Free Hit Counter Visitors to these pages since 12-29-97
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/nineteenth.htm
Free Hit Counter
Visitors to these pages since 12-29-97
revised 5-6-2007
It is said that history is written by the victors. A likely corollary is that history is subsequently written about the victors as well; losers are forgotten. It is the thesis of this very long paper that this is precisely what has happened to the Biblical literalists and young-earth creationists of the 19th century. It has been claimed by some that belief in the young-earth (six day creation) was a dead issue prior to Darwin’s publication of The Origin of Species.
Michael Roberts wrote:
“It is often claimed that Darwin destroyed belief in a six-day
creation. After twenty-five years of research, I have not found one
Anglican clergyman who held to a
six-day creation in 1860, so how could
Darwin destroy that belief? (If you ever read that Darwin
destroyed
belief in a six-day creation, then consider the writer a monkey rather
than descended from
apes!)” (Roberts, 2000, p. 84-85)
In a post in Feb. 2001, Michael Roberts also claimed several things about the lack of conflict between the Bible and science in the mid-19th century. He claims that there was no conflict between Genesis and Science. He wrote:
“Finally
there was no serious battle of Genesis and Geology, but a few Christians objected to geology. By
1860 biblical literalism was virtually extinct but was revived in the USA in 1961 in the form of
Creationism.” (Roberts, 2001) http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200102/0174.html
and
“The idea
that there has been a serious conflict is widely held but recent studies have challenged this,
whether they focus narrowly on Huxley and Wilberforce or look more widely”
(Roberts, 2001)
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200102/0174.html
Furthermore, Roberts claims that by the 1850’s the anti-geologist creationists were a spent force. He wrote,
“By the 1850s the Anti-geologists were a spent force and even such an extreme Evangelical as J. Cumming accepted geology. Almost the only exception was Phillip Gosse in Omphalos (1857)” (Roberts, 2001)
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200102/0174.html
This paper will examine these three claims, 1. that six-day creationists were long gone before Darwin, 2. that Biblical Literalism was dead by 1860 and 3. that Christians accepted geology by the 1850s. I disagree with all these statements. While Roberts has studied the area for a long time, he has the epistemologically tougher position. All I have to do is show a fair number of people taking the opposite position to what he asserts in order to show that he is wrong. This I will do and that is why this paper is so long. I want to let the 19th century authors speak for themselves.
It is interesting that in Roberts’ post and article the reader is not given a single quotation from any of the participants from that time frame. It probably is difficult to find someone from that generation saying that there is no issue between Scripture and Science. But, I believe, this is because there was an argument about Biblical literalism. The argument may not have been among the scientists of the day, and it might not have been among the majority of the Anglican clergy of the day, but there was most assuredly an argument between the laity, some clergy (both Anglican and other) and the geologists and evolutionists. Biblical literalists were all over the place at that time and after. There were Biblical literalists among the Anglican clergy. How else is one to deal with an Anglican clergy who demands that mankind was created in 4004 BC with all the animals having been created in the previous 6 ‘days’ of 7000 year’s length?
In fairness to Roberts, other historians have also claimed that there was no battle between the evolution and religion. Martin Fichman wrote:
“The conventional view that evolution and religion were locked into inevitable conflict during the Victorian era is now discredited. Although nineteenth-century evolutionism did pose challenges to traditional religious beliefs and institutionalized practices, the notion that individual scientists or members of the general public had to choose between evolution and religion is a gross simplification. The reality of Victorian culture allowed for a wide spectrum of individual and collective responses to the implications of evolutionary theories for concepts of God and divine activity.” (Fichman, 2002, p.169)
The diagram below shows what appears to be the situation from my readings of 19th century literature. The symbols are: ß--à means agreement; ** means partial agreement; and # means vehement disagreement.
top scientist---------top scientist-----top clergy
* # # # *
* # # # *
Biblical literalist clergy**#**YEC clergy *
* # *
* # *
YEC Laity*******literalist laity
When determining whether or not there was a conflict one must state where one is looking. If one examines the issues taking place among the top scientists, there was little conflict. Roberts is correct that much of the top clergy had accepted geology and evolution rather early. They agreed with the top scientists. There were many Biblical literalists who partially agreed with the science of the day (Savile) and some YEC clergy which vehemently disagreed with evolution and the age of the universe (Newton, Strachan). But many Biblical literalists believed in an old universe but a late creation of mankind. They disagreed with evolutionists on this issue and they always placed a discontinuity between man and the apes.
But even while claiming that there wasn’t a battle, if you read in between the lines you find that even people like Fichman claim that there was. Fichman further notes:
“But in the confrontational decade immediately following the publication of Origin, many church leaders raised an alarm against teaching evolution, particularly within seminaries and denominational colleges.” (Fichman 2002, p. 179).
If there weren’t a battle, why was the decade after the Origin ‘confrontational’? Fichman (p. 176) also notes that evolutionists were often lumped in with ‘infidels’. That certainly doesn’t sound like there was no war. Like Roberts, Fichman cites very few people from the 19th century. Of 300 references only 29 are from the 19th century and of these, 16 are from four individuals, Darwin, Lyell, Huxley and Wallace. All other citations are 20th century authors and that doesn’t make one feel comfortable that original literature has been accessed properly.
Roberts further claims “In the period 1825 -1850 the vast majority of Christians accepted geology, but a small and noisy minority did not.” (Roberts, 2001) (http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200102/0174.html ). What is different between that time and today? Today most Christians accept the age of the earth with a vocal, but politically important minority arguing for a young earth. The fact that a group is a minority does not mean that they don’t fight a battle. It also doesn’t mean that they were not an important irritant to the intellectual landscape. Roberts claims that six-day creationism was dead long before Darwin. It wasn’t and I will show this via citations from books from that period.
One other item needs to be noticed. To claim that people accept geology should mean more than merely accepting the evidence for the age of the earth. The real battle wasn't over the age of the earth but over the deluge. Apologists which fall into this group include Cockburn, Redford, Hutton, Figuier, Bristow, Morris, and Galloway. Many late 19th century Christians believed in an old earth but of those, many didn’t believe in an earth as old as geology said (Cooper). Others didn’t accept what geology said about the antiquity of man on earth. From the 1850s on, Christian apologists ignored increasingly large numbers of finds which indicated man’s antiquity (Savile, Newton, Cooper, Dawson etc). These finds included stone tools and human fossils with extinct and ancient animals. I will note these finds throughout this paper. But contrary to Roberts’ claim (below) that no educated Christians believed in 4004 BC in 1860, we will show that 4004 B. C. remained an important date for Christian apologists throughout the 19th century (Savile, Newton, Strachan, Weber).
After 1859, many apologists were forced to increasingly reject evidence for evolution, and like today, while opinions were all over the spectrum, there were a large number of anti-evolutionary opinions. A significant portion of the Christian world in the late 19th century never accepted evolution, preferring instead to yield on the age of the earth but have a ruined earth reconstructed recently with all animals and mankind created within the past few thousand years.
Roberts, in his claim about six-day creationism, has focused in on British Anglicanism, ignoring both other denominations and other parts of the world. He also focuses only on the clergy, not the laity. By doing this, he gives a false impression that both six-day creationism and YECism were dead long before Darwin. It wasn’t. Maybe I am a monkey rather than descended from the apes, but when I read 19th century religious literature, I see there is a widespread belief in six-day, an rejection and ridicule of geology (not acceptance) and a belief in Biblical literalism, with many of the same arguments seen today. Maybe the Anglican clergy weren’t YEC in Roberts’ sense of believing the universe to be 6000 years old, but the laity and clergy of other faiths were! And the clergy in America were even more YEC than those Anglicans. If Roberts wishes to claim that a particular part of Anglican clergy were not believers in the young-universe, then that would be fine. But many of these same people were Biblical literalists.
I intend to show that Roberts is correct that Darwin didn’t destroy the belief in a six-day creation because the true believers continued to believe what they wanted to in spite of the scientific evidence. Six-day creationism and rejection of geological information continued throughout the entire 19th century and such views were not miraculously reborn in 1961 with Henry Morris. I contend that even the belief in a six-day creationism didn’t get revived in 1961 as is claimed. It has been there all along through Benjamin Newton in the 1860s-1880s, George McCready Price in the early 20th century, Harry Rimmer in the 1930s and 40s, Alfred Rehwinkel in 1951 and others (Rimmer, 1952, p. 16-17, 19, 22; Rehwinkel, 1951, p. XVI; Williams, 1928, 53rd printing in 1953). There is a continuous set of people who believe this. Anyone who claims that YEC was 'virtually extinct' and it was revived by Henry Morris in 1961 simply hasn't looked through the YEC literature. Henry was publishing creationist material in 1947. I was raised Southern Baptist and YEC was taught as a matter of course in the churches I attended in the 1950s. As with any other viewpoint, it waxes and wanes through time, but it was never 'virtually extinct.' One probably can claim that at various times people with scientific credentials were scarce, but one can't claim that YEC was dead.
I will back up what I say with quotations from actual books of the period rather than studies of 20th century scholars which are referenced in Roberts’ works and used to support his views. I will concede that the bigger issue for the 19th century Christians was the late creation of man, most often said to be 4,000 years ago. After reading this paper, I suspect most will agree with me that the belief in a six-day creationism (broadly defined) was alive both before AND after Darwin.
Before starting, it is advisable to define our terms through a
study of what Biblical literalists believe. A biblical literalist is anyone who believes that
history must literally match the Biblical account. By that definition, I am a Biblical literalist as
is Hugh Ross today. Most modern literalists are also young-earth creationists and they believe the
following:
1 a recent creation of man (less than 60,000 years ago which is justified below)
2. a recent creation of the universe
3. a global flood occurring within the past 10,000 years, often
holding it to be in the 3rd millennium B. C.
4. belief in a literal genealogical chronology
5 disdain for geology and the contemporary chronology
6. rejection of evolution
7. belief that Genesis 1 and 2 says something about actual history
Not every Biblical literalist accepts every single idea above. It would be unrealistic to expect that. But one thing seems clear, when it comes to recent creationism, one can define a young-earth creationist as someone who believes that God’s creative acts took place in the recent past of earth’s history. That is the simplest definition of ‘recent creationism’. I would suggest that that is the sine qua non of being a young-earth creationist. If one believes that God’s creative activity took place recently, then one is a YEC.
There are two forms of literalism with regard to the origin of man. There are the young-earth creationists who believe that man and the universe came into existence at the same time. These are the modern and ancient YECs. Then there are those who think Genesis 1:1 allows a separation between the origin of the universe and the creation of man. This form of Biblical literalism exists in both the 19th and the 20th centuries. Buckland and Cuvier, had presented views in which life on earth was created and destroyed many times. And they believed that mankind was created late in earth history and that the last destruction was due to the Mosaic deluge. Because of this, they could hold to an old universe, but a recent creation of modern living forms, including man. That may not sound like a modern young-earth creationism, but there are people I know who hold exactly this view today. Buckland, rejected his views in 1836 (Rupke, 1983, p. 81) Rupke,1983, p. 81), yet many people continued to follow his lead in spite of this. This view is every bit as literalist in its interpretation of the Bible, every bit as young-earth because the earth has been reconstructed from the ruin. And this is important for moderns to realize. This is a form of young-earth creationism; it has God engaging in creative activity in the recent past with a total separation between this world and the old. It also leads to an anti-evolutionary viewpoint. Hugh Ross is one modern who holds to this form of creationism.
One might be tempted to arbitrarily use Ross’ time for the creation of man as a measure of young-earth creationism. Ross believes that mankind was created long after the creation of the universe. He says it was after 60,000 years ago. In taking that stand, Ross exhibits the most important trait of a Biblical literalist, a recent creationism, e.g., the recent creation of man, a belief that the creative days correspond to actual events in history. He also exhibits other literalist traits. A disdain for when secular science says man (genus Homo) first appeared (2 million years ago), a rejection of evolution. Ross fits 4 of the 7 criteria. Thus, we will take anyone who believes that God created man within the past 60,000 years as a young-earth creationist. This is arbitrary but would exclude from YEC most of the ID folk, like Philip Johnson
We will attempt follow the literalists in somewhat chronological
order, focusing mostly on the UK, but occasionally throwing in a person from the US or Canada.
If you are eager to see six-day creationism among UK clergy, skip ahead to Gordon, Strachan,
Savile and Newton. We will start in the 1820’s with Granville Penn, the grandson of William Penn,
the man who founded Pennsylvania. His influence
throughout the 19th century was great and Hugh Miller was still citing him 14 years after
Penn’s death. Penn was effectively the Henry Morris of the early 19th century.
One housekeeping note, I now own all of the books and articles cited below with the exception of Haldane and the 1855 Christian Treasury, both of which I found in a local hotel in Aberdeenshire.
1823 Antiquity of man. ‘Red Man' of Paviland found in Paviland
Cave, Wales. First Cro-magnon skeleton. Not recognized as an ancient man. (Mackenzie, 1927, p. 66)
Granville Penn Major Works A Comparative Estimate of the
Mineral and Mosaic Geologies, 1823,1825 and Conversations on Geology, 1840
Penn was clearly a young-earth creationist of the modern type. This can be clearly seen in the three quotations below. The Mineral Geology, is the geological science of his day. The Mosaic Geology is what he felt the Bible taught.
“That Mineral Geology, in order to preserve the perfect independence of its speculations in the remoteness of time, and to relieve itself from the restraint of perpetually submitting those speculations to a standard of authority, strives to establish the principles—that the Mosaical record ‘treats only of the history of Man;’ and, that it ‘does not go so far back into the history of the globe,’ as it is itself enabled to do by the acuteness of its scientific penetration.” (Penn, 1825, Vol.1 p. 164)
He was a six-day creationist as shown here.
“If, therefore, the noun in Gen. I. Had been intended to denote
any long period, or any measure of time other than a single day, it would have been IAMIM, in
the plural, as a collective term, and not IOM, in the singular, which it is.” (Penn, 1825,
Vol. 1 p. 289)
Of Faber’s Dispensations Penn writes of his rejection of
a lengthened Biblical chronology:
“This sudden call upon us to admit, for the first time that our
Lord was born circ. A. M. 40,170, instead of circ. A. M. 4004, according to the vulgar
computation, proposes an alarming alteration of our chronology; to which however the learned author
may have familiarized his own mind, we cannot implicitly assent without demanding his authority.
But, as soon as we are told, that we are to concede this alteration to the ‘decisive
discoveries of modern physiologists,’ our alarm at once subsides; and we feel no hesitation in
altogether refusing our submission to an authority so incompetent, and so illegitimate for imposing,
or causing to be imposed, a new interpretation on
the plain terms of revelation.” (Penn, 1825, Vol 1, p. 298)
One can be assured that, in Penn's view, the creation of the universe and the creation of man were separated by 24 hours when he states 1. that the mode of creation is "uninvestigable by any scheme or science of man"; 2. that each operation in Genesis 1 "was immediate; the formations resulting at once, without any instrumental mediation, in full perfection for the ends which they were to serve"; 3. God produced these "without any agency of time" and 4. that the original Fiat, "caused all the first formations of the mineral matter of this globe in one immediate simultaneous operation, imparting to it at the same moment its first diurnal revolution." (Penn 1825, vol. 1, p. 279)
Penn, in his 1840 work which is a Socratic dialogue, speaking of
the separation of the waters eventually shows he still believed in a literal Biblical chronology. He
writes:
“Mrs. R.”
“Now it appears from this sublime history—from the
‘rebuke’ and the ‘thunder,’ that it was a crisis of stupendous and terrible convulsion, when
the waters of the sea were fixed in their channel, and the dry land and its mountains elevated above
the level of the great deep.”
“Edward”
“I am completely satisfied with this explanation; but there are
many points of Geology which we formerly considered, which it will not account for the existence,
for instance, of conglomerate rocks evidently formed from others, and the remarkable facts which you
told us of large trees, inclosed in sandstone quarries, converted into coal.”
“Mrs. R.
“All these, and similar appearance, Mr. Penn explains by the second grand revolution—the Deluge of Noah and the circumstances which preceded it, from the creation onwards. It is important to recollect, that the period from the creation to the deluge was more than sixteen hundred and fifty years, and, during that time, it is obvious that immense beds of shells would be formed in the sea, and not only so, but very probably would afterwards be covered with beds of sand, clay, and mud, and cemented together by the glutinous matter of the animals themselves. Similar circumstances would also tend to cover, with extensive deposits, the moss-beds of sea-weed, corals, sponges, and other marine productions then existing. It is, also to be remarked, that the constant tides and storms of the sea, as we formerly noticed, would tend to wear down the rock exposed to their warfare, and thence would form immense beds of sand, gravel, and clay, all of which would, of course, exist in the bed of the ocean at the time of the deluge.” (emphasis mine) (Penn, 1840, p.258-259)
1829 Antiquity of Man: first Neanderthal fossil, found at Engis,
Belgium (Johanson and Edgar, 1997, p. 93)
1839 Antiquity of Man Boucher de Perthes publishes his evidence
for human stone tools in ancient deposits. It is ignored. (Campbell and Loy, 1996, p. 6)
Robert Haldane, Major Work: Evidence and Authority of Divine
Revelation, 1839
In 1839, Robert Haldane published the 3rd edition of a
book advocating a young-earth, literalist interpretation of scripture. It is clear what he believed
from statements like:
“From Adam to Moses, although a space of about 2500 years, it
passed through only four intermediate persons.” (Haldane, 1839, p. 125)
Haldane left no doubt as to the meaning of the word ‘day’ as
used in Genesis:
“The opinion that each day in the account of creation was a
year, or any longer period than is denoted by the word day, in its usual signification, outrages all
the laws of language.” (Haldane 1839, p. 148-149)
He also fits another characteristic of YECs, he disdains the views
of geologists. In one of the earliest appearance of age
arguments he writes:
“It is not the facts of geologists that need to be controverted,
it is their rash and presumptuous inferences. If it be asserted that more time must have been
necessary to form one series of rocks than another, or to account for certain appearances in other
respects, it is answered, this is a theory not a fact. The doctrine of geologists is not the
interpretation of facts but only inferences which are by no means necessary. Could not he who
created the world out of nothing—a fact which cannot be denied, otherwise how could the world
exist at all—cause all things to assume at the moment of creation, appearances which geologists
impute to the lapse of ages?” (Haldane, 1839,p. 147).
John Murray Major works: Truth of Revelation, 1831, revised 1840;
Portrait of Geology, 1838.
He was clearly a young-earth creationist. He stated,
“In the most ancient book of the Chinese which is called chouking,
mention is made of one of their deified personages, named Yao, who is their represented as
drawing off the waters of the deluge, which had rendered impassable the lower levels, submerged the
lower hills, bathed the skirts of the highest mountains, and risen up to the heavens. Yao is
antedated at about 4166 years, or thereabout, before the present period, which remarkably coincides
with the chronology of the sacred volume.” (Murray, 1840, p. 207)
He seemed to be one who rejected the concept that the earth was
millions of years old with a late creation of man. He objected,
“As for the question vexaia of systems antecedent to
man, with ‘millions of ages,’ and ‘creations and destructions innumerable,’ I confess
I have strong objections to these dogmas. The phenomena
of geology do not, in my mind warrant or require such deductions.” (Murray, 1840, p. 141-142)
He then goes on to note
that there is no absolute chronometer in geology.
Patrick MacFarlane,
1840’s quotations. See below for information on him.
One really doesn’t know quite where to put this man in
chronologically. I chose this point only because this is close to the time when he started
publishing. I searched for three years trying to find his book, Primary and Present States,
which was the only book I knew about. I stumbled upon
Antidote which was a gem of young-earth writings. The
book is a compilation of MacFarlane’s letters and articles from his 30 year publishing career.
M’Farlane was able to publish letters and articles in journals like the Greenock Advertiser, London Record, The Spectator, The Daily Review, The Witness, The Stirling Journal, The Commonwealth and many, many others. He was active arguing against geology from the 1840s to the early 1870s long after Darwin’s Origin. I will only place a few of MacFarlane’s letters because I could put one in nearly every single year from the late 1840’s to 1865 or so.
MacFarlane, in relating to his readers in 1871 why certain
documents weren’t published, inadvertently sheds some light on the intellectual world of the
apologists of the 1840s. He wrote:
“It is rather a
remarkable coincidence that, at the time this very one of these articles should have attracted my
attention, and caused the following remarks, which were sent to the
London
Record, 7th Nov. 1846, but for want of room
(he said)—reason,(I thought) declined by the editor; an editor who had published and praised the
Dean of York’s hypothesis, and advocated even that of Chateaubriand.*” (MacFarlane, 1871, p. 13)
The asterisk at the end of this passage refers to a note which
amazingly shows apologists arguing for concepts long thought to have been settled, even in the early
1900s. The note says of Chateaubriand:
“*This author imagined that all things in the bowels of the earth were created just as they are, and, of course, that what we call organic remains are mere lusus naturae, and never belonged to living creatures!” (MacFarlane, 1871, p. 13 note)
Hugh Miller report on
1840’s YEC activity in his 1850 book, Footprints
of the Creator
Then
there was the guy who is quoted in Hugh Miller's Footprints of the Creator (Hugh Miller was the
writer of the Rambles):
""SIR—I
occasionally observe articles in your neighbour and contemporary the 'Witness,' characteristically
headed 'Rambles of a Geologist', wherein the writer with great zeal once more 'slays the slain'
heresies of the 'vestiges of Creation.' This writer (of the 'Rambles,' I mean) nevertheless, and at
the same time, announces his own tenets to be much of the same sort, as applied to mere dead matter,
that those of the 'Vestiges' are with regard to living organisms. He maintains that the world during
the last million of years, has been of itself rising or developing without the interposition of a
miracle, from chaos into its present stat; and, of course, as it is still, as a world, confessedly
far below the acme of physical perfection, that it must be just now on its passage,
self-progressing, towards that point, which terminus it may reach in another million of years
hence.[!!!] The author of the 'Vestiges,' as quoted by the author of the 'Rambles,' in the last
number of the 'Witness,' complains that the latter and his allies ware not at all so liberal to him
as from their present circumstances and position, he had a right to expect. He (the author of the
'Vestiges') reminds his opponents that they themselves only lately emerged from the antiquated
scriptural notions that our world was the direct and almost immediate construction of the Creator,
--as much so, in fact, as any of its organized tenants,--and that it was then created in a state of
physical excellence the highest possible, to render it a suitable habitation for those tenants, and
all this only about six or seven thousand years ago, --to the new light of their present physico-Lamarckian
views. And he asks, and certainly not without reason, why should these men, so circumstanced be so
anxious to stop him in his attempt to move one step farther forward in the very direction they
themselves have made the last move?—that is, in his endeavour to extend their own principles of
self-development from mere matter to living creatures. Now, Sir, I confess myself to be one of those
(and possibly you may have ore readers similarly constituted) who not only cannot see any great
difference between merely physical and organic development[!!], but who would be inclined to allow
the latter, absurd as it is, the advantage in point of likelihood[!!!]. The author of the 'Rambles,'
however, in the face of this, assures us that his views of physical self-development and long
chronology belong to the inductive sciences. Now, I could at this stage of his rambles have wished
very much that, instead of merely saying so, he had given his demonstration. Most that those men
have written on the question at issue I have seen, not fully made up their mind on the point.[!!!]
Perhaps the author of the 'Rambles' could favour us with the inductive process that converted
himself; and, as the attainment of truth, and not victory, is my object, I promise either to
acquiesce in or rationally refute it[?] Till then, I hold to my antiquated tenets, that our world,
nay, the whole material universe, was created about six or seven thousand years ago, and that in a
state of physical excellence of which we have in our present fallen world only the 'vestiges of
creation.' I conclude by mentioning that
this view I have held now for nearly thirty years, and, amidst all the vicissitudes of the
philosophical world during that period, I have never seen cause to change it. Of course, with this
view I was, during the interval referred to, a constant opponent of the once famous, though now
exploded, nebular hypothesis of La Place; and I yet expect to see physical development and long
chronology wither also on this earth, now that THEIR ROOT (the said hypothesis) has been eradicated
from the sky.[!!!]—I am, Sir, your most obedient servant.
'Philalethes.'*
*It
now appears that, though this letter was inserted in the 'Scottish Press,' the organ of the United
Presbyterians, its writer is a Free Churchman. He has since published a good many other
anti-geological letters, chiefly remarkable for their facts, to which, with a self-immolating zeal
worthy of a better cause, he has attached his name." (Miller 1850 reprinted in 1869, p.
256-257)
Just
before the above note, Miller notes that the Scottish Press is the ‘organ of a powerful and
thoroughly respectable section of the old Dissenters of Scotland.” (Miller, 1850 reprinted in
1869, p. 257-258)
This
Philalethes, was Patrick MacFarlane or Patrick M’Farlane. M’Farlane seems to have made it his life long job to disagree
with Hugh Miller. Almost all his publications take aim
at Miller. And Miller shot back only rarely mentioning M’Farlane’s name.
Of the book Primary and Present States, Miller wrote:
"According to this profound cosmogonist, the world before the
Fall was rather more than twice its present size, and very artificially constructed.
It was a hollow ball, supported inside by a framework of metal wrought into hexagonal
reticulations, somewhat like the framework of the great iron bridge over the river Wear at
Sunderland; and which had an open space in its centre, occupied by a vast tubular furnace lying
direct south and north, which threw out huge volumes of flame towards the poles." (Miller,
1857, p. 405-406)
One clearly sees, that MacFarlane
was a bit mad.
William
Cockburn, Dean of York
Miller,
in another book, cited William Cockburn, Dean of York, an Anglican, arguing against morphological
change and then commented,
“The
passage is, however, not without its value, as illustrative of the darkness, in matters of physical
science,’ even darkness which may be felt,’ that is suffered to linger, in this the most
scientific of ages, in the Church of Buckland, Sedgwick, and Conybeare.” (Miller, 1850 reprinted
in 1869, p. 259)
William Cockburn, the Dean of York, was still alive and apparently
on duty when, 7 years later, Miller wrote The Testimony of the Rocks. Cockburn died April 30,
1858, approximately 1 year and 4 months after Miller took his own life
(http://www.angelfire.com/de/BobSanders/Malton58-1.html
accessed 3-2-03). Cockburn, the Anglican, believed in
a young-earth up until 1858. Of him Savile (a contemporary emulating the pot calling the kettle
black) writes:
“Or consider the way in which the late Dean of York endeavored to reconcile the formation of the strata of this carboniferous era at the time of the Deluge, with his theory that all the fossils discovered are not older than the human race, and that the creation of the heavens and the earth commenced 6000 years ago.” (Savile 1862, p.228-229)
Only Cockburn’s death prevented him from believing in a young
earth in 1860. He missed that goal by only 1 year 8 months. YEC was far from dead. It continued via
Benjamin Newton and others in forms not too much different than those taken by YECs today.
1846 Antiquity of Man. Boucher de Perthes publishes again on
ancient stone tools found with extinct animals which indicated that man was on earth prior to 4004
B. C.
1848 Antiquity of Man. Second example of Neanderthal found at
Gibraltar. It was ignored for 20 years. (Broom, 1950, p. 2)
Eleazar Lord. 1851. Major Work Epoch of Creation
Eleazar Lord was a major American theologian of the mid-19th
century. His book, Epoch of Creation, obviously had an impact in the UK, because
Miller cited it [see below]. The introduction to
Lord’s book was written by one, Richard W. Dickinson. Dickinson tells his readers:
“Which merits the readier credence-a record which has more historical and moral testimony in its support than any other in the world; or a science which as yet has led only a few scattered individuals to collect, as one of the most prominent among them has admitted, "some materials for future generalizations?" -a record which preserves the same lucid distinctness and commanding unity through a period of four thousand years; or a science which is but of yesterday's growth, and embraces almost as many different theories, and leads to almost as many different conclusions, as the number of its teachers? a cosmogony, which, being in keeping with the sublime idea of creative energy, implies the supernatural; or one, which having originated in an induction from supposed existing causes, excludes, and stigmatizes as unscientific, all that is miraculous in the works as well as in the Word of the Creator?
”We admit that, in some of our modern treatises on geology,
there is much that is imposing and even fascinating to the imagination, because it borders on the
nature of new discoveries; nor do we presume to deny the facts from which sage inferences are
deduced; but where is the proof that geology has as yet legitimately accounted for the former
changes on the earth's surface, much less for the time and manner of its origin? Where is the
consistency of geological theories? What is the theory of any one writer on the subject, but the
construction which he has seen fit to put on the physical phenomena of the globe, as being the
exclusive effects, in his view, of the ordinary operation of natural causes? If Smith may conflict
in his geological views with Buckland, and Lyell with Larnarck; or if the author of the
"Footprints" may oppose the development theory of the author of the "Vestiges,"
with what propriety, we ask, can either demand that we shall substitute his understanding of the
Mosaic record of the creation in the place of our own, or forfeit the respect of scientific men.
”If geologists may draw different
conclusions from the changes in the organic and the inorganic world which are now in progress, by
what law of evidence are we bound either to harmonize the Mosaic record with their conflicting
theories, or to discard its authority? The work of creation was necessarily a supernatural work; and
hence, all reasoning from the general laws of nature, which in their operation were subsequent to
the work of creation, is as irrelevant in explanation of the Mosaic account, as the argument drawn
from universal experience in disparagement of the miracles recorded in Holy Writ.” (Dickinson,
1851, p. viii-x) (emphasis mine)
Eleazar Lord, in the main part of the book, argues against the
geological evidence for an age of the earth and for the six day creation when he writes:
“The following extracts are from Doctor Hitchcock's second
Lecture, entitled "THE EPOCH OF THE EARTH'S CREATION UNREVEALED." "My simple object
at this time is to ascertain whether the Bible fixes the time when the universe was created out of
nothing. The prevalent opinion, until recently, has been that we are there taught that the world
began to exist on the first of the six days of creation, or about six thousand years ago.
Geologists, however, with one voice, declare that their science indicates the earth to have been of
far higher antiquity. The question becomes, therefore, of deep interest, whether the common
interpretation of the Mosaic record is correct." What a falling off! The science, instead of
demonstrating or exhibiting indubitable facts to show the earth to be of far higher antiquity than
the six days, and thereby furnishing solid ground upon which to call the Mosaic record in question,
only indicates the earth to have been of that high antiquity; the science, excluding all reference
to the miraculous interpositions of the Creator, and the moral reasons announced by him for such
interpositions, suggests the possibility, on the ground of analogy in the ordinary operation of
physical causes, that the earth may have been of the alleged high antiquity!” (Lord, 1851, p.
161-162)
Another example of Lord’s rejection of the secular chronology
and the acceptance of the six-day creation:
“Doubtless, no rational creature can behold the vast masses of
sedimentary matter, which to a great depth constitute the crust of the globe, or inspect in detail
the wonders which they exhibit, and believe at the same time that the whole of those masses with
their fossil contents, were deposited by the slow, uniform, unaided, operation of physical laws,
without inferring at once that the process must have occupied immeasurable periods of duration. But
before he can make that inference, and as the sole ground of it, he must first assume that those
sedimentary masses were formed by the physical causes and in the manner
represented. Of that assumption, however, he can adduce no positive evidence whatever; nor
anything but an inference from the fact, that at present the operations of those causes is slow,
uniform, and unaided: and he therefore infers that it always was so. An admission that for moral
reasons, a different, a supernatural process, may have been interposed by the Creator and moral
governor of the world, would preclude his inference, and destroy the basis of his main assumption,
and of the theory founded on it.
But waiving such admission of moral reasons and supernatural operations, he clings to his main
assumption. and makes it the basis of various other assumptions involved in his theory: Such as,
that if the formation of the sedimentary masses occupied an immeasurable tract of ages, their object
must have been to improve the condition of the planet and render it habitable; that the earth,
therefore, must originally have been in a most imperfect condition; that, according to the theory of
some, it was in a state of igneous fluidity; and according to others, that it was a shapeless mass
of nebular matter; that since none of these things could possibly be true, if the heavens, the
earth, the sea, and all that in them is, were created, and created perfect in the space of six days,
at the Mosaic epoch; therefore, they were not created at that epoch; that the first verse of
Genesis, therefore, does not belong to the narrative of the six days; that the work of those six
days was not a creation, but a special fitting up of the whole or a part of the earth: that the
Sabbath, therefore, was not instituted as a sign, memorial, or periodical public acknowledgment and
attestation that in six days the Jehovah made the heavens and earth, the sea and all that in them
is, but was instituted for some other purpose.”
”None of these assumptions admit of any positive evidence, whether taken separately or
collectively; and they are, one and all, utterly baseless and preposterous, unless the main
assumption at their head is unequivocally admitted. We are entitled, therefore, when told that the
science of geology is in conflict with revelation, to deny it, and to reply, that it is not the
science, its facts, or any legitimate inductions from them, but only the gratuitous assumptions of
the geologists that are in such conflict. It would be as legitimate to infer, as some do, from
the facts of geology, that the earth was eternal, as to infer that the physical laws or properties
of matter, were exclusively the cause of those facts. The geologists, while they take the liberty to make quite free with the text of
Scripture, and with its miracles, as appears from the specimens of their expositions heretofore
quoted, -complain loudly of those who call their theories in question, on the ground that they are
not practical geologists, and, therefore, cannot be qualified to perform the office of objectors: as
if a practical knowledge of facts and details which they do not dispute, would be of any use to
enable them to controvert, what they do dispute. They are especially impatient of theological
assailants, for reasoning from a non-geological book, and arraying moral facts and revealed
doctrines against their hypothetical inferences.” (Lord, 1851, p. 207-210) (Emphasis mine)
Thomas Hutton, F.G.S, 1851. Major work: The Chronology of Creation.
Since we had a major American young-earther from 1851 we should probably show a YEC from Britain in the same year. Thomas Hutton, A Fellow of the Geological Society, wrote and published a blatantly young-earth book in 1851. This leather bound book was not a cheap publishing undertaking. The only aspect of geology, which this Fellow of the Geological Society accepted, appears to be that rocks exist. He wrote:
"That the first, and likewise the second verses point to a period indefinitely remote, when the material elements of our globe were called into existence, there can be no hesitation in admitting: but to say that the Earth was tenanted previous to the first recorded day of Scripture, is a doctrine wholly untenable and erroneous, as being altogether based upon assumption and devoid of the slightest proof." (Hutton, 1851, p. 41)
Further, he explicitly believed that the earth was created at the same time as the universe. He wrote:
"Again with regard to our Earth having arisen out of the 'wreck and ruins' of a former world, there is decidedly not the slightest foundation for such a belief to be gathered from any sentence in the Mosaic narrative, but, on the contrary, when we are told that 'in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth,'--we are told so in reference solely to our own actual planet, and not to any world which may have preceded it. The materials from which our Earth was at length produced, were apparently called into being expressly for that purpose. We are not taught to believe that in the beginning, God created a Heaven and an Earth, from whose ruins our world was at length phoenix-like to spring forth; but that they were created with reference to the present system alone, for in the whole narrative of Creation nothing appears to be brought forward but what has strict and sole reference to us, and to the Earth which we now inhabit." (Hutton, 1851, p. 53-54)
There is a classic statement from Hutton which clearly illustrates his unique type of young-earth creationism. He writes:"From the period of the first revolution or Fall of man, up to the completion of the Portland stone or upper member of the Oolitic system, comprising according tot he most correct accounts, a period of about 2,261 years, the land was, from time to time, emerging from out of the ocean, through the instrumentality of violent and oft-repeated volcanic forces, whose seat of action being chiefly submarine, tended more especially to produce marine formations, imbedding the organic forms which successively inhabited the waters during the changes of those early time."
For those who don't know, the Portland stone is a Late Jurassic formation in England which is used as building stones. Hutton has the entire Paleozoic through to the end of the Jurassic take only 2,261 years. Amazing accuracy! He ends his book comparing the two chronologies, geological and Scriptural. He writes:
"Thus we have the historical and geological chronologies
supporting a
and substantiating each other in the following satisfactory manner,
namely,--
Historical Chronology.
"From the first day to the commencement
of the tertiary or postdiluvian era............2,262
From the deluge to the Birth of Christ.........3,216
From the Birth of Christ to the current year...1,849
7,327
Geological Chronology
From the first day to the
commencement Yrs Ms. Ds.
of the tertiary or postdiluvian era............2,210 5 3
From the Deluge to the termination of
the tertiary period..............................194 0 12
From the tertiary period to the
Birth of Christ................................3,021 11 18
From the Birth of Christ to the current year...1,949
7,275 5 3
or a discrepancy of only fifty-one and a half years between
the
two chronologies and which moreover is seen to arise
solely from the difficulty of obtaining an
exact and accurate
measurement of the various strata." (Hutton, 1851, 478-479)
Why would one believe that the belief in a six day creation was long gone by the end of a decade which begins with two books like these?
Hugh Miller reports early 1850s YEC activity in his 1854 book
My Schools and Schoolmasters
Hugh Miller was not a six day creationist and believed that God
created over long periods of time. However, he
constantly cited young-earth creationist opposition to his position.
He cited these people while writing during the 1850’s immediately prior to Darwin’s book.
It is patently clear from this opposition to Miller, that six-day creationism was not dead.
Miller observes in 1854:
“But such is the structure of the human mind, that, save when blinded by passion or warped by prejudice, it must yield an involuntary consent to the force of evidence; and I can now no more refuse believing, in opposition to respectable theologians such as Mr. Granville Penn, Professor Moses Stuart, and Mr. Eleazar Lord, that the earth is of an antiquity incalculably vast, than I can refuse believing, in opposition to still more respectable theologians, such as St. Augustine, Lactantius, and Turretine, that it has antipodes, and moves round the sun. And further, of this, men such as the Messrs. Penn, Stuart, and Lord may rest assured that what I believe in this matter now, all theologians, even the weakest, will be content to believe fifty years hence.” (Miller, 1854 reprinted in 1889, p. 462-463)
What do we know of these gentlemen cited by Miller in 1854? Penn
was the grandson of William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania. Penn was a major young-earth writer of
the first half of the 19th century who died in 1844. We have quoted him above. He was
still influential even at Miller’s death in 1857. Stuart Moses was an American theologian who was
cited not only by Miller in 1854 but by Savile [see below] in 1862. And we have seen some of Eleazar
Lord’s views. The fact that Miller felt the need to even mention these people in a book otherwise
engaged as a biography illustrates their impact.
Alexander Strachan, Major work: The Antiquity of the Mosaic
Narrative, circa 1852
Strachan was clearly a YEC who believed in a young world.
Strachan’s work is undated but is assumed to be circa 1852 because the most recent quotation is
from Hitchcock (1851). He says nothing about Darwin or evolution so it is clearly published prior to
1860. Notice the casual acceptance of the age of the
world. He wrote:
“Sufficient has been advanced, we presume, to justify the
following conclusions, viz:--
“First. That, next to Moses, Herodotus, the Greek, was the first
authentic historian. Moses was born in the year of the world 2433,(1571 years before Christ).
Herodotus, was born in the year 484 before Christ, and died in the year 413. He was justly regarded
by Tully and others, as being ‘the Father of History!’
“Second. If the Mosaic narrative
be rejected, then we must believe that the world was 3600 years without any written account of its
own origin and of the supervision exercised, over the affairs of men, by Divine Providence. Now I
ask the unbeliever himself, whether this be at all probable?”
“Third. That for 3600 years the
Jews were the only people on earth capable of giving an account of the commencement and progress of
time; as they only possessed both knowledge and letters. With the primitive tongue, they retained
the true knowledge of God, and of the remarkable events which occurred during the first ages of the
world.” (Strachan, c. 1852, p. 57-58).
He hardly sounds like one who accepts the geology of his day! That
he was a six day creationist can be seen in the following:
“We shall now assign our reasons, for refusing to adopt the
principle of interpretation offered by the above writers.
“1st.
They profess to determine the antiquity of the earth and the catastrophies or changes which have
marked its history! But have these gentlemen ascertained, or are they agreed about the agents, or
the various physical energies, which have brought the earth to its present state, and with what
degree of efficiency they have severally contributed their respective powers? Has it been determined
whether these agents act uniformly or with intermission, or according to what laws they relax or
increase their intensity, during any given period of time? Now, unless this is first known, how can
any thing like certain or even probable truth be elicited? Who can presume to define the nature or
the effects of this chymical action that has been going on for the last six thousand years?
For the present, and until the above questions shall have been satisfactorily solved, we believe
that the six days of Moses comprehend the origin and consummation of the creation of this
world!”
“2nd. All Hebrew
expositors affix no other meaning to the word day, used by the sacred historian than that of a
natural day, and the hebdomadal return of the Sabbath, is a permanent memorial, to perpetuate its
true and legitimate signification.”
“3rd. The evidence of
Geology is not, as yet sufficiently conclusive to justify a departure from the rule.” (Strachan,
c. 1852, p. 81-82; his emphasis).
It is interesting that Strachan quotes John Cumming, whom Roberts
noted above. He introduces this passage with a quote from an anti-geologist, Dr. Forbes, and then
calls Cumming a ‘friend” of geology.
“’The advocates of Geology have embarked,’ says Dr. Forbes,
‘on an investigation of all others, I hesitate not to affirm, the most defective, at present, in
data, essential to the fair and just solutions!’ In moments of sobriety some of its own friends
have admitted this. Dr. Cumming says, ‘Geology has, before now, retraced its steps: Genesis never.
This will show you that I am not speaking rashly, when I say the latter may be in some of its
generalizations wrong. Before now, it has been discovered, that what were thought to be facts
incontrovertible were fallacies. It is found that phenomena described and discussed as true, were
mistakes, and misapprehensions, which maturer investigations have disposed of: and therefore I am
not speaking dogmatically, and without reason, when I say, that while Genesis must be true, Geology,
having already erred, may err again, and some of its very loudest assertions, made rashly by those
who have least acquaintance with its data, may yet be proved to be wrong. But certain facts in it
are now beyond all dispute.” (Strachan, c. 1852, p. 82-83)
Robertson’s citation above that ‘even such an extreme
Evangelical as J. Cumming accepted geology” gives the reader the flawed impression that
evangelicals of the 1850s had accepted geology. Nothing
was further from the case. Sure, some did, but most
didn’t. And even the claim that Cumming accepted geology is only partly correct based upon the
above quotation.
Strachan further goes on to support the six-day, 6000 year-old
creation with the following:
“6th. Admit the doctrine of indefinite periods and
all the recognized principles of biblical interpretation are unsettled.
“If the world existed thousands, and even millions, of ages
before the ‘beginning’ of Moses; if numerous races of animals and vegetables, were created and
died, before that period, then, in all fairness Moses should have told his readers, that he was
writing not about the first, but the middle age of the world.
We must either impeach the integrity of Moses, or modify the assumptions of Geology.
“7th. Geology, as now taught, contradicts the obvious
sense of scripture. The inspired record declares that ‘In six days the Lord made heaven and earth,
the sea and all that in them is!” (Strachan, c. 1852, p. 85)
Far from being dead, Strachan shows clearly that Biblical
literalism was quite alive in the 1850s and that Gosse was not the only YEC.
W. T. Hamilton, 1852. Major Work: The Pentateuch and Its Assailants
I only have one quotation from this book, taken from Redford. But my son was able to locate the book and give me its publication date. This author held to an old earth but also to Biblical literalism. The Auvergne volcanoes were a challenge to young-earth Christians because there was no historical reference to these volcanoes erupting. The volcanoes were covered with forests which hadn't been burned in the near past. The lavas were heavily eroded by channels indicating a long time between the last eruption and today. Hamilton wrote:
“’The four thousand (perhaps we may say five thousand) years or more that have elapsed since the deluge, comprise a great many centuries, and afford ample time for that accomplishment of changes far more extraordinary than the extinguishing of all these once active craters, the conversion of the materials of numbers of them into productive soil, and the clothing of these volcanic cones with a dense forest of huge trees.’” W. J. Hamilton, D. D., The Pentateuch and Its Assailants, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1852) p. 241-243, cited by George Redford, Holy Scripture Verified: or the Divine Authority of The Bible Confirmed by an Appeal to Facts of Science, History, and Human Consciousness, (London: Jackson and Walford, 1853), p. 89-91
George Redford, D.D, LL.D., 1853. Major work: Holy Scripture Verified; or, the Divine Authority of the Bible Confirmed by an Appeal to Facts of Science, History and Human Consciousness.
Rev. Redford was a Biblical literalist from Worcester but one who accepted only the age of the earth. The 1853 edition of his book is the fifth clearly showing that people were buying these kind of books. As near as I can determine, this book was first published in 1838. He believed that there were a series of creations which accounted for the geologic column. He held that when the Bible said "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters," it was indicating the next to last flooding of the earth (p.83). The last flood was that of Noah. In all respects, Redford was a literalist, holding to a six thousand year creation of mankind (p.33), the Fall, the historicity of a global flood (p. 87), the reality of the Tower of Babel (and that Moses lived within 800 years of its construction, p. 112). While he accepted the age of the earth, he was clearly a Biblical literalist seven years prior to when Roberts says literalism was 'virtually extinct'.
What one can not say about Redford was that he had accepted geology. In fact, he disdains the reasoning of the geologist when he writes:
“It
would be very unworthy of a philosophic spirit to allow our knowledge on the great leading facts to
be disturbed by our ignorance on a few points, that are yet veiled in darkness, and which, judging
from our experience in similar cases, there is every probability may be yet shown to comport
perfectly with the sacred narrative. Facts quite as difficult to reconcile with the Mosaic
statement, as any now ascertained, and which at one period were deemed absolute evidence against the
truth of his record, have been shown either to have been mistaken, or reasoned upon hastily, and
made the basis for the announcement of laws, which other facts have entirely demolished. It is,
therefore, not a little astonishing that the frequent failure of the geologists to make good their
theories, the constant remodeling of them by their own hands, and the gradual convergence of all
their established principles to these four points; the universality of at least one grand
catastrophe; the accordance of their own date of that catastrophe with the time of Noah; the agency
of it by water influenced by some unknown power; and the origination of the present race of mankind
with this catastrophe; it is astonishing, I say, that these things do not repress their theorizings,
and constrain them to limit themselves at present to the collection of facts.’
”’ They start in the race of speculation upon ground which we cannot concede to them,--that all
the different masses of matter of which the earth consists, have been formed originally according to
the laws which they now observe to be in operation; that is to say, that natural causes have
produced the primitive creation without the intervention of an intelligent Creator. This we
pronounce at once to be absurd, because there can be no natural laws without a creating power, an
arranging mind, and a previously existing creation. Mr. Sharon Turner well observes, --‘It is even
a contradiction to suppose that the natural causes now in operation could have formed our world. It
is from its completed formation that they arise, and are what they are. They are the produced, and not the producers. Natural causes are the result of creation, not its makers. They
arise from the construction, composition, positions, and material relations, and arranged agencies
of the created things; but they have not fabricated them. All the laws of nature in our world are posterior to its structure, not anterior framers of it. It is the artificial creation of all things,
by an intelligent Artificer, which gives to all natural laws and causes their very existence. They
are not in being until the fabric and the mechanism are completed;
until each is placed in such relative positions, and in such compounds, and endued with such
properties, and associated with such moving agencies, as we can become cognizant of, and from which
they originate.’” (Sharon Turner, Sacred History of the Earth, Vo. II, p. 366, cited
Redford, 1853, p. 99-101)
Roberts says there was
no battle between Genesis and Geology. The above quotation in 1853 clearly shows that this
wasn't true. Redford was a Biblical literalist because he believed that the Biblical story was
literally true in every detail, which further shows Robert's claim to be false.
Miscellaneous Books as Evidence of Biblical Literalism in the
1850s –1870s
Books from the period show that this was an issue for Christians.
Many of these books were arguing for Science Scripture reconciliation. Not having been able to
acquire them, I don’t know what their views were. However, it illustrates that the world in the
1850s-1870s was interested in the issue of the Bible and Science. This clearly implies that the
issue was not dead. The list includes:
P. McFarlane, Exposure of the Principles of Modern Geology
Edinburgh 1853
William T. Hamilton, The 'Friend of Moses;' or a Defence of the Pentateuch as the Production of Moses and an Inspired Document Against the Objections of Modern Skepticism, (New York: M. W. Dodd, 1852)
George Redford, Holy Scripture verified; or, the divine
authority of the Bible confirmed by an appeal to facts of science, history, and ..., (London:
Jackson & Walford,1853)
Harry Taylor, A System of the Creation of our Globe, of the Planets, and the Sun of Our System, Founded on the First Chapter of Genesis, on the Geology of the Earth...as Proved by Lavoisier, And Others, (Quebec: Bureau and Marco, 1854) published from 1840 (2nd edition) to 1857 (9th edition in 1855)
George Rawlinson, The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the
Scripture Records Stated Anew, (London: John Murray, 1860)
John Radford Young, Science Elucidative of Scripture and Not Antagonistic to It, (London: Lockwood & Co., 1863)
Joseph P. Thompson, MAN IN GENESIS AND IN GEOLOGY: OR THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF MAN'S CREATION,. TESTED BY SCIENTIFIC THEORY. NY:1870
This list of titles, in addition to those I own and cite here, shows that there was a tremendous interest in how to fit Genesis with science.
1854 Antiquity of Man. Dr. Rigollot discovers stone tools in
ancient gravels at St. Acheul, France. (Klein and Edgar, 2002, p. 103-105)
Articles in the 1854 edition of The Christian Treasury
Philip Gosse described the lay of the intellectual land in 1854
which supports my thesis that the laity was anti-science. He observes:
“
Natural Science.
“Many persons of eminence seem to have considered it and kindred
studies as the only occupation worthy of exalted minds; as if the acquisition of intellectual
knowledge formed the chief end of existence both here and hereafter; while multitudes of humble
believers are afraid of all natural science, and stand aloof from it as if its influence were
necessarily adverse to true piety. The truth, as usual,
probably lies between the two extremes.” (Gosse, 1854, p. 352-353)
Why would Gosse speak of the laity as fearing science, if it
wasn’t the case? Clearly the laity wasn’t accepting the science of the day. And let me remind
the reader that it isn’t physics of the steam engine which they feared. It was the implications of
geology and astronomy. Biblical literalism was no more dead in 1854 than it is today.
Others note of ‘modern’ infidelity
“It does not seek to brand the Bible as a forgery, but only to modify or explain away its claims. It allows the inspired books much in literary glory and aesthetic brightness, but denies them a monopoly of such qualities. It brings Scripture down to the level of a common treatise; for it speaks of ‘Minos and Moses as equally inspired to make laws; David and Pindar to write poetry;’ and affirms that Newton and Isaiah, Leibnitz and Paul, &c., have in them ‘various forms of the one spirit from God most high.’ Such inspiration is limited to ‘no sect, age, or nation, for it is wide as the world, and common as God.’” (Anonymous, 1854a p. 491)
Other anti-science statements are found in the pages of the
‘Treasury’. Here is one:
“It is, indeed, a melancholy fact, that hitherto the mightiest
and the most successful of intellectual efforts have often been arrayed in hostility to the gospel,
rather than made subservient to its more extended promulgation; that the most splendid discoveries
of natural truth have frequently obscured, to the eye of the discoverer, the glory of the truth that
has been revealed; and that the multiplied resources from which mankind have been enabled to draw,
in rich abundance, the comforts and conveniences of life, have often removed them to a greater
distance from the Fountain of all spiritual comfort.” (Gordon, 1854b, p. 536-537)
Also, the early chapters of Genesis are treated as history. Rev.
R. MacDonald writes of Cain and Abel, calling it “history”:
“How unlike to each other are the two worshippers whose history
is here given! . . . Both brothers had heard the tale of love; perhaps, too, from God himself; for
it is plain from the narrative that Cain was no stranger to the voice of God.” (MacDonald, 1854,
p. 579) (My emphasis)
Anonymous 1854. Major work The Creation & Deluge, According
to a New Theory.
There was a book published in Philadelphia in 1854 which argued
for Biblical literalism. The author wrote:
“The history of Creation could have been, and most likely was, transmitted from Adam to Jacob by two men! one of whom received it from Adam, and the other communicated it to Jacob, who through Joseph, made it known to the Elders of Israel, and the Magi of Egypt, from whom Moses might have received it.” (Anonymous, 1854, p. 21)
and
“The six days of Creation, and the years of the lives of the patriarchs, will be shown to have been of the same length so our present days and years, and no longer!” (Anonymous, 1854, p. 23)
When was this creation?
“Admitting, therefore, that the Scripture Chronology is nearly right, we find it was less than two thousand years from the Creation to the Deluge, in which case, as we have already shown, the inhabitants could not have been very numerous.” (Anonymous, 1854, p. 74)
His view of the age of the earth is shown in the 1600 years of evaporation he allows before the deluge. He wrote,
“We shall have occasion in a subsequent chapter, to show that there was no rain prior to the Deluge;--if that were the case, then the continued evaporation for more than 1600 years, less the amount nightly deposited in the shape of dew, would have saturated the atmosphere, and aided in causing the vaporic ring to descend to the earth.”
“The withdrawal of that ring, and adding it to the crust of the earth, accounts for the sudden change of climate from tropical to temperate and even to frigid; and explains how it was that elephants, overtaken in their vain attempt to flee from the Deluge, were buried in ice or snow, in Siberia, and preserved intact, even to the hide and hair, until our day!” (Anonymous, 1854, p. 33-34)
Furthermore he adds,
“It was about 2000 years from the Creation to the Deluge, about 2000 years from the Deluge to the coming of our Saviour; and in about 2000 years from the time of our Saviour, say 150 years hence, the earth will be full of people! 150 years is not a long period in the age of a nation; therefore legislators, the powers that now be, should so legislate as to prepare for a state of things unprecedented in the annals of our race.” (Anonymous, 1854, p. 52-53).
1855. Antiquity of Man: Dr. R. H. Collyer
discovered a human jaw in ancient deposits at Ipswich, England. (Broom, 1950, p. 5)
Rev. Dr. Gordon 1855 Article in the Christian Treasury
The Christian Treasury was a Sunday reader, apparently
given out weekly at Church. It consisted of various
types of article and news features, from theological articles to fiction, to accounts of
missionaries. I have only seen three of these volumes,1854 (which I own), and 1855 and 1871. I never
got the chance to peruse 1871 volume. But in the 1855 volume I ran into an interesting article on
the longevity of the patriarchs. I do not know to what denomination Dr. Gordon belonged, but he
clearly believed the fundamental and literal beliefs of six day creationism. Gordon writes:
“The history of the first ages of the world affords melancholy
evidence, that though, in consequence of the lengthened period to what the lives of men were
extended, the revelation of divine mercy, as comprehended in the first promise, and illustrated by
the institution of the sacrifice, might have come down to the time of Abraham,—a period of more
than 2000 years, -- without passing through more than four individuals before reaching the
Patriarch.” (Gordon, 1855, p. 49)
While this isn’t 1860, it is only 5 years earlier. But Miller in
1857 had to argue against several biblical literalists of the 1850s. Alexander Strachan published in c. 1852 and held to a young-earth position. John
Murray, 1840, did and you know his beliefs. George Young, Andrew Ure, and those
mentioned by Hitchcock (originally published in 1851) also were anti-geological. Hitchcock writes:
“Hence
English literature has been prolific of such works as ‘A Comparative Estimate of the Mineral and
Mosaic Geologies,’ By Granville Penn; the ‘Geology of Scripture,’ by Fairholme; ‘Scriptural
Geology,’ by Dr. Young; ‘Popular Geology subversive of Divine Revelation’ by Rev. Henry Cole;
‘Strictures on Geology and Astronomy,’ by Rev. R. Wilson; ‘Scripture Evidences of Creation,
and Geology, and Scripture Cosmogony,’ by anonymous authors; and many other similar productions
that might be named.” (Hitchcock, 1851 reprinted in 1857, p. 18)
This
shows, that even contemporaries knew that there was lots of Biblical literalist literature.
Why is it that moderns seem to think that it didn’t exist? I suspect they are only reading the literature of the victors. I would also
note here that like Miller, Hitchcock was running into Granville Penn’s arguments and that is why
Penn was mentioned by Hitchcock six years after Penn’s death and by Miller 13 years after his
death.
Patrick
MacFarlane, 1855. Letter to M’Phail’s Magazine.
“The material universe was FRAMED by God almighty about 6000 or
7000 years ago, and out of materials then created by Himself, expressly for the purpose.”
(MacFarlane, 1855)
1856
Antiquity of Man: Feldhofer specimen—the originally recognized Neanderthal found in Neander
Valley, Germany. (Broom, 1950, p. 2)
Abraham Mills, Major Work The Ancient Hebrews, 1856
This quote from a book not on the issue of the flood or creation and clearly shows that Biblical literalism was alive and well in 1856 when the book was first published. This quotation comes from 1875 when Mills’ widow found the plates and got the book re-issued.
“In contemplating the creation of the world, the reflecting mind is overawed by the vastness of the work, and the facility with which it was executed. Four thousand years before the Christian era, the materials out of which the earth was formed were floating in a chaotic state in the region of undefined space through which it now regularly rolls its annual course.
“In the brief period of
six days, God created not only the globe which we inhabit, but all things, both animate and
inanimate, that exist upon its surface, or live within its bosom.” (Mills, 1856, reprinted 1875,
p. 9)
Mills, in his tables in
his book notates time in terms of A.M., Anno Mundi (Year of the World).
Miller also notes literalists active in
Edinburgh in 1853. He says:
“The gentleman here referred to lectured no later than October
1853 against the doctrines of the geologists; and modestly chose as the scene of his labours the
city of Hutton and Playfair. What he set himself specially to ‘demonstrate’ was, as he said,
that the geologic ‘theories as to antiquity of he earth, successive eras, &c. were not only
fallacious and unphilosophical, but rendered nugatory the authority of the sacred Scriptures.’”
(Miller, 1857, p. 386 note)
Miller writes of an American Episcopalian clergyman’s view of
geology,
“I was not a little struck lately by finding in a religious
periodical of the United States, a worthy Episcopalian clergyman bitterly complaining, that whenever
his sense of duty led him to denounce from his pulpit the gross infidelity of modern geology, he
could see an unbelieving grin rising on the faces of not a few of his congregation.” (Miller,
1857, p. 387)
Miller further notes the book by the anonymous Anglican clergyman
entitled A Brief and Complete Refutation of the Anti-Scriptural Theory of Geologists,
(London: Wertheim & Macintosh, 1853). This is only 7 years prior to the 1860 timeframe when
Roberts indicates that six day creationism was dead. What
did this Anglican clergy believe? He believed that the
antiquity of the earth could not be deduced from fossils because they were ‘formed of stone from
the very first;’. Miller further writes: