ?

If we adopt Dr. Dabney's principle, we are at once landed in
absolute and complete scepticism — we cannot know anything
whatever with certainty ; we are condemned to perpetual tortur-
ing universal doubt. It is true he seeks to escape this conclusion
by what he says of "authentic human history;" but it has
been shown that history has nothing to do with the laws of be-
lief. The possibility of proving the truth of the Bible is at once
destroyed. A copy of the Bible is placed before us, document-
ary and other evidence is submitted to show its genuineness ; but
how can we tell that this is a book, or that these are really docu-
ments ? We have been taught that for some reason unknown to
us God may have created skeletons that never belonged to ani-
mals, shells that were never inhabited ; that he may have created
the world just as we see it with all the numberless minute marks
of having been produced by processes which he has permitted us
to learn and forced us to believe — marks which prove just as
clearly that these rocks with their fossils were produced by these
processes as that this Bible consists of sheets of paper manufac-
tured by man, with marks upon them which seem to us to be
letters and words and sentences printed by man. But since, as
Dr. Dabney says, it is possible that the rocks may have been
created, notwithstanding these minute marks of not having been
created, we must equally admit that that which seems to be a

•iS An Kjiifiii/i'idon cf Certain Recent

Bible with its suppurtitig testimony, may cii'iallj have been
created, ami has no such meaning as we must have believed, until
Dr. Dabney tauf^ht us better. Once admit this principle, and
we art' landed in scepticism in comparison with A\hich that of
Ili^ine, or Berkeley, or Pyrrho, was confident belief.

Dr. Dabncy frcfjuently insists that his argument must be ad-
mitted by all who are not atheists. Is it not rather to be feared
that all who accept his exposition of the theistic argument, will
be driven towards the denial of a God, certainly of a God of
truth ? Speaking of rocks called by geologists sedimentary,
which includes the entire fossil-bearing series, he says: "The
admission of the theistic scheme absolutely cuts across and super-
sedes all these supposed natural arguments for the origin and
age of these structures." Here the choice is presented : Either
believe in a God who may have created these rocks in such a
way that they are certain to deceive you ; or else deny the ex-
istence of such a God. If the denial of such a God is atheism,
little is hazarded in expressing the opinion that all who know
aught of the earth's structure are atheists — they can and do be-
lieve in no such God. But they can and great multitudes do
believe in and love the God of the Bible, all whose works are
done in truth ; and they are too jealous for the honor of his
name calmly to hear attributed to him the possibility of such
gigantic, unlimited deception, and especially when this is done in
the house of his friends, and in that which is intended as a de-
fence of his glorious and true word.

It is quite possible that Dr. Dabney's opposition to physical
science arises from his want of acquaintance with it. In this
opposition he is unhappily the representative of but too many
who have in all ages claimed to be defenders of the faith ; and
familiarity with the thing opposed has never been a charac-
teristic of those whom he hero represents. This want of
acquaintance with its real value may also account for his deter-
mined efforts to exclude it from the course of study to be pursued
in theological seminaries. In his Memoir on Theological Educa-
tion, his Memorial, and his Lectures, he strenuously insists that
it should be rigorously excluded from such a course. He says :

Assaults on Physical Science. 39

" In conclusion, the relations of those sciences (as geology)
which affect the credit of inspiration, would be studied bj divin-
ity students, on the right footing. It is desirable that at least
a part of our clergy bs well informed upon these subjects. But
to make the study of them therefore a part of a divinity course,
in a school strictly ecclesiastical, appears to me extremely ob-
jectionable, for several reasons.

"First : when thrust thus into a divinity course, the instruc-
tion upon these extensive and intricate sciences must needs be
flimsy and shallow, a mere sketch or outline. The result will
be that our young ministers will not be made natural historians;
but conceited smatterersin these branches of knowledge. There
is no matter in which Pope's caution should be uttered with
more emphasis.

" ' Driuk deep ; or, taste not the Pierian spring.'

" The great lights of those sciences, armed with the results of
lifelong study, are not to be silenced, if perchance infidel, by a
class of men who make it a by-play to turn aside from their own
vocation, and pick up a scanty outline of this foreign learning.
These clerical smatterers will only make matters worse, by dis-
playing their own ignorance; and their so-called defences of in-
spiration will provoke the contempt and sneers of their assail-
ants. If Christianity needs to be defended against the assaults
of natural science, with the weapons of natural science, it must
be done by competent Christian laymen, or by the few ministers
who, like Dr. Bachman, are enabled to make natural science a
profound study. Let our Cabells defend the " unity of the
race," while our pastors preach the simple gospel.

" Second. The tendencies of such a course will be mischievous,
as to both the professor and his pupils. The latter will be
found more inclined to mere human learning, and to the conceit
which usually attends it, and which always attends a small de-
gree of it ; babbling the language of geology and ethnology,
with a great deal more zest than they recite their catechism.
The professor will be found, in nine instances out of ten
(mark the prediction,) wounding the very cause he is bound to
defend, by diligently teaching some scheme of his pet science,
which involves a covert infidelity. Again ; we solemnly declare,
that it will be found that the most mischievous scepticism, and
the most subtle doctrines of anti-Christian science, will be just
those propagated from these church schools of natural science ;
and after a time, the Church will have more trouble with her
defenders, than with her assailants. For the spirit of these

40 Alt h'.r<i)iiiii(i(iun of Ccrt'iin Riroit

sciences is essentially iiilidcl and rationalistic ; they arc arrayetl,
ill all their phases, on the side of scepticism." Memoir, C\'n-
tral Pri'sbi/tiTioii, Octoher 31, ISOtJ.

"Without presuming to teach technical geology (for which I
profess no (puilification ; and which lies, as T conceive, wholly
outside the functions of tlie Church teacher), 1 wish, in dismiss-
ing this suhjcct, to give you some cautions and instructions
touching its relations with our revealed science." Lectures,
p. 173.

Who could have expected, after these protests against the in-
troduction of physical science into the course of study to be pur-
sued by theological students, that Dr. Dabney himself should
forthwith proceed to teach it from his own theological chair ?
Equally unexpected is the introduction of so much of physical
science, as he understands it, into a sermon in which he says, "It
is not necessary for the theologian to leave his own department,,
and launch into the details of these extensive, fluctuating, and
fascinating physical inquiries ; nor shall I, at this time, depart
from my vocation as the expounder of God's word, to introduce
into this pulpit the curiosities of secular science. We have no
occasion, as defenders of that word, to compare or contest any
geologic or biologic theories. We may be possessed neither of
the knov<'ledge nor ability for entering that field, as I freely
confess concerning myself." Sermon, pp. 7, 8. But surely after
confession, it was not necessary to prove and illustrate it by
specimens of v.'hat he would teach as natural science ; and it
could not have been expected that so much of the Sermon
should be taken up with what he well terms ^^curiosities of sec-
ular science."

That those who are to be defenders of our faith should care-
fully study natural science. Dr. Dabney proves, first, by his direct
assertion respecting geology: "This subject must concern
THEOLOGIANS. — 1. There must always be a legitimate reason
for church teacliers adverting to this subject" (Lectures,
p. 173) ; secondly, by his own example in teaching his students as
shown in many of his Lectures, but especially in Lecture xxi. and
its Appendix; and lastly, by the sad elTects of undertaking to.
teach that for which he is obliged to "profess no qualification."*

Assaults on Physical Science. 41

If we examine the character of the natural science which he
teaches, we may be able to discover still more clearly the rea-
sons why he opposes it and regards its conclusions with distrust.
Let us begin with a sample of his botany. Speaking of the trees
of Paradise, he says :

"But now a naturalist of our modern school investigates
affairs. lie finds towering oaks, with acorns on them ! Acorns
do not form by nature in a day ; some oaks require two summers
to mature them. But worse than this : His natural history has
taught him that one summer forms but one ring in the grain of a
tree's stock. He cuts down one of the spreading monarchs of
the garden, and counts a hundred rings. So he concludes the
garden and the tree must be a hundred years old, and that Adam
told a monstrous fib, in stating that they were made last week."
Lectures, p. 176.

Now, compare this with real natural history. Dr. Dabney
supposes the oaks in the garden of Eden had acorns hanging
from their boughs ; he supposes that on cutting one down, the
section would show a hundred rings. How does he know these
things ? lie does not know them ; he guesses at his facts, and
then proceeds to reason upon his fanciful guesses. The real nat-
uralist on the other hand does not begin his reasoning until he
knows what the facts are. As to the oaks in Paradise, he can-
didly confesses he does not know whether there were acorns on
them or not, or whether the cross section of one of them would
have shown a hundred year-rings or not ; and he has too high a
regard for true science to base any part of it on guesses. He
might add that his observation of facts has led him to refer the
rings seen in trunks of trees to more or less complete cessation
of growth, which cessation in our climate occurs once a year;
but that he cannot apply this knowledge to the trees of Para-
dise. If asked what must have been the appearance of the
cross section of a Paradise oak, he will doubtless say he does not
know, and that he thinks it likely that Dr. Dabney does not know
either ; but if he must express an opinion, he thinks that, as all
the marks he has ever seen on any plants indicate the truth, so
God did not impress any marks on the trees of Paradise to de-
ceive either Adam or his posterity ; that the God of truth did

42 An Examination of Certain Recent

not create scars, or broken branches, or cliips, or stumps, or de-
cayin;; ^og-^i o^ anything else to hM(l astray those whom he cre-
ated in his own image. *♦

Let us next take a sample of Dr. Dabney's physiological
chemistry, a branch of science to which he seldom refers. He
does not pi:esent his "law" as anything more than a "sur-
mise ;" but he asserts, notwithstanding, that it is not without
"plausible evidence." lie says :

"Let me assume this hypothesis, that it may be a physiologi-
cal law, that a molecule, once assimilated and vitalized by a man
(or other animal), undergoes an influence which renders it after-
wards incapable of assimilation by another being of the same
species. This, indeed, is not without plausible evidence from
analogy ; witness, for instance, the fertility of a soil to another
crop, when a proper rotation is pursued, which had become bar-
ren as to the first crop too long repeated." Lectures, Part IL,
pp. 275, 276.

He here violates two fundamental requirements of true
science; namely, first, that in framing an hypothesis, the
causes assumed must be known to exist — must be real causes;
and second, that the phenomena to be explained must also be
known to exist. Now, in this case, he guesses at his cause, and
guesses at the facts to be explained ; and still further, guesses
most amusingly at the evidence by which he sustains his surmise —
the source of the advantage resulting from rotation of crops. *Is
it any wonder that Dr. Dabney should have Jittle respect for
physical science, when he thinks this is the way it investigates
nature and undertakes to discover laws and causes ; when such
"plausible evidence" as he adduces may be taken as sober argu-
ment ?

But it is chiefly geology that he attacks and casts out as
"atheistic." Let us therefore examine Dr. Dabney as a geol-
ogist ; for notwithstanding his modest disclaimer, he comes for-
ward as a teacher of this science. Here is a sample of his in-
structions on the subject :

"Lowest in order and earliest in age, are the primary rocks,
all azoic. Second come the secondary rocks, containing remains
of life palaeozoic and meiocene. Third come the tertiary rocks

Assaults on Physical Science. 43

and clays, containing the pleiocene fossils. Fourth come the
alluvia, containing the latest, and the existing genera of life.
Now the theory of the geologists is, that only the primary azoic
rocks are original ; the rest are all results of natural causes of
disintegration, and deposition, since God's creation. And
hence : that creation must have been thousands of ages before
Adam.

"a.) Because the primary rocks are all very hard, were once
liquid from heat, and evidently resulted from gradual cooling,"
j.etc. Lectures, p. 170.

In order that Dr. Dabney's geological subdivisions maybe the
more easily compared with the subdivisions made by those who
are acquainted with geology, the two are here presented side by
side — giving the geological classification which really comes near-
est to the one intended by the teacher under examination :

Real G-eology.
f Recent.
, ^, . . Pleiocene 1
4. Camozoic -| ^^^-^^^^^ Tertiary.

(^ Eocene

Du. Dabney.
4. Alluvia — Existinir <xenera.

o c^

3. Tertiary — Pleiocene.
o CI 1 ( Meiocene.

•' ( Palajozoic.
1. Primary or Azoic.

3. Mesozoic.

2. Palaeozoic.

1. Azoic.

The difference between Dr. Dabney's classification and real
geological classification becomes apparent on comparing the
above. He regards the secondary as embracing the whole of
the palaeozoic and a subdivision of the tertiary ; and the tertiary
as equivalent to one of its parts. It is as if he had given us
this geographical definition : "The bodies of water on the sur-
face of the globe are oceans, gulfs — including the Caspian Sea —
lakes, and the Appomattox river." He is no more fortunate in
his statement of the "theories of geologists." For they do not
hold that the "primary azoic rocks are original" — the azoic rocks
belong to the sedimentary stratified layers which are certainly
not original, but in which either no traces or very doubtful
traces of life have been found. Nor do they hold that they
"were once liquid and evidently resulted from gradual cooling."
It is true that rocks so formed are "azoic," that is, they do not
contain the remains of plants and animals ; but the term

^

44 ,1// Krainination of Certain Hicrftt

"azoic" in ^oolugj has a tcclmical sigtiificatiuii, as one ac-
(juainted with the science woultl liave known. When we look
ut Mont l^Uuic and the neighboring mountains, or still better
when we stand on the Gorner-Grat and look at the magnificent
range before us, including the Cima di Ja/.zi, Monte Kosa, the
Twins, the l^reithorn, and the Mattorhoni, we see mountains
which are white — very white iiidec<l. J>ut what would be
thought of the geogra{)hcr who would gravely inform his pupils^
utterly forgetful of the claims of New Hampshire, that the White.,
Mountains are in central Europe along tiic northern border of
Italy? This is precisely similar to what the "geologist" has
done, whose claims are now before us. Cut it cannot be neces-
sary to continue this examination ; it is perfectly evident that
the profession of want of qualification to teach geology had
reasons for being sincere, and ought to have restrained from
every attempt to exercise that function. The only thing to be
added here is the recommendation that, before a second edition
of the Lectures shall be issued, the author learn what naturalists
mean by "genera;" for in a large number of cases he employs
the term "genera" where one acquainted with natural history
would have used "species."

■In view of these specimens of Dr. Uabney's scientific attain-
ments, which prove that he is acquainted with neither the meth-
ods nor the ends of physical science, with neither its facts nor
its principles, is it not reasonable to hesitate to accept his opin-
ions and conclusions respecting that science ? Why should his
warnings against it be heeded, when he knows neither what it is
nor what it does ? They should not be heeded, any more than
the warning uttered by Professor Tyndall that we should not
believe what God has told us of himself as a hearer of prayer
because natural science has not been able to discover how he
hears and answers.

In the following passages, Dr. Dabney complains of the un-
reasonableness of creolotrists in resenting the animadversions of
some theologians :

" Not a few modern geologists resent the animadversions of the-
ologians, as of an incompetent class, impertinent and ignorant.

Assaults on Phijsical Science. 45-

Now I very freely grant that it is a very naughty thing for a
parson, or a geologist, to profess to know what he does not know.
But all logic is but logic ; and after the experts in a special
science have explained their premises in their chosen way, it is
simply absurd to forbid any other class of educated men to un-
derstand and judge their deductions. What else was the object
of their publications ? Or do they intend to practise that simple
dogmatism, which in us religious teachers they would so spurn ?
Surely when geologists currently teach their system to hoys in
colleges, it is too late for them to refuse the inspection of an
educated class of men. When Mr. Hugh Miller undertook, by
one night's lecture, to convince a crowd of London mechanics of
his pet theory of the seven geologic ages, it is too late to refuse
the criticism of theologians trained in philosophy I" Lectures,
p. 173.

Some distinctions ought surely to be made here. It can
hardly be fairly said that it is the animadversions of theologians
as an "incompetent class" that geologists resent. No geologist
can forget that many of these "parsons," as Dr. Dabney calls
them, have been and are most accomplished members of the
geologist "class" — as for example the recently deceased Sedg-
wick, and Buckland, and Hitchcock, not to mention a multitude
of others. It is not theologians as a class, but individual theo-
logians who are ignorant of the subject discussed, whose ani-
madversions are not always treated with very great respect.
Dr. Dabney himself acts just as those do of whom he com-
plains, when he says that he "freely grants that it is a very
naughty thing for a parson, or a geologist, to profess to know
what he does not know." Every science has a right to claim
that, if judged, it shall be judged by those who know what it is.
And if "theologians trained in philosophy" refuse to learn what.
'''■hoys in colleges" can understand, and then denounce as athe-
istic those who have acted otherwise, it is certainly "a very
naughty thing."

It must be apparent to all, then, that it is of great importance
that theological students should be instructed with reference to
the class of questions under consideration. Not that such topics,
should be discussed in the pulpit ; but neither should Hebrew
Grammar or the details of Church History be discussed there;.

46 An Examination of Certain Recent

ami yet Hebrew Grammar ami Cliurch History must be stinlied
by theological students. Nothing shouM ever be preached from
the pulpit except the gospel. IJut if the candidate for the min-
istry cannot be adecjuately ir.structed elsewhere on the points in
question, it must be the duty of the Church to provide that in-
struction in her training schools. And Dr. Dabney ought not
so strenuously to object to such provision, merely because he has
not himself felt called upon to seek and obtain accurate knowl-
edge with reference to these subjects. There never was a time
when it was more imperatively necessary that all teachers of our
religion should be well acquainted with natural science. It is
in the falsely-assumed name of this science that fierce attacks
upon vital truth are made. The defenders of Christian truth,
ignorant of the difference between true science and the errors
uttered in its name, greatly err if they think they can effect
anything by proclaiming that the " spirit of these sciences is
essentially infidel and rationalistic," and by denouncing as atheis-
tic what every reasonable man must believe. They thus merely
expose themselves to derision. This might be of slight conse-
quence, but for the fact that inquirers after the truth of Chris-
tianity may be led, in their summary rejection of such argu-
ments, into an error similar to that made by some "theologians,"
namely, that of confounding the untenable defence with the
•thing defended.

Is it not worth while to consider whether the past history of
the Church of Christ does not sufficiently illustrate the divine
power of the truth to survive such defences ? That history in
this respect is a very sad one. In the fourth century, Lactan-
tius Avas one of the foremost of these defenders. The third
Book of his "Divine Institutions" treats of the "False Science
of Philosophers." In the twenty-fourth chapter of this caution
against Anti-Christian Science, he asks, speaking of the infidel
<loctriiie that there are antipodes: "Who is so silly as to believe
that there are men whose feet are higher than their heads ?
. . that crops of grain and trees grow downwards ? that
rain, snow, and hail fall up toward the earth ? . . . We
must explain the origin of this error also. For they are always

Assaults on PJiysical Science. 47

led astray in the same way. When they have assumed a false
principle, influenced by the appearance of truth, it is necessary
that they follow it out to its consequences. Thus they fall into
many ridiculous errors. . . . If jou ask those who defend
these wonderful statements, how it happens that all things do
not fall ipto the lower part of the sky, they reply that it is
the nature of things that heavy bodies are borne toward the
centre, and that all things are connected with the centre as we
see the spokes in a wheel. . . . I do not know what I
should say of these persons, who, when they have once gone
astray, constantly persevere in their folly, and defend their vain
statements by vain reasons." Passing by similar teachings on
the part of Chrysostom and many others, in the eighth century
Virgilius of Salzburg was publicly condemned by Pope Zacha-
rias for maintaining the existence of the same antipodes ; and
centuries later, it was taught that the hypothesis of an anti-
podal region is "inconsistent with our faith ; for the gospel
had been preached throughout all the habitable earth ; and,
according to this opinion, such persons (the antipodes) could
not have heard it," etc. Every one knows how the astrono-
mical truths again brought to light by Copernicus and confirmed
and illustrated by Galileo were received by multitudes of theo-
logians who set themselves forward as special defenders of the
faith; and that, not only by the Roman Catholics, but by lead-
ing Protestants as late as the seventeenth century. In the
same century it was maintained, just as it now is, that "God
at the beginning of creation caused coal, vegetable and animal
forms, to grow in the rocks, just as he caused grass and other
plants to grow upon the earth;" and that opinions contrary to
this "are partly atheistic, partly ridiculous, and without foun-
dation." But this sad history has been followed far enough.
Christianity based upon a firm belief in the Bible has survived
it all. Surely it would be diflicult to give a stronger proof of its
truth than that such defences have not caused it to be utterly
rejected. The similar defences made by Dr. Dabney will be alike
powerless to destroy the Bible ; but is there not danger that
many persons, taking it for granted that he would not place

48 A)i Examination of Certain Recent

unnecessary obstacles in the way of belief in the Ciblc, may
think it necessary either to adopt his principles or reject Chris-
tian belief? and finding it repugnant to right reason and com-
mon sense to accept what he teaches on these points, may
thereby be led to reject the sacred and true Scriptures ?

It can hardly be necessary to examine minutely what Dr.
Dabney says further on these topics ; as, for example, the
reasons he adduces to support his statement that "the assump-
tion that henceforth physical science is to be trusted, and to be
free from all uncertainty ami change, is therefore simply fool-
ish." As one proof of this, he alludes to the "deep sea sound-
ings which have lately" been made, as showing that "forma-
tions determined (as was asserted) to be older and newer lie be-
side each other in the ocean contemporaneously" — all of which
evinces an utter misapprehension of the real import of the dis-
coveries in question. lie further refers to the changes in
chemistry as illustrating the untrustworthiness of science. It
would be tedious to go into details here on these points; it is
enough to say that if the conclusions of physical science are tcf be
rejected on such grounds, we must also reject the Bible because
opinions vary as to whether the Book of Job was written by
Moses or not ; because the exact time w4ien this book was
written has not been ascertained ; and because it has not been
decided in the theological world whether Moses, under the
guidance of the Holy Ghost, compiled the Pentateuch from pre-
viously existing documents, or under the same guidance embodied
in it the traditions handed down from father to son without be-
ing committed to writing, or wrote words immediately dictated to
him by the Spirit. Dr. Dabney 's objections bear the same re-
lation to belief in physical science that these objections would do
to belief in the Sacred Scriptures.

Such warnings against science are not new ; and unhappily it
is not new that they are uttered by theologians, who ought
all to be the most earnest promoters of knowledge of every kind,
as multitufles of them have been. It is painful that in this day
as well as in that of Lord Bacon, there shculd be theologians
who deserve the rebuke so sternly administered by that master

As$a2(Its on Physical Science. 4U

of thought. Let his words be again heard, and let them be
heeded bj all who profess to love the truth. In his immortal
work on the Advancement of Learning, he sajs :

" In the entrance to the former of these, to clear the way, and,
.as it were, to make silence, to have the true testimonies concern-
ing the dignity of learning to be better heard, without the inter-
Tuption of tacit objections : I think good to deliver it from the
•discredits and disgraces which it hath received, all from ignor-
ance, but ignorance severally disguised ; appearing sometimes in
•the zeal and jealousy of divines ; sometimes in the severity and
arrogancy of politicians ; and sometimes in the errors and imper-
fections of learned men themselves.

"I hear the former sort say, that knowledge is of those things
which are to be accepted of with great limitation and caution ;
that the aspiring to over-much knowledge, Avas the original temp-
tation and sin, whereupon ensued the fall of man: that knowl-
edge hath in it somewhat of the serpent, and therefore where it
entereth into a man it makes him swell ; ' Scientia inflat : '
that Solomon gives a censure, 'That there is no end of making
books, and that much reading is a weariness of the flesh ; ' and
again in another place, ' That in spacious knowledge there is
much contristation, and that he that increaseth knowledge in-
creaseth anxiety ; ' that St: Paul gives a caveat, 'That we be
not spoiled through vain philosophy ; ' that experience demon-
strates how learned men have been arch-heretics, how learned
times have been inclined to atheism, and how the contemplation
of second causes doth derogate from our dependance upon God,
who is the first cause.

'' To discover then the ignorance and error of this opinion, and
the misunderstanding in the grounds thereof, it may well appear
these men do not observe or consider, that it was not the pure
knowledge of nature and universality', a knowledge by the light
whereof man did give names unto other creatures in Paradise,
. as they were brought before him, according unto their proprie-
ties, which gave the occasion to the fall ; but it was the proud
knowledge of good and evil, with an intent in man to give law
unto himself, and to depend no more upon God's commandments,
which vfas the form of the temptation. Neither is it any quantity
of knowledge, how great soever, that can make the mind of man
to swell. . . And as for that censure of Solomon, concerning the
excess of writing and reading books, and the anxiety of spirit
which redoundeth from knowledge ; and that admonition of St.
Paul, 'That we be not seduced by vain philosophy;' let

•')0 An Examinatiun of Certain Recent

those places be rightly understood, and they do imleed excellently
set forth the true bounds and limitations, whereby human
knowledi^e is confined and circumscribed ; and yet without any
such contracting or co}^;*ctation, but that it may comprehend all
the universal nature of things. For tiiese limitations are three:
the first, that we do not so place our felicity in knowledge, as we
forget our mortality. The second, that we make application of
our knowledge, to give ourselves repose and contentment, and
not distaste or repining. The third, that we do not presume by
the contemplation of nature to attain to the mysteries of God. . .
And as for the third point, it deserveth to be a little stood upon,
and not to be lightly passed over : for if any man sliall think by
view and in([uiry into these sensible and material things to at-
tain that light, whereby he may reveal unto himself the nature or
will of God, then indeed is he spoiled by vain philosophy : for the
contemplation of God's creatures and works produceth (having
regard to the Avorks and creatures themselves) knowledge ; but
having regard to God, no perfect knowledge, but wonder, which
is broken knowledge. . . And as for the conceit that too much
knowledge should incline a man to atheism, and that the ignor-
ance of second causes should make a more devout dependence
upon God which is the first cause ; First, it is good to ask the
question which Job asked of his friends : ' Will you lie for God,
as one man will do for another, to gratify him ? ' For certain
it is that God worketh nothing in nature but by second causes;
and if they would have it otherwise believed, it is mere imposture,
as it were in favor towards God ; and nothing else but to offer
to the Author of truth the unclean sacrifice of a lie. But farther,
it is an assured truth, and a conclusion of experience, that a lit-
tle or superficial knowledge of philosophy may incline the mind
of man to atheism, but a farther proceeding therein doth bring
the mind back again to religion ; for in the entrance of philoso-
phy, when the second causes, which are next unto the senses,
do off'er themselves to the mind of man, if it dwell and stay there,
it may induce some oblivion of the highest cause; but when a
man passeth on farther, and seeth the dependence of causes, and
the works of Providence ; then, according to the allegory of the
poets, he will easily believe that the highest link of nature's
chain must needs be tied to the foot of Jupiter's chair. To con-
clude therefore, let no man, upon a weak conceit of sobriety, or
an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can
search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God's word,
or in the book of God's works : divinity or philosophy ; but
rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in

Assaults on Physical Science. 51

both ; only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and
not to swelling; to use, and not to ostentation; and again, that
they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings to-
gether." Pp. 7-13.

The remark made at the outset, we would repeat in closing
this examination of Dr. Dabney's assaults, that it would have
been vastly more gratifying to have stood by his side defend-
ing sacred truth, than it has been to point out the deadly char-
acter of his teachings. Nothing but a sense of duty, requiring
the exposure of these errors that the truth might be upheld,
would have been a sufficient motive to perform a task in many
respects so painful. His design is most praiseworthy — the
defence of Christian truth. But unfortunately, zeal and lauda-
ble intentions are not enough if unaccompanied with the requisite
degree and kind of knowledge. The most zealous and patriotic
soldier whose sight is defective, may mistake a friend or a non-
combatant for an armed foe.

It affords us real satisfaction, before we close, heartily to com-
mend one caution uttered by Dr. Dabney, namely, the delibe-
ration which he enjoins on pages 173 and 174 of his Lectures^
■where he says :

" Deliberation Enjoined. — Let me urge upon you a wiser
attitude and temper towards the new science than many have
shown, among the ministry. Some have shown a jealousy and
uneasiness, unworthy of the stable dignity of the cause of inspi-
ration. These apparent difficulties of geology are just such as
science has often paraded against the Bible ; but God's word
has stood firm, and every true advance of science has only re-
dounded to its honor. Christians, therefore, can afford to bear
these seeming assaults with exceeding coolness. Other pretend-
ed theologians have been seen advancing, and then as easily re-
tracting new-fangled schemes of exegesis, to suit new geologic
hypotheses. The Bible has often had cause here to cry, ' Save
me from my friends.' Scarcely has the theologian announced
himself as sure of his discovery that this is the correct way to
adjust Revelation to the prevalent hypotheses of the geologists,
when these mutable gentlemen change their hypothesis totally.
The obsequious divine exclaims : ' AVell, I was in error then ; but
now I have certainly the right exposition to reconcile Moses to
the geologists.' And again the fickle science changes its ground.

52 An Kxamlnntion of Certain Recent

What can be more dcgradirii^ to the authority of llevelation I
As remarked in a previous lecture, unless the Bible has its oivn
ascertainable and certain law of exposition, it cannot be a rule
of faith ; our religion is but rationalism. I repeat, if any part
of the ]>ible must wait to have its real meaning iinpoHed upon it
by another, and a human science, that part is at least meaning-
less and worthless to our souls. It must expound itself inde-
pendently ; making other sciences ancillary, and not dominant
over it."

Of course it is only the injunction of deliberation that is here
commended, without any expression of opinion as to the tone and
style in which it is conveyed. The main thought is so import-
ant that this article cannot be better concluded than by repeat-
ing it in the words of the late distinguished Sir John llerschel :

" Nothing, then, can be more unfounded than the objection
which has been taken, in limine, by persons, well meaning per-
haps, certainly narrow-minded, against the study of natural
philosophy, and, indeed, against all science, — that it fosters in its
cultivators an undue and overweening self-conceit, leads them to
doubt the immortality of the soul, and to scoff at revealed relig-
ion. Its natural eflFect, we may confidently assert, on every well
constituted mind, is and must be the direct contrary. No doubt,
the testimony of natural reason, on whatever exercised, must of
necessity stop short of those truths which it is the object of reve-
lation to make known. . .

" But while we thus vindicate the study of natural philosophy
from a charge at one time formidable from the pertinacity and
acrimony with which it was urged, and still occasionally brought
forward to the distress and disgust of every well constituted
mind, we must take care that the testimony afforded by science
to religion, be its extent or value what it may, shall be at least
independent, unbiased, and spontaneous. We do not here al-
lude to such reasoners as would make all nature bend to their
narrow interpretations of obscure and difficult passages in the
sacred writings : such a course might well become the persecu-
tors of Galileo and the other bigots of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, but can only be adopted by dreamers in the present
age. But, without going these lengths, it is no uncommon thing
to find persons earnestly attached to science, and anxious for its
promotion, who yet manifest a morbid sensibility on points of
this kind, — who exult and applaud when any fact starts up ex-
planatory (as they suppose) of some scriptural allusion, and who

Assaults on Physical Science. .53

feel pained and disappointed when the general course of discovery
in any department of science runs wide of the notions with which
particular passages in the Bible may have impressed themselves.
To persons of such a frame of mind it ought to suffice to remark,
on the one hand, that truth can never be opposed to truth, and,
on the other, that error is only to be effectually confounded by
searching deep and tracing it to its source. Nevertheless, it
■were much to be wished that such persons, estimable and excel-
lent as they for the most part are, before they throw the weight
of their applause or discredit into the scale of scientific opinion
on such grounds, would reflect, first, that the credit and respect-
ability of any evidence may be destroyed by tampering with its
honesty ; and, secondly, that this very disposition of mind im-
plies a lurking mistrust in its own principles, since the grand
and indeed only character of truth is its capability of enduring
the test of universal experience, and coming unchanged out of
every possible form of /aiV discussion." Discourse on the Study
-of Natural Philosophy, pp. G, 7, 8.

t ' I' -i'J

im

■ )

. ' ■ ' • ,'

i'-"'^

:t';? ^::;:f

' ,^

;i'>^ :::■(?,•■■

■••>''•'':!! ' ^-''iiii-^^ 'l!'!-';!

■'i 'l'-.

•:' M'

i'';-''l!J|v:;^-:|^