Part 1 (2/2)

Suppose the sceptic takes the ground advocated by Oken and the author of the ”Vestiges.” Let the clergyman, whom I have supposed, read the works of Miller and Sedgwick in reply to the development hypothesis, and see whether he can even understand their arguments without a more careful study of the sciences on which they rest.

A subject of no small importance in its religious bearings has recently excited a good deal of sharp discussion in this country. I refer to the questions of the specific unity and unity of origin of the human race. To a person who has never studied the subject, it seems a matter easy to settle; yet, in fact, it demands extensive research even to understand.

And we have seen one of the most accomplished zologists and anatomists of the present age take ground on these points in opposition to the almost universal opinion. The result has been that not a few talented replies to his arguments have appeared, mostly, I believe, from ministers. I have not seen them all. But in respect to those which I have read it has seemed to me, without having the least sympathy with the views of Professor Aga.s.siz, that the authors have not the most remote conception of the princ.i.p.al arguments on which he relies, derived from zology and comparative anatomy; nor do I believe that they can understand and appreciate them until they have studied those sciences.[1]

Although I fear that theologians are not aware of the fact, yet probably the doctrines of materialism are more widely embraced at this day than almost any other religious error. But in which of our schools, save the medical, is there any instruction given in physiology and zology, that will prepare a man to make the least headway against such delusions? The arguments by which materialism is defended are among the most subtle in the whole range of theology and natural science; and without a knowledge of the latter they can neither be appreciated nor refuted. The mere metaphysical abstractions by which they are usually met excite only the contempt of the acute physiologist who is a materialist.

I might refer, in this connection, to the whole subject of pantheism, in its chameleon forms. The rhapsodies of spiritual pantheism must, indeed, be met by metaphysics equally transcendental. But, after all, it is from biology that the pantheist derives his choicest weapons. He appeals, also, to astronomy, zology, and geology; nor is it the superficial naturalist that can show how hollow is the foundation on which he rests.

These are only a few examples of the points of physical science on which scepticism at this moment has batteries erected with which to a.s.sail spiritual religion. Will the minister but slightly familiar with the ground chosen by the enemy be able not only to silence his guns, but, as every able defender of the truth ought to do, to turn them against its foes? Surely it needs a professor of natural theology in our theological seminaries, (and if such chairs existed in our colleges they would be serviceable,) to teach those who expect to be officers in the sacramental host how to carry on the holy war. I do not see how much more time can be given to the natural sciences in our colleges than is usually done, without encroaching upon other indispensable branches. If, therefore, provision be not made for studying the religious bearings of these sciences in our theological seminaries, our youthful evangelists must go forth to their work without the ability to vindicate the cause of religion against the a.s.saults of the sceptical naturalist. Would not, then, those wealthy and benevolent individuals be great public benefactors, who should endow professors.h.i.+ps of natural religion in our schools of the prophets?

But I must not pursue this subject farther. I commit my work to the public with no raised expectations of its welcome reception. I have a high opinion of the enlightened candor of, the educated cla.s.ses of our country, especially those in the ministry. Yet I know that many prejudices exist against science in its connections with religion. And, therefore, my only hope of any measure of success in this effort rests upon the divine blessing. But if the work be not pleasing to Infinite Wisdom and Benevolence, why should I desire for it an ephemeral success among men?

AMHERST COLLEGE, May 1, 1851.

EXPLANATION OF THE FRONTISPIECE.

This section of the earth's crust is intended to bring under the eye the leading features of geology.

1. _The relative Position of the Stratified and the Unstratified Rocks._

The unstratified rocks, viz., granite, sienite, porphyry, trap, and lava, are represented as lying beneath the stratified cla.s.s, for the most part, yet piercing through them in the centre of the section, and by several dikes or veins, through which ma.s.ses have been protruded to the surface.

The unstratified cla.s.s are all colored red, to indicate their igneous origin. Granite seems to have been first melted and protruded, and it continued to be pushed upward till the close of the secondary period of the stratified rocks, as is shown by the vein of granite on the section.

Sienite and porphyry seem to have been next thrust up, from below the granite; next, the varieties of trap were protruded from beneath the porphyry; and last, the lava, which still continues to be poured out upon the surface from beneath all the rest.

2. _The Stratified Rocks._

The stratified rocks represented on both flanks of the granite peak in the section, appear to have been deposited from water, and subsequently more or less lifted up, fractured, and bent. An attempt is made, on the right hand side of the section, to exhibit the foldings and inclination of the strata. The lowest are bent the most, and their dip is the greatest; and, as a general fact, there is a gradual approach to horizontality as we rise on the scale.

3. _The right hand side of the Section._

The strata on the right hand are divided into five cla.s.ses: first and lowest, the _crystalline_, or _primary_, dest.i.tute of organic remains, and probably metamorphosed from a sedimentary to a crystalline state, by the action of subjacent heat. 2. The _palozoic cla.s.s_, or those containing the earliest types of animals and plants, and of vast thickness, mostly deposited in the ocean. 3. _The secondary cla.s.s_, reaching from the top of the lower new red or Permian system, to the top of the chalk. 4. _The tertiary strata_, partially consolidated, and differing entirely from the rocks below by their organic contents. 5. _Alluvium_, or strata now in a course of deposition. This cla.s.sification is sometimes convenient, and frequently used by geologists.

4. _The left hand Side._

On the left hand side of the section the strata are so divided as to correspond to the six great groups of animals and plants that have appeared on the globe. The names attached to the groups are derived from [Greek: zos] (_vivus_, living,) with the Greek numerals prefixed. The lowest group, being dest.i.tute of organic remains, is called _azoic_, (from [Greek: a] privitive and [Greek: zos],) that is, wanting in the traces of life; and corresponds to the crystalline group on the other side of the section, embracing gneiss, mica slate, limestone, and clay slate, of unknown thickness. The _protozoic group_ corresponds to the palozoic of the right hand side, and embraces lower and upper Silurian, Devonian, or old red sandstone, the carboniferous group, and the Permian, or lower new red; the whole in Great Britain not less than thirty-three thousand feet thick. The _deutozoic group_ consists only of the tria.s.sic, or upper new red sandstone, and is only nine hundred feet thick, but marks a distinct period of life. The _tritozoic_ embraces the lias and olite, with the Wealden, and is three thousand six hundred feet thick. The _tetrazoic_ consists of the chalk and green sand, one thousand five hundred feet thick. The _pentezoic_ embraces the tertiary strata of the thickness of two thousand feet. The _hectozoic_ is confined to the modern deposits, only a few hundred feet thick, but entombing all the existing species of animals.

5. _Characteristic Organic Remains._

Had s.p.a.ce permitted, I should have put upon the section a reference to the most characteristic and peculiar mineral, animal, or plant, in the different groups. Thus the azoic group is _crystalliferous_, or crystal-bearing. The lower or Silurian part of the protozoic group is _brachiopodiferous_, _trilobiferous_, _polypiferous_, and _cephalopodiferous_; that is, abounding in brachiopod and cephalopod sh.e.l.ls; in polypifers, or corals; and in trilobites, a family of crustaceans. The middle part, or the Devonian, is _thaumichthiferous_, or containing remarkable fish. The upper part, or the coal measures, is _carboniferous_; that is, abounding in coal. _The deutozoic group_ is _ichniferous_, or track-bearing, from the mult.i.tude of its fossil footmarks. The _tritozoic group_ is _reptiliferous_, or reptile-bearing, from the extraordinary lizards which abound in it. The _tetrazoic_ is _foraminiferous_, from the abundance of coral animalcula, called foraminifera, or polythalmia, which it contains. The _pentezoic_ is _mammaliferous_, because it contains the remains of mammalia, or quadrupeds. The _hectozoic_ is _h.o.m.oniferous_, or man-bearing, because it embraces human remains.

There is no one place on earth where all the facts exhibited on this section are presented before us together. Yet all the facts occur somewhere, and this section merely brings them into systematic arrangement.

<script>