Title: The Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science
Author: Dawson, John William
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science" ***


file was produced from scans of public domain works at the
University of Michigan's Making of America collection.)



[Transcriber's note: All footnotes are renumbered and moved to the end of
the text before the index.]



  THE
  ORIGIN OF THE WORLD,
  ACCORDING TO
  REVELATION AND SCIENCE.

  BY J. W. DAWSON, LL.D., F.R.S., F.G.S.,

  PRINCIPAL AND VICE-CHANCELLOR OF M'GILL UNIVERSITY, MONTREAL; AUTHOR OF
  "ACADIAN GEOLOGY," "THE STORY OF THE EARTH AND MAN,"
  "LIFE'S DAWN ON EARTH," ETC.

"Speak to the Earth, and it shall teach thee."
                                        --_Job._

[Illustration]

  NEW YORK:
  HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS,
  FRANKLIN SQUARE.
  1877.

  TO HIS EXCELLENCY

  THE RIGHT HON. THE EARL OF DUFFERIN,
  K.P., K.C.B., ETC.,

  GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF CANADA,

  _This Work is Respectfully Dedicated_,

  AS A SLIGHT TRIBUTE OF ESTEEM TO ONE WHO GRACES THE
  HIGHEST POSITION IN THE DOMINION OF CANADA BY HIS
  EMINENT PERSONAL QUALITIES, HIS REPUTATION AS
  A STATESMAN AND AN AUTHOR, AND HIS KIND
  AND ENLIGHTENED PATRONAGE OF EDUCATION,
  LITERATURE, AND SCIENCE.



PREFACE.


The scope of this work is in the main identical with that of
"Archaia," published in 1860; but in attempting to prepare a new
edition brought up to the present condition of the subject, it was
found that so much required to be rewritten as to make it essentially
a new book, and it was therefore decided to give it a new name, more
clearly indicating its character and purpose.

The intention of this new publication is to throw as much light as
possible on the present condition of the much-agitated questions
respecting the origin of the world and its inhabitants. To students of
the Bible it will afford the means of determining the precise import
of the biblical references to creation, and of their relation to what
is known from other sources. To geologists and biologists it is
intended to give some intelligible explanation of the connection of
the doctrines of revealed religion with the results of their
respective sciences.

A still higher end to which the author would gladly contribute is that
of aiding thoughtful men perplexed with the apparent antagonisms of
science and religion, and of indicating how they may best harmonize
our great and growing knowledge of nature with our old and cherished
beliefs as to the origin and destiny of man.

In aiming at these results, it has not been thought necessary to
assume a controversial attitude or to stand on the defensive, either
with regard to religion or science, but rather to attempt to arrive at
broad and comprehensive views which may exhibit those higher harmonies
of the spiritual and the natural which they derive from their common
Author, and which reach beyond the petty difficulties arising from
narrow or imperfect views of either or both. Such an aim is too high
to be fully attained, but in so far as it can be reached we may hope
to rescue science from a dry and barren infidelity, and religion from
mere fruitless sentiment or enfeebling superstition.

Since the publication of "Archaia," the subject of which it treats has
passed through several phases, but the author has seen no reason to
abandon in the least degree the principles of interpretation on which
he then insisted, and he takes a hopeful view as to their ultimate
prevalence. It is true that the wide acceptance of hypotheses of
"evolution" has led to a more decided antagonism than heretofore
between some of the utterances of scientific men and the religious
ideas of mankind, and to a contemptuous disregard of revealed religion
in the more shallow literature of the time; but, on the other hand, a
barrier of scientific fact and induction has been slowly rising to
stem this current of crude and rash hypothesis. Of this nature are the
great discoveries as to the physical constitution and probable origin
of the universe, the doctrine of the correlation and conservation of
forces, the new estimates of the age of the earth, the overthrow of
the doctrine of spontaneous generation, the high bodily and mental
type of the earliest known men, the light which philology has thrown
on the unity of language, our growing knowledge of the uniformity of
the constructive and other habits of primitive men, and of the
condition of man in the earlier historic time, the greater
completeness of our conceptions as to the phenomena of life and their
relation to organizable matters--all these and many other aspects of
the later progress of science must tend to bring it back into greater
harmony with revealed religion.

On the other side, there has been a growing disposition on the part of
theologians to inquire as to the actual views of nature presented in
the Bible, and to separate these from those accretions of obsolete
philosophy which have been too often confounded with them. With
respect to the first chapter of Genesis more especially, there has
been a decided growth in the acceptance of those principles for which
I contended in 1860. In illustration of this I may refer to the fact
that in 1862 it was precisely on these principles that Dr. McCaul
conducted his able defence of the Mosaic record of creation in the
"Aids to Faith," which may almost be regarded as an authoritative
expression of the views of orthodox Christians in opposition to those
of the once notorious "Essays and Reviews." Equally significant is the
adoption of this method of interpretation by Dr. Tayler Lewis in his
masterly "Special Introduction" to the first chapter of Genesis, in
the American edition of Lange's Commentary, edited by Dr. Philip
Schaff; and the manifest approval with which the lucid statement of
the relations of Geology and the Bible by Dr. Arnold Guyot, was
received by the great gathering of divines at the Convention of the
Evangelical Alliance in New York, in 1873, bears testimony to the same
fact. The author has also had the honor of being invited to
illustrate this mode of reconciliation to the students of two of the
most important theological colleges in America, in lectures afterwards
published and widely circulated.

The time is perhaps nearer than we anticipate when Natural Science and
Theology will unite in the conviction that the first chapter of
Genesis "stands alone among the traditions of mankind in the wonderful
simplicity and grandeur of its words," and that "the meaning of these
words is always a meaning ahead of science--not because it anticipates
the results of science, but because it is independent of them, and
runs as it were round the outer margin of all possible discovery."[1]

In the Appendix the reader will find several short essays on special
points collateral to the general subject, and important in the
solution of some of its difficulties, but which could not be
conveniently included in the text. More especially I would refer to
the summaries given in the Appendix of the present state of our
knowledge as to the origin of life, of species, and of man--topics not
discussed in much detail in the body of the work, both because of the
wide fields of controversy to which they lead, and because I have
treated of them somewhat fully in a previous work, "The Story of the
Earth and Man," in which the detailed history of life as disclosed by
science was the main subject in hand.

                                                  J. W. D.

_May, 1877._

CONTENTS.


  CHAPTER I.

  THE MYSTERY OF ORIGINS AND ITS SOLUTIONS.

  Reality of the Unseen.--Personality of God.--Possibility of a
  Revelation of Origins.--Turanian, Aryan, and Semitic Solutions
  of the Mystery.--The Abrahamic Genesis.--The Mosaic Genesis   Page 9


  CHAPTER II.

  OBJECTS AND NATURE OF A REVELATION OF ORIGINS.

  Objects to be Attained by a Revelation of Origins.--Its Method and
  Structure.--Vision of Creation.--Translation of the First Chapter of
  Genesis                                                           35


  CHAPTER III.

  OBJECTS AND NATURE OF A REVELATION OF ORIGINS
  (_continued_).

  Character of the Revelation and its Views of Nature.--Natural Law.--
  Progress and Development.--Purpose and Use.--Type or Pattern      70


  CHAPTER IV.

  THE BEGINNING.

  The Universe not eternal.--Its Creation.--The Heavens.--The Earth.--
  The Creator, Elohim.--The Beginning very Remote in Time           87


  CHAPTER V.

  THE DESOLATE VOID.

  Characteristics of Biblical Chaos.--The Primitive Deep.--The Divine
  Spirit.--The Breath of God.--Chaos in other Cosmogonies.--Chemical
  and Physical Conditions of the Primitive Chaos                   100


  CHAPTER VI.

  LIGHT AND CREATIVE DAYS.

  What is Implied in Cosmic Light.--Its Gradual Condensation.--Day and
  Night.--Days of Creation.--Their Nature and Length.--They are
  Olams, Æons or Time-worlds.--Objections to this View
  Answered.--Confirmations from Extraneous Sources.                115


  CHAPTER VII.

  THE ATMOSPHERE.

  Its Present Constitution.--Waters Above and Below.--The "Expanse"
  of Genesis not a Solid Arch.--Mythology of the Atmosphere.--
  Superstitions connected with it Opposed by the Bible.            157


  CHAPTER VIII.

  THE DRY LAND AND THE FIRST PLANTS.

  The Earth of the Bible is the Dry Land.--Its Elevation and Support
  above the Waters.--Structure of the Continents arranged from the
  first.--The First Vegetation.--Its Nature.--Introduction of Life.--
  Organization and Reproduction.--Objections considered.--Geological
  Indications.                                                     174


  CHAPTER IX.

  LUMINARIES.

  How Introduced.--What Implied in this.--Dominion of Existing Causes.
  --Astronomy of the Hebrews.--Not Connected with Astrology        199


  CHAPTER X.

  THE LOWER ANIMALS.

  The Sheretzim, or Swarmers.--Their Origin from the Waters.--The
  Great Reptiles.--Their Creation.--Coincidences with Geology.
  --Hypotheses of Evolution                                        211


  CHAPTER XI.

  THE HIGHER ANIMALS AND MAN.

  The Placental Mammals.--The Principal Groups of these.--Man, how
  Introduced.--His Early Condition.--His Relations to Nature       230


  CHAPTER XII.

  THE REST OF THE CREATOR.

  The Sabbath of Creation.--The Modern Period.--Its Early History.
  --The Fall and Antediluvian Man.--Postdiluvian Extension of Men  249


  CHAPTER XIII.

  UNITY AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN.

  Biblical Account of his Introduction and Early History.--Historical
  Testimony with respect to his Unity and Antiquity.--Testimony of
  Language                                                         263


  CHAPTER XIV.

  UNITY AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN (_continued_).

  Geological Evidence of Antiquity of Man.--General Conditions of
  Post-glacial and Modern Periods.--Remains of Man in Caverns, in
  River-gravels, etc.--Palæocosmic and Neocosmic Men               294


  CHAPTER XV.

  COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS.

  Geological Chronology.--Table of Succession of Life.--Points of
  Agreement of the Two Records.--Parallelism of Genesis and Physical
  Science with Reference to the Origin and Early History of the World.
  --Conclusion                                                     322


  APPENDICES.

  A.--True and False Evolution.                                    363

  B.--Evolution and Creation by Law.                               373

  C.--Modes of Creation.                                           377

  D.--Theories of Life.                                            383

  E.--Recent Facts as to the Antiquity of Man.                     386

  F.--Glacial Periods in Connection with Genesis.                  395

  G.--Chemistry of the Primeval Earth.                             400

  H.--Tannin and Bhemah.                                           405

  I.--Ancient Mythologies.                                         408

  K.--Assyrian and Egyptian Texts.                                 412

  L.--Species and Varieties in Connection with Evolution and the
      Unity of Man.                                                414


THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD.



CHAPTER I.

THE MYSTERY OF ORIGINS AND ITS SOLUTIONS.

     "The things that are seen are temporal."--PAUL.


Have we or can we have any certain solution of those two great
questions--Whence are all things? and Whither do all things tend? No
thinking man is content to live merely in a transitory present, ever
emerging out of darkness and ever returning thither again, without
knowing any thing of the origin and issue of the world and its
inhabitants. Yet it would seem that to-day men are as much in
uncertainty on these subjects as at any previous time. It even appears
as if all our added knowledge would only, for a time at least, deprive
us of the solutions to which we trusted, and give no others in their
room. Christians have been accustomed to rest on the cosmogony and
prophecy of the Bible; but we are now frankly told on all hands that
these are valueless, and that even ministers of religion more or less
"sacrifice their sincerity" in making them the basis of their
teachings. On the other hand, we are informed that nothing can be
discerned in the universe beyond matter and force, and that it is by a
purely material and spontaneous evolution that all things exist. But
when we ask as to the origin of matter and force, and the laws which
regulate them--as to the end to which their movement is tending, as to
the manner in which they have evolved the myriad forms of life and the
human intelligence itself--the only answer is that these are
"insoluble mysteries."

Are we, then, to fall back on the real or imagined revelations and
traditions of the past, and to endeavor to find in them some foothold
of assurance; or are we to wait till further progress in science may
have cleared up some of the present mysteries? Whatever may be said of
the former alternative, all honest students of science will unite with
me in the admission that the latter is hopeless. We need not seek to
belittle the magnificent triumphs of modern science. They have been
real and stupendous. But it is of their very nature to conduct us to
ultimate facts and laws of which science can give no explanation; and
the further we push our inquiries the more insuperably does the wall
of mystery rise before us. It is true we can furnish the materials for
philosophical speculations which may be built on scientific facts and
principles; but these are in their nature uncertain, and must
constantly change as knowledge advances. They can not solve for us the
great practical problems of our origin and destiny.

In these circumstances no apology is needed for a thorough and careful
inquiry into those foundations of religious belief which rest on the
idea of a revelation of origins and destinies made to man from
without, and on which we may build the superstructure of a rational
religion, giving guidance for the present and hope for the future. In
the following pages I propose to enter upon so much of this subject as
relates to the origin and earliest history of the world, in so far as
these are treated of in the Bible and in the traditions of the more
ancient nations; and this with reference to the present standpoint of
science in relation to these questions.

To discuss such questions at all, certain preliminary admissions are
necessary. These are: (1) The reality of an unseen universe, spiritual
rather than material in its nature. (2) The existence of a personal
God, or of a great Universal Will. (3) The possibility of
communication taking place between God and man. I do not propose to
attempt any proof of these positions, but it may be well to explain
what they mean.

(1) That the great machine for the dissipation of energy, in which we
exist, and which we call the universe, must have a correlative and
complement in the unseen, is a conclusion now forced upon physicists
by the necessities of the doctrine of the conservation of force. In
short, it seems that, unless we admit this conclusion, we can not
believe in the possible existence of the material universe itself, and
must sink into absolute nihilism. This doctrine is expressed by the
apostle Paul in the statement, "The things that are seen are temporal,
but the things that are not seen are eternal," and it has been ably
discussed by the authors of the remarkable work, "The Unseen
Universe." That this unseen world is spiritual--that is, not subject
to the same material laws with the visible universe--is also a fair
deduction from physical science, as well as a doctrine of Scripture. I
prefer the term spiritual to supernatural, because the first is the
term used in the Bible, and because the latter has had associated with
it ideas of the miraculous and abnormal, not implied at all in the
idea of the spiritual, which in some important senses may be more
natural than the material.

(2) The idea of a personal God implies not merely the existence of an
unknown absolute power, as Herbert Spencer seems to hold, or of "an
Eternal, not ourselves, that makes for righteousness," as Matthew
Arnold puts it, but of a Being of whom we can affirm will,
intelligence, feeling, self-consciousness, not certainly precisely as
they occur in us, but in a higher and more perfect form, of which our
own consciousness furnishes the type, or "image and shadow," as Moses
long ago phrased it. On the one hand, it is true that we can not fully
comprehend such a personal God, because not limited by the conditions
which limit us. On the other hand, it is clear that our intellect, as
constituted, can furnish us with no ultimate explanation of the
universe except in the action of such a primary personal will. In the
Bible the absolute personality of God is expressed by the title "I
am." His intimate relation to us is indicated by the expression, "In
him we live, and move, and have our being." His all-pervading essence
is stated as "the fullness of him that filleth all in all." His
relative personality is shadowed forth by the attribution to him of
love, anger, and other human feelings and sentiments, and by
presenting him in the endearing relation of the universal Father.

(3) With reference to the possibility of communication between God and
man, it may truly be said that such communication is not only
possible, but infinitely probable. God is not only near to us, but we
are in him, and, independently of the testimony of revelation, it has
been felt by all classes of men, from the rudest and most primitive
savages up to our great English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, that if
there is a God, he can not be excluded from communion with his
intelligent creatures, either directly or through the medium of
ministering spirits.[2] Farther, placed as man is in the midst of
complex and to him inexplicable phenomena, involved in a conflict of
good and evil, happiness and misery, to which the wisest and the
greatest minds have found no issue, subject to be degraded by low
passions and tempted to great extremes of evil, and himself weak,
impulsive, and vacillating, there seems the most urgent need for
divine communication. It may be said that these are conflicts and
problems which God has left man to decide and solve for himself by his
own reason. But when we consider how slow this process is, and how
imperfect even now, after the experience of ages, we seem to need some
intervention that shall stimulate the human mind, and impel it forward
with greater rapidity. Farther, it would appear only right that an
intelligent and accountable being, placed in a world like this, should
have some explanation of his origin and destiny given him at first,
and that, if he should perchance go astray, a helping hand should be
extended to him.

Practically it is an historical fact that all the great impulses given
to humanity have been by men claiming divine guidance or inspiration,
and professing to bring light and truth from the unseen world. It
would be too much to say that all these prophets and reformers have
been inspired of heaven; but scarcely too much to say that they have
either received a message of God, or have been permitted to transmit
to our world messages for weal or woe from powers without in
subordination to him. Farther, we shall have reason in the sequel to
see that in far back prehistoric times there must have been impulses
given to mankind, and revelations made to them, as potent as those
which have acted in later historic periods. In Holy Scripture the Word
of God is represented as "enlightening every man;[3]" and with
reference to our present subject we are told that "by faith we
understand that the ages of the world were constituted by the Word of
God, so that the visible things were not made of those which
appear."[4] In other words, that the will of God has been active and
operative as the sole cause throughout all ages of the world's
creation and history, and that the visible universe is not a mere
product of its own phenomena. We may call this faith, if we please, an
intuition or instinct, a God-given gift, or a product of our own
thought acting on evidence afforded by the outer world; but in any
case it seems to be the sole possible solution of the mystery of
origins.

These points being premised, we are in a position to inquire as to the
teaching of our own Holy Scriptures, and in this inquiry we can easily
take along with them all other revelations, pretended or true, that
deal with our subject.

Max Müller, in his lectures on the Science of Religion, rejects the
ordinary division into natural and revealed, and adopts a threefold
grouping, corresponding to the great division of languages into
Turanian, Aryan, and Semitic. With some modification and explanation,
this classification will serve well our present purpose. As to natural
and revealed religions, if we regard our own as revealed, we must
admit an element of revelation in all others as well. According to the
Hebrew Scriptures revelation began in Eden, and was continued more or
less in all successive ages up to the apostolic times. Consequently
the earlier revelations of the antediluvian and postdiluvian times
must have been the common property of all races, and must have been
associated with whatever elements of natural religion they had. When,
therefore, we call our religion distinctively a revealed one, we must
admit that traces of the same revelation may be found in all others.
On the other hand, when we characterize our religion as Hebrew or
Semitic, we must bear in mind that in its earlier stages it was not so
limited; but that, if as old as it professes to be, it must include a
substratum common to it with the old religions of the Turanians and
Aryans. Neglect of these very simple considerations often leads to
great confusion in the minds both of Christians and unbelievers, as to
the relation of Christianity to heathenism, and especially to the
older and more primitive forms of heathenism.

The Turanian stock, of which the Mongolian peoples of Northern Asia
may be taken as the type, includes also the American races, and the
oldest historical populations of Western Asia and of Europe; and they
are the peoples who, in their physical features and their art
tendencies, most nearly resemble the prehistoric men of the caves and
gravels. They largely consist of the populations which the Bible
affiliates with Ham. They are remarkable for their permanent and
stationary forms of civilization or barbarism, and for the languages
least developed in grammatical structure. These people had and still
have traditions of the creation and early history of man similar to
those in the earlier Biblical books; but the connection of their
religions with that of the Bible breaks off from the time of Abraham;
and the earlier portions of revelation which they possessed became
disintegrated into a polytheism which takes very largely the form of
animism, or of attributing some special spiritual indwelling to all
natural objects, and also that of worship of ancestors and heroes. The
portion of primitive theological belief to which they have clung most
persistently is the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, which in
all their religious beliefs occupies a prominent place, and has always
been connected with special attention to rites of sepulture and
monuments to the dead. Their version of the revelation of creation
appears most distinctly in the sacred book of the Quichés of Central
America, and in the creation myths of the Mexicans, Iroquois,
Algonquins, and other North American tribes; and it has been handed
down to us through the Semitic Assyrians from the ancient
Chaldæo-turanian population of the valley of the Euphrates.

The Aryan races have been remarkable for their changeable and
versatile character. Their religious ideas in the most primitive times
appear to have been not dissimilar from those of the Turanians; and
the Indians, Persians, Greeks, Scandinavians, and Celts have all gone
some length in developing and modifying these, apparently by purely
human imaginative and intellectual materials. But all these
developments were defective in a moral point of view, and had lost the
stability and rational basis which proceed from monotheism. Hence they
have given way before other and higher faiths; and at this day the
more advanced nations of the Aryan, or in Scriptural language the
Japhetic stock, have adopted the Semitic faith; and, as Noah long ago
predicted, "dwell in the tents of Shem." No indigenous account of the
genesis of things remains among the Aryan races, with the exception of
that in the Avesta, and in some ancient Hindoo hymns, and these are
merely variations of the Turanian or Semitic cosmogony. God has given
to the Aryans no special revelations of his will, and they would have
been left to grope for themselves along the paths of science and
philosophy, but for the advent among them of the prophets of "Jehovah
the God of Shem."

It is to the Semitic race that God has been most liberal in his gift
of inspiration. Gathering up and treasuring the old common
inheritance of religion, and eliminating from it the accretions of
superstition, the children of Abraham at one time stood alone, or
almost alone, as adherents of a belief in one God the Creator. Their
theology was added to from age to age by a succession of prophets, all
working in one line of development, till it culminated in the
appearance of Jesus Christ, and then proceeded to expand itself over
the other races. Among them it has undergone two remarkable phases of
retrograde development--the one in Mohammedanism, which carries it
back to a resemblance to its own earlier patriarchal stage, the other
in Roman and Greek ecclesiasticism, which have taken it back to the
Levitical system, along with a strong color of paganism. Still its
original documents survive, and retain their hold on large portions of
the more enlightened Aryan nations, while through their means these
documents have entered on a new career of conquest among the Semites
and Turanians. They are, however, it must be admitted, among the Aryan
races of Europe, growing in a somewhat uncongenial soil; partly
because of the materialistic organization of these races, and partly
because of the abundant remains of heathenism which still linger among
them; and it is possible that they may not realize their full triumphs
over humanity till the Semitic races return to the position of
Abraham, and erect again in the world the standard of monotheistic
faith, under the auspices of a purified Christianity.

It follows from this hasty survey that it is the Semitic solution of
the question of origins, as contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, that
mainly concerns us; and in the first place we must consider the
foundation and historical development of this solution, as many
misconceptions prevail on these points. We may discuss these subjects
under the heads of the Abrahamic Genesis and the Mosaic Genesis, and
may in a subsequent chapter consider the results of these in the
Genesis of the later Scripture writers.


THE ABRAHAMIC GENESIS.

It has been a favorite theory with some learned men that the earlier
parts of the book of Genesis existed as ancient documents even in the
time of Moses, and were incorporated by him in his work, and attempts
have been made to separate, on various grounds, the older from the
newer portions. Until lately, however, these attempts have been
altogether conjectural and destitute of any positive basis of
archæological fact. A new and interesting aspect has been given to
them by the recent readings of the inscriptions on clay tablets found
at Nineveh, and to which especial attention has been given by the late
Mr. G. Smith, of the Archæological Department of the British Museum.

Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, one of the kings known to the Greeks by
the name of Sardanapalus, reigned at Nineveh about B.C. 673. He was a
grandson of the Biblical Sennacherib, and son of Esarhaddon, and it
seems that he had inherited from his fathers a library of Chaldean and
Assyrian literature, written not on perishable paper or parchment, but
on tablets of clay, and containing much ancient lore of the nations
inhabiting the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates. Assurbanipal,
living when the Assyrian empire had attained to the acme of its
greatness, had leisure to become a greater patron of learning than any
preceding king. His scribes ransacked the record chambers of the
oldest temples in the world; and Babel, Erech, Accad, and Ur had to
yield up their treasures of history and theology to diligent copyists,
who transcribed them in beautiful arrow-head characters on new clay
tablets, and deposited them in the library of the great king. It
would appear that, at the same time, these documents were edited,
archaic forms of expression translated, and lacunæ caused by decay or
fracture repaired. They were also inscribed with legends stating the
sources whence they had been derived.

The empire of Assyria went down in blood, and its palaces were
destroyed with fire, but the imperishable clay tablets which had
formed the treasure of their libraries remained, more or less broken
it is true, among the ruins. Exhumed by Layard and Smith, they are now
among the collections of the British Museum, and their decipherment is
throwing a new and strange light on the cosmogony and religions of the
early East. Though the date of the writing of these tablets is
comparatively modern, being about the time of the later kings of
Judah, the original records from which they were transcribed profess
to have been very ancient--some of them about 1600 years before the
time of Assurbanipal, so that they go back to a time anterior to that
of the early Hebrew patriarchs. Their genuineness has been endorsed,
in one case, by the discovery by Mr. Loftus, in the city of Senkereh,
of an apparent original, bearing date about 1600 years before Christ,
and other inscriptions of equal or greater antiquity have been found
in the ruins of Ur, on the Euphrates. Nor does there seem any reason
to doubt that the scribes of Assurbanipal faithfully transcribed the
oldest records extant in their time. Their care and diligence are also
shown by the fact that where different versions of these records
existed in different cities, they have made copies of these variant
manuscripts, instead of attempting to reduce them to one text. The
subjects treated of in the Nineveh tablets are very various, but those
that concern our present purpose are the documents relating to the
creation, the fall of man, and the deluge, of which considerable
portions have been recovered, and have been translated by Mr. Smith.

These documents carry us back to a time when the Turanian religions
had not yet been separated from the Semitic. The early Chaldeans,
termed Cushites in the Bible, and who under Nimrod seem to have
established the first empire in that region, are now known to have
been Turanian; and among them apparently arose at a very early period
a literature and a mythology. The Chaldeans were politically
subjugated by the Semitic Assyrians, but they retained their religious
predominance; and until a comparatively late period existed as a
learned and priestly caste. To these primitive _Chasdim_ were
undoubtedly due the creation legends collected by the scribes of
Assurbanipal. They were obtained in the old Chaldean cities, in the
temples under the guardianship of Chaldean priests; and their date
carries them back to a time anterior to the Assyrian conquest, and in
which Chaldean kings still reigned. Here, then, we have an important
connecting link between the cosmogonies of the Turanian and Semitic
races; and leaving out of sight for the present the legends of the
deluge and other matters allied to it, we may inquire as to the nature
and contents of the Assyrian and Chaldean record of creation.

The Assyrian Genesis is similar in order and arrangement to that in
our own Bible, and gives the same general order of the creative work.
Its days, however, of creation, as indeed there is good internal
evidence to prove those of Moses also are, seem to be periods or ages.
It treats of the creation of gods, as well as of the universe, and
thus introduces a polytheistic system; and it seems to recognize, like
the Avesta, a primitive principle of evil, presiding over chaos, and
subsequently introducing evil among men. These points may be
illustrated by an extract from Mr. Smith's translation. It relates to
the earlier part of the work:

  "When above were not raised the heavens,
  And below on the earth a plant had not grown up
  The deep also had not broken up its boundaries
  Chaos (or water) Tiamat (the sea or abyss) was the producing mother
     of them all
  These waters at the beginning were ordained
  But a tree had not grown a flower had not unfolded
  When the gods had not sprung up any one of them
  A plant had not grown and order did not exist
  Were made also the great gods
  The gods Lahma and Lahamu they caused to come * * *
  And they grew * * *
  The gods Sar and Kisar were made
  A course of days and a long time passed
  The god Anu * * *
  The gods Sar and * * *"

Here the first existences are Chaos (Mummu, or confusion) and Tiamat,
which is the Thalatth of Berosus, representing the sea or primitive
abyss, but also recognized as a female deity or first mother. Then we
have Lahma and Lahamu, which represent power or motion in nature, and
are the equivalents of the Divine Spirit moving on the face of the
waters in our Genesis. Next we have the production of Sar or Iloar and
Kisar, representing the expanse or firmament. Sar is supposed to be
the god Assur of the Assyrians, a great weather god, and after whom
their nation and its founder were named. The next process is the
creation of the heaven and the earth, represented by Anu and Anatu.
Anu was always one of the greater gods, and was identified with the
higher or starry heavens. In succeeding tablets to this we find Bel or
Belus introduced, as the agent in the creation of animals and of men;
and he is the true Demiurgus or Mediator of the Assyrian system. Next
we have the introduction of Hea or Saturn, who is the equivalent of
the Biblical Adam, and of Ishtar, mother of men, who is the Isba or
Eve of Genesis. The rest of this legend evidently relates to deified
men, among whom are Merodach, Nebo, and other heroes.

The first remark that we may make on this Assyrian Genesis is that,
while it resembles generally the Mosaic account of creation, it also
strongly resembles the old cosmogonies of the Egyptians and Persians,
and those of the widely scattered Turanians of Northern Asia and of
America. As an extreme illustration of this, and to obviate the
necessity of digression at this point of our inquiry, I introduce here
some extracts from the Popul Vuh, or sacred book of the Quiché Indians
of Central America, an undoubted product of prehistoric religion in
the western continent.[5]

     "And the heaven was formed, and all the signs thereof set in
     their angle and alignment, and its boundaries fixed toward
     the four winds by the Creator and Former, and Mother and
     Father of life and existence--he by whom all move and
     breathe, the Father and Cherisher of the peace of nations
     and of the civilization of his people--he whose wisdom has
     projected the excellence of all that is on the earth or in
     the lakes or in the sea."

     "Behold the first word and the first discourse. There was
     yet no man nor any animal, * * * nothing was but the
     firmament. The face of the earth had not yet appeared over
     the peaceful sea, and all the space of heaven * * * nothing
     but immobility and silence in the night."

     "Alone also the Creator, the Former, the Dominator, the
     Feathered Serpent--those that engender, those that give
     being--they are upon the water like a growing light. They
     are enveloped in green and blue, and therefore their name is
     Gucumatz."[6]

     "Lo now how the heavens exist, how exists also the Heart of
     Heaven; such is the name of God. It is thus that he is
     called. And they spake, they consulted together and
     meditated; they mingled their words and their opinions."

     "And the creation [of the earth] was verily after this wise.
     Earth, they said, and on the instant it was formed; like a
     cloud or a fog was its beginning. Then the mountains rose
     over the water like great fishes; in an instant the
     mountains and the plains were visible, and the cypress and
     the pine appeared. Then was the Gucumatz filled with joy,
     crying out: Blessed be thy coming, O Heart of Heaven,
     Hurakan, Thunderbolt. Our work and our labor has
     accomplished its end."

This corresponds to the work of the first four creative days; and next
details are given as to the introduction of animals, with which,
however, the Creator is represented as dissatisfied, because they
could not know or invoke the Creator. They are therefore condemned to
be subject to be devoured one of another. Again there is a council in
heaven, and the gods determine to make man. But he also is imperfect,
for he has speech without intelligence: so he is condemned to be
destroyed by water. A new council is held, and a second race of men
produced; but this fails in the capacity for religious worship--"they
forgot the Heart of Heaven." These were partly destroyed by fire and
partly converted into apes. Lastly another council is held, and
perfect men created. Then follows a remarkable series of stories
relating to the early history and migrations of men.

It is known that similar creation myths existed among the Mexicans
and other early civilized nations of America, and in ruder and more
grotesque forms even among the semi-barbarous and hunter tribes. Their
connection with the ancient Semitic and Turanian revelations of Asia
is unquestionable.

We have thus in the Assyrian Genesis a relic of early religious belief
belonging to a period when such widely separated stocks as the
Assyrian and American were still one: to a period, therefore,
presumably long anterior to that of Moses. Yet at this very early
period the central portions at least of the Turanian race had already
devised some means of recording their traditions in writing--probably
the arrow-head writing, afterwards used by the Assyrians, had already
been invented. Again, at this early period a complex polytheism had
already sprung up, and this was connected with cosmological ideas,
inasmuch as the primitive abyss, the firmament, the starry heavens,
the principle of life, were all subordinate gods; and so were also
some of the earliest of the patriarchs of the human race. It is
possible, however, that this was among the early Chaldeans an exoteric
representation for the vulgar, and that the priestly caste may have
understood it in a monotheistic sense. In any case, the idea of a
Supreme Creator remains behind the whole. Farther, in the early
Chaldean record we have a more detailed and expanded document than
that of the Hebrew Genesis, probably intended for the popular ear, and
to include as much as possible of the current mythology. As an
example, I quote the following in relation to the creation of the
moon, being apparently a part of the narrative of that creative period
corresponding with the fourth day of Genesis:

  "In its mass [that is, of the lower chaos] he made a boiling,
  The God Uru [the moon] he caused to rise out, the night he
     overshadowed.
  To fix it also for the light of the night until the shining of
     the day,
  That the month might not be broken and in its amount be regular.
  At the beginning of the month at the rising of the night,
  His horns are breaking through to shine in the heavens.
  On the seventh day to a circle he begins to swell,
  And stretches toward the dawn farther."

We now come to the historical connection of all this with Abraham and
with the Hebrew Scriptures. The early life of the "Father of the
Faithful" belongs to the time when Turanian and Semitic elements were
mingled in the Euphratean valley. Himself of the stock of Shem, he
dwelt in Ur of the Chaldees, a city in whose ruins, now known by the
name of Mugheir, Chaldean inscriptions have been found of a date
anterior to that of the patriarch. In the time of Abraham a
polytheistic religion already existed in Ur, for we are told that his
father "served other gods." Further, the legends of the creation and
the deluge, and the antediluvian age, with the history of Nimrod and
other postdiluvian heroes, existed in a written form; and, strange
though this may seem, there can be little doubt that Abraham, before
he left Ur of the Chaldees, had read the same creation legends that
have so recently been translated and published by Mr. Smith. But
Abraham's relation to these was of a peculiar kind. With a spiritual
enlightenment beyond that of his age, he dissented from the Turanian
animism and polytheism, and maintained that pure and spiritual
monotheism which, according to the Bible, had been the original faith
of the sons of Noah. But he was overborne by the tendencies of his
time, and probably by the royal and priestly influence then dominant
in Chaldea, and he went forth from his native land in search of a
country where he might have freedom to worship God. It is thus that
Abraham appears as the earliest reformer, the first of those martyrs
of conscience who fear not to differ from the majority, the father and
prototype of the faithful of every age, and the earliest apostle of
the monotheistic faith which still reigns among all the higher races
of men.

Did Abraham take with him in his pilgrimage the records of his people?
It is scarcely possible to doubt that he did, and this probably in a
written form, but purified from the polytheism and inane imaginations
accreted upon them; or perhaps he had access to still older and more
primitive records anterior to the rise of the Turanian superstitions.
In any case we may safely infer that Abraham and his tribe carried
with them the substance of all that part of Genesis which contains the
history of the world up to his time, and that this would be a precious
heir-loom of his family, until it was edited and incorporated in the
Pentateuch by his great descendant Moses. It seems plain, therefore,
that the original prophet or seer to whom the narrative of creation
was revealed lived before Abraham, but we need not doubt that the
latter had the benefit of divine guidance in his noble stand against
the idolatry of his age, and in his selection of the documents on
which his own theology was based. These considerations help us to
understand the persistence of Hebrew monotheism in the presence of the
idolatries of Canaan and Egypt, since these were closely allied to the
Chaldean system against which Abraham had protested. They also explain
the recognition by Abraham, as co-religionists, of such monotheistic
personages as Melchisedec, king of Salem. They further illustrate the
nature of the religious basis in his people's beliefs on which Moses
had to work, and on which he founded his theocratic system.

Before leaving this part of the subject, I would observe that the view
above given; while it explains the agreement between the Hebrew
Genesis and other ancient religious beliefs, is in strict accordance
with the teachings of Genesis itself. The history given there implies
monotheism and knowledge of God as the Creator and Redeemer, in
antediluvian and early postdiluvian times, a decadence from this into
a systematic polytheism at a very early date, the protest and dissent
of Abraham, his call of God to be the upholder of a purer faith, and
the maintenance of that faith by his descendants. Besides this, any
careful reader of Genesis and of the book of Job, which, whatever its
origin, must be more ancient than the Mosaic law, will readily
discover indications that Abraham and the patriarchs were in the
possession of documents and traditions of the same purport with those
in the early chapters of Genesis, and that these were to them their
only sacred literature. The reader of the Pentateuch must carry this
idea with him, if he would have any clear conception of the unity and
symmetry of these remarkable books.


THE MOSAIC GENESIS.

In the period of 400 years intervening between Abraham's departure
from Ur and the exodus of Israel from Egypt, no great prophetic mind,
like that of the Father of the Faithful, appeared among the Hebrews.
But then arose Moses, the greatest figure in all antiquity before the
advent of Christ, and who was destined to give permanence and
world-wide prevalence to the faith for which Abraham had sacrificed so
much. Under the leadership of Moses, the Abrahamidæ, now reduced to
the condition of a serf population, emancipated themselves from
Egyptian bondage, and, after forty years of wandering desert life,
settled themselves permanently on the hills and in the valleys of
Palestine. The voice of the ruling race, indistinctly conveyed to us
from that distant antiquity, maintains that the fugitive slaves were
an abject and contemptible herd; but the leader of the exodus informs
us that, though cruelly trodden down by a haughty despot, they were of
noble parentage, the heirs of high hopes and promises. Their migration
is certainly the most remarkable national movement in the world's
history--remarkable, not merely in its events and immediate
circumstances, but in its remote political, literary, and moral
results. The rulers of Egypt, polished, enlightened, and practical
men, were yet the devotees of a complicated system of hero and animal
worship, like that from which Abraham dissented, and derived in great
part from the "animism" which caused some of the oldest nations of the
world to associate a spiritual indwelling with the natural objects
surrounding them; or, if they had ceased to believe in this, they had
sunk into a materialistic devotion to the good things of the present
world, combined with a superstitious belief in the efficacy of
priestly absolution.

The slaves, leaving all this behind them, rose in their religious
opinions to the pure and spiritual monotheism of the great father of
their race; and their leader presented to them a law unequalled up to
our time in its union of justice, patriotism, and benevolence, and
established among them, for the first time in the world's history, a
free constitutional republic. Nor is this all; unexampled though such
results are elsewhere in the case of serfs suddenly emancipated. The
Hebrew lawgiver has interwoven his institutions in a great historical
composition, including the grand and simple cosmogony of the
patriarchs, a detailed account of the affiliation and ethnological
relations of the races of men, and a narrative of the fortunes of his
own people; intimating not only that they were a favored and chosen
race, but that of them was to arise a great Deliverer, who would bless
all nations with pardon and with peace,[7] and would solve once for
all those great problems of the relations of man to God and the unseen
world, which in the time of Moses as in our own were the most
momentous of all, and gave to questions of origins all their practical
value.

The lawgiver passed to his rest. His laws and literature, surviving
through many vicissitudes, have produced in each succeeding age a new
harvest of poetry and history, leavened with their own spirit. In the
mean time the learning and the superstition of Egypt faded from the
eyes of men. The splendid political and military organizations of
Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Macedon arose and crumbled into dust.
The wonderful literature of Greece blazed forth and expired. That of
Rome, a reflex and copy of the former, had reached its culminating
point; and no prophet had arisen among any of these Gentile nations to
teach them the truth of God. The world, with all its national
liberties crushed out, its religion and its philosophy corrupted and
enfeebled to the last degree by an endless succession of borrowings
and intermixtures, lay prostrate under the iron heel of Rome. Then
appeared among the now obscure remnant of Israel, one who announced
himself as the Prophet like unto Moses, promised of old; but a prophet
whose mission it was to redeem not Israel only, but the whole world,
and to make all who will believe, children of faithful Abraham.
Adopting the whole of the sacred literature of the Hebrews, and
proving his mission by its words, he sent forth a few plain men to
write its closing books, and to plant it on the ruins of all the
time-honored beliefs of the nations--beliefs supported by a splendid
and highly organized priestly system and by despotic power, and gilded
by all the highest efforts of poetry and art.

The story is a very familiar one; but it is marvellous beyond all
others. Nor is the modern history of the Bible less wonderful. Exhumed
from the rubbish of the Middle Ages, it has entered on a new career of
victory. It has stimulated the mind of modern Europe to all its
highest efforts, and has been the charter of its civil and religious
liberties. Its wondrous revelation of all that man most desires to
know, in the past, in the present, and in his future destinies, has
gone home to the hearts of men in all ranks of society and in all
countries. In many great nations it is the only rule of religious
faith. In every civilized country it is the basis of all that is most
valuable in religion. Where it has been withheld from the people,
civilization in its highest aspects has languished, and superstition,
priestcraft, and tyranny have held their ground or have perished under
the assaults of a heartless and inhuman infidelity. Where it has been
a household book, education has necessarily flourished, liberty has
taken root, and the higher nature of man has been developed to the
full. Driven from many other countries by tyrannical interference with
liberty of thought and discussion, or by a short-sighted
ecclesiasticism, it has taken up its special abode with the greatest
commercial nations of our time; and, scattered by their agency
broadcast over the world, it is read by every nation under heaven in
its own tongue, and is slowly but surely preparing the way for wider
and greater changes than any that have heretofore resulted from its
influence. Explain it as we may, the Bible is a great literary
miracle; and no amount of inspiration or authority that can be
claimed for it is more strange or incredible than the actual history
of the book. Yet no book has ever thrown itself into so decided
antagonism with all the great forces of evil in the world. Tyranny
hates it, because the Bible so strongly maintains the individual value
and rights of man as man. The spirit of caste dislikes it for the same
reason. Anarchical license, on the other hand, finds nothing but
discouragement in it. Priestcraft gnashes its teeth at it, as the very
embodiment of private judgment in religion, and because it so
scornfully ignores human authority in matters of conscience, and human
intervention between man and his Maker. Skepticism sneers at it,
because it requires faith and humility, and threatens ruin to the
unbeliever. It launches its thunders against every form of violence or
fraud or allurement that seeks to profit by wrong or to pander to the
vices of mankind; all these consequently are its foes. On the other
hand, by its uncompromising stand with reference to certain scientific
and historical facts, it has appeared to oppose the progress of
thought and speculation; though, as we shall see, it has been unfairly
accused in this last respect.

With its antagonism to the evil that is in the world we have at
present nothing to do, except to caution the student of this venerable
literature against the prejudices which interested and unscrupulous
foes seek to cultivate. Its doctrine of the origin of man and of the
world, and the relation of this to modern scientific and historical
results, is that which now claims our attention; and this more
especially in the relation which the Mosaic cosmogony, considered as
an early revelation from God, may be found to bear to the facts which
modern scientific research has elicited from the universe itself. The
aspects in which apparent conflicts present themselves are threefold.
At one time it was not unusual to impugn the historical accuracy of
the Pentateuch on the evidence of the Greek historians; and on many
points scarcely any corroborative evidence could be cited in favor of
the Hebrew writers. In our own time much of this difficulty has been
removed, and an immense amount of learned research has been reduced to
waste paper, by the circumstance that the monuments of Egypt and
Assyria have risen up to bear testimony in favor of the Bible; and
scarcely any sane man now doubts the value of the Hebrew history. The
battle-ground has in consequence been shifted farther back, to points
concerning the affiliation of the races of men, the absolute antiquity
of man's residence on the earth, and the condition of prehistoric men;
questions on which we can scarcely expect to find, at least for a long
time, any decisive monumental or scientific evidence. Secondly, the
Bible commits itself to certain cosmological doctrines and statements
respecting the system of nature, and details of that system, more or
less approaching to the domain which geology occupies in its
investigations of the past history of the earth; and at every stage in
the progress of modern science, independently of the mischief done by
smatterers and skeptics, earnest bigotry on the one hand, and earnest
scientific enthusiasm on the other, have come into collision. One
stumbling-block after another has, it is true, been removed by mutual
concession and farther enlightenment, and by the removal of false
traditional interpretations of the sacred records, as well as by
farther discoveries in relation to nature. But the field of conflict
has thereby apparently only changed; and we still have some Christians
in consequence regarding the revelations of natural science with
suspicion, and some scientific men cherishing a sullen resentment
against what they regard as an intolerant intermeddling of theology
with the domain of legitimate investigation. Lastly, the great growth
of physical science, and the tendency to take partial views of the
universe as if it were comprehended in mere matter and force, with
similarly partial views of the doctrines of continuity and the
conservation of forces, along with the growth of a belief in
spontaneous evolution as a philosophical dogma, have placed many
scientific minds in a position which makes them treat the whole
question of the origin and destiny of man and of the world with
absolute indifference.

There can nevertheless be no question that the whole subject is at the
present moment in a more satisfactory state than ever previously; that
much has been done for the solution of difficulties; that many
theologians admit the great service which in many cases science has
rendered to the interpretation of the Bible, and that most naturalists
feel themselves free from undue trammels. Above all, there is a very
general disposition to admit the distinctness and independence of the
fields of revelation and natural science, the possibility of their
arriving at some of the same truths, though in very different ways,
and the folly of expecting them fully and manifestly to agree in the
present state of our information. The literature of this kind of
natural history has also become very extensive, and there are few
persons who do not at least know that there are methods of reconciling
the cosmogony of Moses with that obtained from the study of nature.
For this very reason the time is favorable for an unprejudiced
discussion of the questions involved; and for presenting on the one
hand to naturalists a summary of what the Bible does actually teach
respecting the early history of the earth and man, and on the other to
those whose studies lie in the book which they regard as the Word of
God, rather than in the material universe which they regard as his
work, a view of the points in which the teaching of the Bible comes
into contact with natural science at its present stage of progress.
These are the ends which I propose to myself in the following pages,
and which I shall endeavor to pursue in a spirit of fair and truthful
investigation; having regard on the one hand to the claims and
influence of the venerable Book of God, and on the other to the rights
and legitimate results of modern scientific inquiry.

The plan which I have proposed to myself in this part of my subject
is to take the statements of Genesis in their order, and consider what
they import, and how they appear to harmonize with what we know from
other sources. This will occupy some space, but it will save time in
dealing with the remaining parts of the subject. Before entering upon
it, I propose to devote one chapter to the answers to three questions
which concern the whole doctrine of revealed religion, whether
Semitic, Turanian, or Aryan. These are: (1) _Why_ the origin of things
should be revealed; (2) _How_ it could be revealed; and (3) _What_
would require to be revealed in order to form the basis of a rational
theism.



CHAPTER II.

OBJECTS AND NATURE OF A REVELATION OF ORIGINS.


     "There are two books from which I collect my divinity;
     besides that written one of God, another of his servant
     nature--that universal and public manuscript that lies
     expansed unto the eyes of all."--SIR T. BROWNE.


There are some questions, simple enough in themselves, respecting the
general character and object of the references to nature and creation
in the Scriptures, which yet are so variously and vaguely answered
that they deserve some consideration before entering on the detailed
study of the subject. These are: (1) The object of the introduction of
such subjects into the Hebrew sacred books--the _why_ of the
revelation of origins. (2) The origin, character, and structure of the
narrative of creation and other cosmological statements in those
books--the _how_ of the revelation. (3) The character of the Biblical
cosmogony, and general views of nature to which it leads--the _what_
of the revelation.

(1) _The Object of the Introduction of a Cosmogony in the
Bible._--Man, even in his rudest and most uncivilized state, does not
limit his mental vision to his daily wants. He desires to live not
merely in the present, but in the future also and the past. This is a
psychological peculiarity which, as much as any other, marks his
separation from the lower animals, and which in his utmost degradation
he never wholly loses. Whatever may be fancied as to imagined
prehistoric nations, it is certain that no people now existing, or
historically known to us, is so rude as to be destitute of some hopes
or fears in reference to the future, some traditions as to the distant
past. Every religious system that has had any influence over the human
mind has included such ideas. Nor are we to regard this as an
accident. It depends on fixed principles in our constitution, which
crave as their proper aliment such information; and if it can not be
obtained, the mind, rather than want it, invents for itself. We might
infer from this very circumstance that a true religion, emanating from
the Creator, would supply this craving; and might content ourselves
with affirming that, on this ground alone, it behooved revelation to
have a cosmogony.

But the religion of the Hebrews especially required to be explicit as
to the origin of the earth and all things therein. Its peculiar dogma
is that of one only God, the Creator, requiring the sole homage of his
creatures. The heathen for the most part acknowledged in some form a
supreme god, but they also gave divine honors to subordinate gods, to
deceased ancestors and heroes, and to natural phenomena, in such a
manner as practically to obscure their ideas of the Creator, or
altogether to set aside his worship. The influence of such idolatry
was the chief antagonism which the Hebrew monotheism had to encounter;
and we learn from the history of the nation how often the worshippers
of Jehovah were led astray by its allurements. To guard against this
danger, it was absolutely necessary that no place should be left for
the introduction of polytheism, by placing the whole work of creation
and providence under the sole jurisdiction of the One God. Moses
consequently takes strong ground on these points. He first insists on
the creation of all things by the fiat of the Supreme. Next he
specifies the elaboration and arrangement of all the powers of
inanimate nature, and the introduction of every form of organic
existence, as the work of the same First Cause. Lastly, he insists on
the creation of a primal human pair, and on the descent from them of
all the branches of the human race, including of course those
ancestors and magnates who up to his time had been honored with
apotheosis; and on the same principle he explains the golden age of
Eden, the fall, the cherubic emblems, the deluge, and other facts in
human history interwoven by the heathen with their idolatries. He thus
grasps the whole material of ancient idolatry, reduces it within the
compass of monotheism, and shows its relation to the one true
primitive religion, which was that not only of the Hebrews, but of
right that of the whole world, whose prevailing polytheism consisted
in perversions of its truth or unity. For such reasons the early
chapters of Genesis are so far from being of the character of
digressions from the scope and intention of the book, that they form a
substratum of doctrine absolutely essential to the Hebrew faith, and
equally so to its development in Christianity.

The references to nature in the Bible, however, and especially in its
poetical books, far exceed the absolute requirements of the reasons
above stated; and this leads to another and very interesting view,
namely, the tendency of monotheism to the development of truthful and
exalted ideas of nature. The Hebrew theology allowed no attempt at
visible representations of the Creator or of his works for purposes of
worship. It thus to a great extent prevented that connection of
imitative art with religion which flourished in heathen antiquity, and
has been introduced into certain forms of Christianity. But it
cultivated the higher arts of poetry and song, and taught them to draw
their inspiration from nature as the only visible revelation of Deity.
Hence the growth of a healthy "physico-theology," excluding all
idolatry of natural phenomena, and all superstitious dread of them as
independent powers, but inviting to their examination as
manifestations of God, and leading to conceptions of the unity of plan
in the cosmos, of which polytheism, even in its highest literary
efforts, was quite incapable. In the same manner the Bible has always
proved itself an active stimulant of natural science, connecting such
studies, as it does, with our higher religious sentiments; while
polytheism and materialism have acted as repressive influences, the
one because it obscures the unity of nature, the other because, in
robbing it of its presiding Divinity, it gives a cold and repulsive,
corpse-like aspect, chilling to the imagination, and incapable of
attracting the general mind.

Naturalists should not forget their obligations to the Bible in this
respect, and should on this very ground prefer its teachings to those
of modern pantheism and positivism, and still more to those of mere
priestly authority. Very few minds are content with simple
materialism, and those who must have a God, if they do not recognize
the Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures as the Creator and Supreme Ruler
of the universe, are too likely to seek for him in the dimness of
human authority and tradition, or of pantheistic philosophy; both of
them more akin to ancient heathenism than to modern civilization, and
in their ultimate tendencies, if not in their immediate consequences,
quite as hostile to progress in science as to evangelical
Christianity.

Every student of human nature is aware of the influence in favor of
the appreciation of natural beauty and sublimity which the Bible
impresses on those who are deeply imbued with its teaching; even where
that same teaching has induced what may be regarded as a puritanical
dislike of imitative art, at least in its religious aspects. On the
other hand, naturalists can not refuse to acknowledge the surpassing
majesty of the views of nature presented in the Bible. No one has
expressed this better than Humboldt: "It is characteristic of the
poetry of the Hebrews that, as a reflex of monotheism, it always
embraces the universe in its unity, comprising both terrestrial life
and the luminous realms of space; it dwells but rarely on the
individuality of phenomena, preferring the contemplation of great
masses. The Hebrew poet does not depict nature as a self-dependent
object, glorious in its individual beauty, but always as in relation
or subjection to a higher spiritual power. Nature is to him a work of
creation and order--the living expression of the omnipresence of the
Divinity in the visible world." In reference to the 104th Psalm, which
may be viewed as a poetical version of the narrative of creation in
Genesis, the same great writer remarks: "We are astonished to find in
a lyrical poem of such a limited compass, the whole universe--the
heavens and the earth--sketched with a few bold touches. The calm and
toilsome life of man, from the rising of the sun to the setting of the
same, when his daily work is done, is here contrasted with the moving
life of the elements of nature. This contrast and generalization in
the conception of the mutual action of natural phenomena, and the
retrospection of an omnipresent invisible Power, which can renew the
earth or crumble it to dust, constitute a solemn and exalted rather
than a gentle form of poetic creation."[8]

If we admit the source of inspiration claimed by the Hebrew poets, we
shall not be surprised that they should thus write of nature. We shall
only lament that so many pious and learned interpreters of Scripture
have been too little acquainted with nature to appreciate the natural
history of the Book of God, or adequately to illustrate it to those
who depend on their teaching; and that so many naturalists have
contented themselves with wondering at the large general views of the
Hebrew poets, without considering that they are based on a revelation
of the nature and order of the creative work which supplied to the
Hebrew mind the place of those geological wonders which have
astonished and enlarged the minds of modern nations. A modern divine,
himself well read in nature, truly says: "If men of piety were also
men of science, and if men of science were to read the Scriptures,
there would be more faith on the earth and also more philosophy."[9]
In a similar strain the patient botanist of the marine algæ thus
pleads for the joint claims of the Bible and nature: "Unfortunately it
happens that in the educational course prescribed to our divines
natural history has no place, for which reason many are ignorant of
the important bearings which the book of nature has on the book of
revelation. They do not consider, apparently, that both are from
God--both are his faithful witnesses to mankind. And if this be so, is
it reasonable to suppose that either, without the other, can be fully
understood? It is only necessary to glance at the absurd commentaries
in reference to natural objects which are to be found in too many
annotations of the Holy Scriptures to be convinced of the benefit
which the clergy would themselves derive from a more extended study of
the works of creation. And to missionaries especially, a minute
familiarity with natural objects must be a powerful assistance in
awakening the attention of the savage, who, after his manner, is a
close observer, and likely to detect a fallacy in his teacher, should
the latter attempt a practical illustration of his discourse without
sufficient knowledge. These are not days in which persons who ought to
be our guides in matters of doctrine can afford to be behind the rest
of the world in knowledge; nor can they safely sneer at the knowledge
which puffeth up, until, like the apostle, they have sounded its
depths and proved its shallowness."[10] It is truly much to be desired
that divines and commentators, instead of trying to distort the
representations of nature in the Bible into the supposed requirements
of a barbarous age, or of setting aside modern discoveries as if they
could have no connection with Scripture truth, would study natural
objects and laws sufficiently to bring themselves in this respect to
the level of the Hebrew writers. Such knowledge would be cheaply
purchased even by the sacrifice of a part of their verbal and literary
training. It is well that this point is now attracting the attention
of the Christian world, and it is but just to admit that some of our
more eminent religious writers have produced noble examples of
accurate illustrations of Scripture derived from nature. In any case,
the Bible itself can not be charged with any neglect of the claims of
nature or with any narrow tendency to place material and spiritual
things in antagonism to one another.

Another reason why a revelation from God must deal with the origins of
things, is that such revelation is, like creation, in its own nature
progressive. It is given little by little to successive generations of
men, and must proceed from the first rudiments of religious truth
onward to its higher developments with the growth of humanity from age
to age. Hence the teachings in the early chapters of Genesis are of
the simplest and most child-like character, and the first of these
early teachings is necessarily that of God the Creator, just as our
elementary catechisms for children have been wont to begin with the
question, "Who made you?" In this way man is led in the most direct
and simple way to the feet of the Universal Father, and a foundation
is laid whereon further religious teaching adapted to the growth of
the individual mind and to the growing complications of human society
can be built. But again, alike in the earliest and simplest as in the
more advanced states of the human mind, if spiritual things are to be
taught, it must be through the medium of material things. We have no
language to express in any direct way spiritual truths; they must be
given to us in terms of the natural. We have not yet learned the
tongue of the immortals, and probably can not learn it in this world.
The word "spirit" itself, which we borrow from the Latin, the Greek
_Pneuma_, the Hebrew _Ruah_, primarily all agree in signifying breath
or wind. We have to speak of our own breath when we mean our spiritual
nature, of God's breath when we mean his spiritual nature, and so of
all other things not obvious to our senses. There is constant danger
in this that the material shall be taken for the spiritual of which it
is the symbol, the figure for the reality, the creature for the
Creator, and this danger is best counteracted by a decided testimony
in relation to the origin of all material things in the will of the
spiritual and eternal God. Thus the Bible writers are enabled to use a
free and bold manner of speech respecting divine things. Their
expressions at one time appear pantheistic and at another
anthropomorphic; they see God in every thing, and use with the utmost
freedom natural emblems to indicate his perfections and procedure, and
our relations to him. In this way there is life and action in their
teaching, and it is removed as far as possible from a dry, abstract
theology, while equally remote from any tinge of idolatry or
superstition.

It may, however, be objected that by the introduction of a cosmogony
the Bible exposes itself to a conflict with science, and that thereby
injury results both to science and to religion. This is a grave
charge, and one that has evidently had much weight with many minds,
since it has been the subject of entire treatises designed to
illustrate the history of the conflict or to explain its nature. The
revelation of God's will to man for his moral guidance, if necessary
at all, was necessary before the rise of natural science. Men could
not do without the knowledge of the unity of nature and of the unity
of God, until these great truths could be worked out by scientific
induction. Perhaps they might never have been so worked out. Therefore
a revealed book of origins has a right to precedence in this matter.
Nor need it in any way come into conflict with the science
subsequently to grow up. Science does not deal so much with the origin
of nature as with its method and laws, and all that is necessary on
the part of a revelation, to avoid conflict with it, is to confine
itself to statements of phenomena and to avoid hypotheses. This is
eminently the course of the Bible. In its cosmogony it shuns all
embellishments and details, and contents itself with the fact of
creation and a slight sketch of its order; and in their subsequent
references to nature the sacred writers are strictly phenomenal in
their statements, and refer every thing directly to the will of God,
without any theory as to secondary causes and relations. They are thus
decided and positive on the points with reference to which it behooves
revelation to testify, and absolutely non-committal on the points
which belong to the exclusive domain of science.

What, then, are we to say of the imaginary "conflict of science with
religion," of which so much has been made? Simply that it results
largely from misapprehension and from misuse of terms. True religion,
which consists in practical love to God and to our fellow-men, can
have no conflict with science. True science is its fast ally. The
Bible, considered as a revelation of spiritual truth to man for his
salvation and enlightenment, can have no conflict with science. It
promotes the study of nature, rendering it honorable by giving it the
dignity of an inquiry into the ways of God, and rendering it safe by
separating it from all ideas of magic and necromancy. It gives a
theological basis to the ideas of the unity of nature and of natural
law. The conflict of science, when historically analyzed, is found to
have been fourfold--with the Church, with theology, with superstition,
and with false or imperfect science and philosophy. Religious men may
have identified themselves from time to time with these opponents, but
that is all; and much more frequently the opposition has been by bad
men more or less professing religious objects. Organizations calling
themselves "the Church," and whose warrant from the Bible is often of
the slenderest, have denounced and opposed and persecuted new
scientific truths; but they have just as often denounced the Bible
itself, and religious doctrines founded on it. Theology claims to be
itself one of the sciences, and as such it is necessarily imperfect
and progressive, and may at any time be more or less in conflict with
other sciences; but theology is not religion, and may often have very
little in common either with true religion or the Bible. When
discussions arise between theology and other sciences, it is only a
pity that either side should indulge in what has been called the
_odium theologicum_, but which is unfortunately not confined to
divines. Superstition, considered as the unreasonable fear of natural
agencies, is a passive rather than an active opponent of science. But
revelation, which affirms unity, law, and a Father's hand in nature,
is the deadly foe of superstition, and no people who have been readers
of the Bible and imbued with its spirit have ever been found ready to
molest or persecute science. Work of this sort has been done only by
the ignorant, superstitious, and priest-ridden votaries of systems
which withhold the Bible from the people, and detest it as much as
they dislike science. Perhaps the most troublesome opposition to
science, or rather to the progress of science, has sprung from the
tenacity with which men hold to old ideas. These, which may have been
at one time the best science attainable, root themselves in popular
literature, and even in learned bodies and in educational books and
institutions. They become identified with men's conceptions both of
nature and religion, and modify their interpretations of the Bible
itself. It thus becomes a most difficult matter to wrench them from
men's minds, and their advocates are too apt to invoke in their
defense political, social, and ecclesiastical powers, and to seek to
support them by the authority of revelation, when this may perhaps be
quite as favorable to the newer views opposed to them. All these
conflicts are, however, necessary incidents in human progress, which
comes only by conflict; and there is reason to believe that they would
be as severe in the absence of revealed religion as in its presence,
were it not that the absence of revelation seems often to produce a
fixity and stagnation of thought unfavorable to any new views, and
consequently to some extent to any intellectual conflict. It has been,
indeed, to the disinterment of the Bible in the Reformation of the
fifteenth century that the world owes, more than to any other cause,
the immense growth of modern science, and the freedom of discussion
which now prevails. The Protestant idea of individual judgment in
matters of religion is thoroughly Biblical, for the Bible everywhere
appeals to men in this way; and this idea is the strongest guarantee
that the world possesses for intellectual liberty in other matters.

We conclude, therefore, on all these grounds, that it was necessary
that a revelation from God should take strong and positive ground on
the question of the origin of the universe.

       *     *     *     *     *

(2) _The Origin, Method, and Structure of the Scriptural
Cosmogony._--A respectable physicist, but somewhat shallow naturalist
and theologian, whose works at one time attracted much attention, has
said of the first chapter of Genesis: "It can not be history--it may
be poetry." Its claims to be history we shall investigate under
another head, but it is pertinent to our present inquiry to ask
whether it can be poetry. That its substance or matter is poetical no
one who has read it once can believe; but it can not be denied that in
its form it approaches somewhat to that kind of thought-rhythm or
parallelism which gives so peculiar a character to Hebrew poetry. We
learn from many Scripture passages, especially in the Proverbs, that
this poetical parallelism need not necessarily be connected with
poetical thought; that in truth it might be used, as rhyme is
sometimes with us, to aid the memory. The oldest acknowledged verse in
Scripture is a case in point. Lamech, who lived before the flood,
appears to have slain a man in self-defense, or at least in an
encounter in which he himself was wounded; and he attempts to define
the nature of the crime in the following words:

  "Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
  Ye wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech:--
  I have slain a man to my wounding,
  And a young man to my hurt;
  If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
  Truly Lamech seventy and seven fold."

All this is prosaic enough in matter, but the form into which it is
thrown gives it a certain dignity, and impresses it on the memory;
which last object was probably what the author of this sole fragment
of antediluvian literature had in view. He succeeded too--for the
sentiment was handed down, probably orally; and Moses incorporates it
in his narration, perhaps on account of its interest as the first
record of the distinction between willful murder like that of Cain,
and justifiable homicide. It is interesting also to observe the same
parallelism of style, no doubt with the same objects, in many old
Egyptian monumental inscriptions, which, however grandiloquent, are
scarcely poetical.[11] It also appears in that ancient record of
creation and the deluge recently rescued from the clay tablets of
Nineveh.

Now in the first chapter of Genesis, and the first three verses of
chapter second, being the formal general narrative of creation, on
which, as we shall see, every other statement on the subject in the
Bible is based, we have this peculiar parallelism of style. If we ask
why, the answer must, I think, be--to give dignity and symmetry to
what would otherwise be a dry abstract, and still more to aid memory.
This last consideration, perhaps indicating that this chapter, like
the apology of Lamech, had been handed down orally for a long period,
connects itself with the theory of the pre-Abrahamic origin of these
documents to which reference has already been made.

The form of the narrative, however, in no way impairs its precision
or accuracy of statement. On this Eichhorn well says: "There lies at
the foundation of the first chapter a carefully designed plan, all
whose parts are carried out with much art, whereby its appropriate
place is assigned to every idea;" and we may add, whereby every idea
is expressed in the simplest and fewest words, yet with marvellous
accuracy, amounting to an almost scientific precision of diction, for
which both the form into which it is thrown and the homogeneous and
simple character of the Hebrew language are very well adapted. Much of
this indeed remains in the English version, though our language is
less perfectly suited than the Hebrew for the concise announcement of
general truths of this description. Our translators have, however,
deviated greatly from the true sense of many important words,
especially where they have taken the Septuagint translation for their
guide, as in the words "firmament," "whales," "creeping things," etc.
These errors will be noticed in subsequent pages. In the mean time I
may merely add that the labors of the ablest Biblical critics give us
every reason to conclude that the received text of Genesis preserves,
almost without an iota of change, the beautiful simplicity of its
first chapter; and that we now have it in a more perfect state than
that in which it was presented to the translators of most of the early
versions. It must also be admitted that the object in view was best
served by that direct reference to the creative fiat, and ignoring of
all secondary causes, which are conspicuous in this narrative. This is
indeed the general tone of the Bible in speaking of natural phenomena;
and this mode of proceeding is in perfect harmony with its claims to
divine authority. Had not this course been chosen, no other could have
been adopted, in strict consistency with truth, short of a full
revelation of the whole system of nature, in the details of all its
laws and processes. This we now know would have been impossible, and,
if possible, useless or even mischievous.

Regarded from this point of view--the plenary inspiration of the
book--the Scriptural references to creation profess to furnish a very
general outline, for theological purposes, of the principal features
of a vast region unexplored when they were written, and into which
human research has yet penetrated along only a few lines. Natural
science, in following out these lines of observation, has reached some
of the objects delineated in the Scriptural sketch; of others it has
obtained distant glimpses; many are probably unknown, and we can
appreciate the true value and dimensions relatively to the whole of
very few. So vast indeed are the subjects of the bold sketch of the
Hebrew prophet, that natural science can not pretend as yet so to fill
in the outline as quite to measure the accuracy of its proportions.
Yet the lines, though few, are so boldly drawn, and with so much
apparent unity and symmetry, that we almost involuntarily admit that
they are accurate and complete. This may appear to be underrating the
actual progress of science relatively to this great foreshadowing
outline; but I know that those most deeply versed in the knowledge of
nature will be the least disposed to quarrel with it, whatever
skepticism they may entertain as to the greater general completeness
of the inspired record.

Another point which deserves a passing notice here is the theory of
Dr. Kurtz and others, that the Mosaic narrative represents a vision of
creation, analogous to those prophetic visions which appear in the
later books of Scripture. This is beyond all question the most simple
and probable solution of the origin of the document, when viewed as
inspired, but we shall have to recur to it on a future page.

But with respect to the precise origin of this cosmogony, the question
now arises, Is it really in substance a revelation from God to man? We
must not disguise from ourselves that this deliberate statement of an
order of creation in so far challenges comparison with the results of
science, and this in a very different way from that which applies to
the incidental references to nature in the Bible. Further, inasmuch as
it relates to events which transpired before the creation of man, it
is of the nature of prophecy rather than of history. It is, in short,
either an inspired revelation of the divine procedure in creation, or
it is a product of human imagination or research, or a deliberate
fraud.

To no part of the Bible do these alternatives more strictly apply than
to its first chapter. This "can not be history" in the strict
acceptation of the term. It relates to events which no human eye
witnessed, respecting which no human testimony could give any
information. It represents the creation of man as the last of a long
series of events, of which it professes to inform us. The knowledge of
these events can not have been a matter of human experience. If at all
entitled to confidence, the narrative must, therefore, be received as
an inspired document, not handed down by any doubtful tradition, but
existing as originally transfused into human language from the mind of
the Author of nature himself. This view is in no way affected by the
hypothesis, already mentioned, that the first chapters of Genesis were
compiled by Moses from more ancient documents. This merely throws back
the revelation to a higher antiquity, and requires us to suppose the
agency of two inspired men instead of one.

It would be out of place here to enter into any argument for the
inspiration of Scripture, or to attempt to define the nature of that
inspiration. I merely wish to impress on the mind of the reader that
without the admission of its reality, or at least its possibility, our
present inquiry becomes merely a matter of curious antiquarian
research. We must also on this ground distinguish between the claims
of the Scriptures and those of tradition or secular history, when they
refer to the same facts. The traditions and cosmogonies of some
ancient nations have many features in common with the Bible narrative;
and, on the supposition that Moses compiled from older documents, they
may be portions of this more ancient sacred truth, but clothed in the
varied garments of the fanciful mythological creeds which have sprung
up in later and more degenerate times. Such fragments may safely be
received as secondary aids to the understanding of the authentic
record, but it would be folly to seek in them for the whole truth.
They are but the scattered masses of ore, by tracing which we may
sometimes open up new and rich portions of the vein of primitive lore
from which they have been derived. It is, however, quite necessary
here formally to inquire if there are any hypotheses short of that of
plenary inspiration which may allow us to attach any value whatever to
this most ancient document. I know but two views of this kind that are
worthy of any attention.

1. The Mosaic account of creation may be a result of ancient
scientific inquiries, analogous to those of modern geology.

2. It may be an allegorical or poetical mythus, not intended to be
historical, but either devised for some extraneous purpose, or
consisting of the conjectures of some gifted intellect.

These alternatives we may shortly consider, though the materials for
their full discussion can be furnished only by facts to be
subsequently stated. I am not aware that the first of these views has
been maintained by any modern writer. Some eminent scientific men are,
however, disposed to adopt such an explanation of the ancient Hindoo
hymns, as well as of the cosmogony of Pythagoras, which bears evidence
of this origin; and it may be an easy step to infer that the Hebrew
cosmogony was derived from some similar source. Not many years ago
such a supposition would have been regarded as almost insane. Then the
science of antiquity was only another name for the philosophy of
Greece and Rome. But in recent times we have seen Egypt disclose the
ruins of a mighty civilization, more grand and massive though less
elegant than that of Greece, and which had reached its acme ere Greece
had received its alphabet--a civilization which, according to the
Scripture history, is derived from that of the primeval Cushite
empire, which extended from the plains of Shinar over all Southeastern
Asia, but was crushed at its centre before the dawn of secular
history. We have now little reason to doubt that Moses, when he
studied the learning of Egypt, held converse with men who saw more
clearly and deeply into nature's mysteries than did Thales or
Pythagoras, or even Aristotle.[12] Still later the remnants of old
Nineveh have been exhumed from their long sepulture, and antiquaries
have been astonished by the discovery that knowledge and arts,
supposed to belong exclusively to far more recent times, were in the
days of the early Hebrew kings, and probably very long previously,
firmly established on the banks of the Tigris. Such discoveries, when
compared with hints furnished by the Scriptures, tend greatly to exalt
our ideas of the state of civilization at the time when they were
written; and we shall perceive, in the course of our inquiry, many
additional reasons for believing that the ancient Israelites were much
farther advanced in natural science than is commonly supposed.

We have, however, no positive proof of such a theory, and it is
subject to many grave objections. The narrative itself makes no
pretension to a scientific origin, it quotes no authority, and it is
connected with no philosophical speculations or deductions. It bears
no internal evidence of having been the result of inductive inquiry,
but appeals at once to faith in the truth of the great ultimate
doctrine of absolute creation, and then proceeds to detail the steps
of the process, in the manner of history as recorded by a witness, and
not in the manner of science tracing back effects to their causes.
Farther, it refers to conditions of our planet respecting which
science has even now attained to no conclusions supported by evidence,
and is not in a position to make dogmatic assertions. The tone of all
the ancient cosmogonies has in these respects a resemblance to that
of the Scriptures, and bears testimony to a general impression
pervading the mind of antiquity that there was a divine and
authoritative testimony to the facts of creation, distinct from
history, philosophical speculation, or induction.

One of the boldest and simplest methods of this kind is that followed
by the authors of the "Types of Mankind," in the attempt to assign a
purely human origin to Genesis 1st. These writers admit the greater
antiquity of the first chapter, though assigning the whole of the book
to a comparatively modern date. They say:

"The 'document Jehovah'[13] does not especially concern our present
subject; and it is incomparable with the grander conception of the
more ancient and unknown writer of Genesis 1st. With extreme felicity
of diction and conciseness of plan, the latter has defined the most
philosophical views of antiquity upon _cosmogony_; in fact so well
that it has required the palæontological discoveries of the nineteenth
century--at least 2500 years after his death--to overthrow his
_septenary_ arrangement of 'Creation;' which, after all, would still
be correct enough in great principles, were it not for one individual
oversight and one unlucky blunder; not exposed, however, until long
after his era, by post-Copernican astronomy. The oversight is where he
wrote (Gen. i. 6-8), 'Let there be _raquiê_,' _i. e._, a _firmament_;
which proves that his notions of 'sky' (solid like the concavity of a
copper basin, with _stars_ set as brilliants in the metal) were the
same as those of adjacent people of his time--indeed, of all men
before the publication of Newton's 'Principia' and of Laplace's
'Mécanique Céleste.' The blunder is where he conceives that _aur_,
'light,' and _iom_, 'day' (Gen. i. 14-18), could have been physically
possible _three whole days_ before the 'two great luminaries,' _Sun_
and _Moon_, were created. These venial errors deducted, his majestic
song beautifully illustrates the simple process of ratiocination
through which--often without the slightest historical proof of
intercourse--different 'Types of Mankind,' at distinct epochas, and in
countries widely apart, had arrived, naturally, at cosmogonic
conclusions similar to the doctrines of that Hebraical school of which
his harmonic and melodious numbers remain a magnificent memento.

"That process seems to have been the following: The ancients knew, as
we do, that man _is_ upon the earth; and they were persuaded, as we
are, that his appearance was preceded by unfathomable depths of time.
Unable (as we are still) to measure periods antecedent to man by any
_chronological_ standard, the ancients rationally reached the
tabulation of some events anterior to man through _induction_--a
method not original with Lord Bacon, because known to St. Paul; 'for
his unseen things from the creation of the world, his power and
Godhead, are clearly seen, _being understood by the things that are
made_' (Rom. i., 20). Man, they felt, could not have lived upon earth
without _animal_ food; ergo, 'cattle' preceded him, together with
birds, reptiles, fishes, etc. Nothing living, they knew, could have
existed without light and heat; ergo, the _solar system_ antedated
animal life, no less than the _vegetation_ indispensable for animal
support. But terrestrial plants can not grow without _earth_; ergo,
that dry land had to be separated from pre-existent 'waters.' Their
geological speculations inclining rather to the _Neptunian_ than to
the _Plutonian_ theory--for Werner ever preceded Hutton--the ancients
found it difficult to 'divide the waters from the waters' without
interposing a metallic substance that 'divided the waters which were
_under_ the firmament from the waters that were _above_ the
firmament;' so they inferred, logically, that a _firmament_ must have
been actually created for this object. [_E.g._, 'The _windows_ of the
skies' (Gen. vii., 11); 'the waters _above_ the skies' (Psa. cxlviii.,
4).] Before the 'waters' (and here is the peculiar error of the
genesiacal bard) some of the ancients claimed the pre-existence of
_light_ (a view adopted by the writer of Genesis 1st); while others
asserted that 'chaos' prevailed. Both schools united, however, in the
conviction that DARKNESS--_Erebus_--anteceded all other _created
things_. What, said these ancients, can have existed before the
'darkness?' _Ens entium_, the CREATOR, was the humbled reply. _Elohim_
is the Hebrew vocal expression of that climax; to define whose
attributes, save through the phenomena of creation, is an attempt we
leave to others more presumptuous than ourselves."

The problem here set to the "unknown" author of Genesis is a hard
one--given the one fact that "man is" to find in detail how the world
was formed in a series of preceding ages of vast duration. Is it
possible that such a problem could have been so worked out as to have
endured the test of three thousand years, and the scrutiny of modern
science? But there is an "oversight" in one detail, and a "blunder" in
another. By reference farther on, the reader will find under the
chapters on "Light" and the "Atmosphere" that the oversight and
blunder are those not of the writer of Genesis, but of the learned
American ethnologists in the nineteenth century; a circumstance which
cuts in two ways in defense of the ancient author so unhappily unknown
to his modern critics.

The second of the alternatives above referred to, the mythical
hypothesis, has been advanced and ably supported, especially on the
continent of Europe, and by such English writers as are disposed to
apply the methods of modern rationalistic criticism to the Bible. In
one of its least objectionable forms it is thus stated by Professor
Powell:

"The narrative, then, of six periods of creation, followed by a
seventh similar period of rest and blessing, was clearly designed by
adaptation to their conceptions to enforce upon the Israelites the
institution of the Sabbath; and in whatever way its details may be
interpreted, it can not be regarded as an _historical_ statement of
the _primeval_ institution of a Sabbath; a supposition which is indeed
on other grounds sufficiently improbable, though often adopted. * * *
If, then, we would avoid the alternative of being compelled to admit
what must amount to impugning the truth of those portions at least of
the Old Testament, we surely are bound to give fair consideration to
the only suggestion which can set us entirely free from all the
difficulties arising from the geological contradiction which does and
must exist against any conceivable interpretation which retains the
assertion of the historical character of the details of the narrative,
as referring to the distinct transactions of each of the seven
periods. * * * The one great fact couched in the general assertion
that all things were created by the sole power of one Supreme Being is
the whole of the representation to which an historical character can
be assigned. As to the particular form in which the descriptive
narrative is conveyed, we merely affirm that it can not be history--it
may be poetry."[14]

The general ground on which this view is entertained is the supposed
irreconcilable contradiction between the literal interpretation of the
Mosaic record and the facts of geology. The real amount of this
difficulty we are not, in the present stage of our inquiry, prepared
to estimate. We can, however, readily understand that the hypothesis
depends on the supposition that the narrative of creation is posterior
in date to the Mosaic ritual, and that this plain and circumstantial
series of statements is a fable designed to support the Sabbatical
institution, instead of the rite being, as represented in the Bible
itself, a commemoration of the previously recorded fact. This is,
fortunately, a gratuitous assumption, contrary to the probable date of
the documents, as deduced from internal evidence and from comparison
with the Assyrian and other cosmogonies; and it also completely
ignores the other manifest uses mentioned under our first head. If
proved, it would give to the whole the character of a pious fraud, and
would obviously render any comparison with the geological history of
the earth altogether unnecessary. While, therefore, it must be freely
admitted that the Mosaic narrative can not be history, in so far at
least as history is a product of human experience, we can not admit
that it is a poetical mythus, or, in other words, that it is destitute
of substantial truth, unless proved by good evidence to be so; and,
when this is proved, we must also admit that it is quite undeserving
of the credit which it claims as a revelation from God.

Since, therefore, the events recorded in the first chapter of Genesis
were not witnessed by man; since there is no reason to believe that
they were discovered by scientific inquiry; and since, if true, they
can not be a poetical myth, we must, in the mean time, return to our
former supposition that the Mosaic cosmogony is a direct revelation
from the Creator. In this respect, the position of this part of the
earth's Biblical history resembles that of prophecy. Writers _may_
accurately relate contemporary events, or those which belong to the
human period, without inspiration; but the moment that they profess
accurately to foretell the history of the future, or to inform us of
events which preceded the human period, we must either believe them to
be inspired, or reject them as impostors or fanatics. Many attempts
have been made to find intermediate standing-ground, but it is so
precarious that the nicest of our modern critical balancers have been
unable to maintain themselves upon it.

Having thus determined that the Mosaic cosmogony, in its grand general
features, must either be inspired or worthless, we have further to
inquire to what extent it is necessary to suppose that the particular
details and mode of expression of the narrative, and the subsequent
allusions to nature in the Bible, must be regarded as entitled to this
position. We may conceive them to have been left to the discretion of
the writers; and, in that case, they will merely represent the
knowledge of nature actually existing at the time. On the other hand,
their accuracy may have been secured by the divine afflatus. Few
modern writers have been disposed to insist on the latter alternative,
and have rather assumed that these references and details are
accommodated to the state of knowledge at the time. I must observe
here, however, that a careful consideration of the facts gives to a
naturalist a much higher estimate of the real value of the
observations of nature embodied in the Scriptures than that which
divines have ordinarily entertained; and, consequently, that if we
suppose them of human origin, we must be prepared to modify the views
generally entertained of early Oriental simplicity and ignorance. The
truth is, that a large proportion of the difficulties in Scriptural
natural history appear to have arisen from want of such accommodation
to the low state of the knowledge of nature among translators and
expositors; and this is precisely what we should expect in a
veritable revelation. Its moral and religious doctrines were slowly
developed, each new light illuminating previous obscurities. Its human
history comes out as evidence of its truth, when compared with
monumental inscriptions; and why should not the All-wise have
constructed as skilfully its teachings respecting his own works? There
can be no doubt whatever that the Scripture writers intended to
address themselves to the common mind, which now as then requires
simple and popular teaching, but they were under obligation to give
truthful statements; and we need not hesitate to say, with Dr.
Chalmers, in reference to a book making such claims as those of the
Bible: "There is no argument, saving that grounded on the usages of
popular language, which would tempt us to meddle with the literalities
of that ancient and, as appears to us, authoritative document, any
farther than may be required by those conventionalities of speech
which spring from 'optical' impressions of nature."[15]

Attempt as we may to disguise it, any other view is totally unworthy
of the great Ruler of the universe, especially in a document
characterized as emphatically _the truth_, and in a moral revelation,
in which statements respecting natural objects need not be inserted,
unless they could be rendered at once truthful and illustrative of the
higher objects of the revelation. The statement often so flippantly
made that the Bible was not intended to teach natural history has no
application here. _Spiritual_ truths are no doubt shadowed forth in
the Bible by material emblems, often but rudely resembling them,
because the nature of human thought and language render this
necessary, not only to the unlearned, but in some degree to all; but
this principle of adaptation can not be applied to plain material
facts. Yet a confusion of these two very distinct cases appears to
prevail almost unaccountably in the minds of many expositors. They
tell us that the Scriptures ascribe bodily members to the immaterial
God, and typify his spiritual procedure by outward emblems; and this
they think analogous to such doctrines as a solid firmament, a plane
earth, and others of a like nature, which they ascribe to the sacred
writers. We shall find that the writers of the Scriptures had
themselves much clearer views, and that, even in poetical language,
they take no such liberties with truth.

As an illustration of the extent to which this doctrine of
"accommodation" carries us beyond the limits of fair interpretation, I
cite the following passage from one of the ablest and most judicious
writers on the subject:[16] "It was the opinion of the ancients that
the earth, at a certain height, was surrounded by a transparent hollow
sphere of solid matter, which they called the firmament. When rain
descended, they supposed that it was through windows or holes made in
the crystalline curtain suspended in mid-heavens. To these notions
the language of the Bible is frequently conformed. * * * But the most
decisive example I have to give on this subject is derived from
astronomy. Until the time of Copernicus no opinion respecting natural
phenomena was thought better established than that the earth is fixed
immovably in the centre of the universe, and that the heavenly bodies
move diurnally round it. To sustain this view the most decisive
language of Scripture might be quoted. God is there said to have
'_established the foundations of the earth, so that they could not be
removed forever_;' and the sacred writers expressly declare that the
heavenly bodies _arise and set_, and nowhere allude to any proper
motion of the earth."

Will it be believed that, with the exception of the poetical
expression, "windows of heaven," and the common forms of speech
relating to sunrise and sunset, the above "decisive" instances of
accommodation have no foundation whatever in the language of
Scripture. The doctrine of the rotation of solid celestial spheres
around the earth belongs to a Greek philosophy which arose after the
Hebrew cosmogony was complete; and though it occurs in the Septuagint
and other ancient versions, it is not based on the Hebrew original. In
truth, we know that those Grecian philosophers--of the Ionic and
Pythagorean schools--who lived nearest the times of the Hebrew
writers, and who derived the elements of their science from Egypt and
Western Asia, taught very different doctrines. How absurd, then, is it
thus to fasten upon the sacred writers, contrary to their own words,
the views of a school of astronomy which probably arose long after
their time, when we know that more accurate ideas prevailed nearer
their epoch. Secondly, though there is some reason for stating that
the "ancients," though certainly not those of Israel, believed in
celestial spheres supporting the heavenly bodies, I suspect that the
doctrine of a solid vault _supporting the clouds_, except as a mere
poetical or mythological fancy, is a product of the imagination of the
theologians and closet philosophers of a more modern time. The
testimony of men's senses appears to be in favor of the whole universe
revolving around a plane earth, though the oldest astronomical school
with which we are acquainted suspected that this is an illusion; but
the every-day observation of the most unlettered man who treads the
fields and is wet with the mists and rains must convince him that
there is no _sub-nubilar_ solid sphere. If, therefore, the Bible had
taught such a doctrine, it would have shocked the common-sense even of
the plain husbandmen to whom it was addressed, and could have found no
fit audience except among a portion of the literati of comparatively
modern times. Thirdly, with respect to the foundations of the earth, I
may remark that in the tenth verse of Genesis there occurs a
definition as precise as that of any lexicon--"and God called the _dry
land_ earth;" consequently it is but fair to assume that the earth
afterwards spoken of as supported above the waters is the dry land or
continental masses of the earth, and no geologist can object to the
statement that the dry land is supported above the waters by
foundations or pillars.

We shall find in our examination of the document itself that all the
instances of such accommodation which have been cited by writers on
this subject are as baseless as those above referred to. It is much to
be regretted that so many otherwise useful expositors have either
wanted that familiarity with the aspects of external nature by which
all the Hebrew writers are characterized, or have taken too little
pains to ascertain the actual meaning of the references to creation
which they find in the Bible. I may further remark that if such
instances of accommodation could be found in the later poetical books,
it would be extremely unfair to apply them as aids in the
interpretation of the plain, precise, and unadorned statements of the
first chapters of Genesis. There is, however, throughout even the
higher poetry of the Bible, a truthful representation and high
appreciation of nature for which we seek in vain in any other poetry,
and we may fairly trace this in part to the influence of the cosmogony
which appears in its first chapter. The Hebrew was thus taught to
recognize the unity of nature as the work of an Almighty Intelligence,
to regard all its operations as regulated by his unchanging law or
"decree," and to venerate it as a revelation of his supreme wisdom and
goodness. On this account he was likely to regard careful observation
and representation with as scrupulous attention as the modern
naturalist. Nor must we forget that the Old Testament literature has
descended to us through two dark ages--that of Greek and Roman
polytheism and of Middle Age barbarism--and that we must not confound
its tenets with those of either. The religious ideas of both these
ages were favorable to certain forms of literature and art, but
eminently unfavorable to the successful prosecution of the study of
nature. Hence we have a right to expect in the literature of the
golden age of primeval monotheism more affinity with the ideas of
modern science than in any intermediate time; and the truthful
delineation which the claims of the Bible to inspiration require might
have been, as already hinted, to a certain extent secured merely by
the reflex influence of its earlier statements, without the necessity
of our supposing that illustrations of this kind in the later books
came directly from the Spirit of God.

Our discussion of this part of the subject has necessarily been rather
desultory, and the arguments adduced must depend for their full
confirmation on the results of our future inquiries. The conclusions
arrived at may be summed up as follows: 1. That the Mosaic cosmogony
must be considered, like the prophecies of the Bible, to claim the
rank of inspired teaching, and must depend for its authority on the
maintenance of that claim. 2. That the incidental references to nature
in other parts of Scripture indicate, at least, the influence of these
earlier teachings, and of a pure monotheistic faith, in creating a
high and just appreciation of nature among the Hebrew people.

It is now necessary to inquire in what precise form this remarkable
revelation of the origin of the world has been given. I have already
referred to the hypothesis that it represents a vision of creation
presented to the mind of a seer, as if in a series of pictures which
he represents to us in words. This is perhaps the most intelligible
conception of the manner of communication of a revelation from God;
and inasmuch as it is that referred to in other parts of the Bible as
the mode of presentation of the future to inspired prophets, there can
be no impropriety in supposing it to have been the means of
communicating the knowledge of the unknown past. We may imagine the
seer--perhaps some aboriginal patriarch, long before the time of
Moses--perhaps the first man himself--wrapt in ecstatic vision, having
his senses closed to all the impressions of the present time, and
looking as at a moving procession of the events of the earth's past
history, presented to him in a series of apparent days and nights. In
the first chapter of Genesis he rehearses this divine vision to us,
not in poetry, but in a series of regularly arranged parts or
strophes, thrown into a sort of rhythmical order fitted to impress
them on the memory, and to allow them to be handed down from mouth to
mouth, perhaps through successive generations of men, before they
could be fixed in a written form of words. Though the style can
scarcely be called poetical, since its expressions are obviously
literal and unadorned by figures of speech, the production may not
unfairly be called the Song or Ballad of Creation, and it presents an
Archaic simplicity reminding us of the compositions of the oldest and
rudest times, while it has also an artificial and orderly arrangement,
much obscured by its division into verses and chapters in our Bibles.
It is undoubtedly also characterized by a clearness and grandeur of
expression very striking and majestic, and which shows that it was
written by and intended for men of no mean and contracted minds, but
who could grasp the great problems of the origin of things, and
comprehend and express them in a bold and vigorous manner. It may be
well, before proceeding farther, to present to the reader this ancient
document in a form more literal and intelligible, and probably nearer
to its original dress, than that in which we are most familiar with it
in our English Bibles:


THE ABORIGINAL SONG OF CREATION.


_Beginning._

      In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth,
      And the Earth was formless and empty,
      And darkness on the surface of the deep,
      And the Breath of God moved on the Surface of the Waters.


_Day One._

    _And God said_--"Let Light be,"
    And Light was.
  And God saw the Light that it was good.
     And God called the Light Day,
     And the darkness he called Night.
  And Evening was and Morning was--Day one.


_Day Second._

    _And God said_--"Let there be an Expanse
           in the midst of the waters,
    And let it divide the waters from the waters."
    And God made the Expanse,
    And divided the waters below the Expanse
           from the waters above the Expanse.
    And it was so.
    And God called the Expanse Heavens.
  And Evening was and Morning was, a Second Day.

_Day Third._

    _And God said_--"Let the waters under the
           Heavens be gathered into one place,
    And let the Dry Land appear."
    And it was so,
    And God called the Dry Land Earth,
    And the gathering of waters called he Seas.
  And God saw that it was good.
    _And God said_--"Let the earth shoot forth herbage,
    The Herb yielding seed and the fruit-tree yielding fruit
           containing seed after its kind, on the earth."
    And it was so.
    And the earth brought forth herbage,
    The Herb yielding seed and the Tree yielding fruit whose
           seed is in it after its kind,
  And God saw that it was good.
  And Evening was and Morning was, a Third Day.


_Day Fourth._

    _And God said_--"Let there be Luminaries
           in the Expanse of Heaven,
    To divide the day from the night,
    And let them be for Signs and for Seasons,
    And for Days and for Years.
    And let them be Luminaries in the Expanse of Heaven
    To give light on the earth."
    And it was so.
    And God made two great Luminaries,
    The greater Luminary to rule the day,
    The lesser Luminary to rule the night,
    The Stars also.
    And God placed them in the Expanse of Heaven
    To give light upon the earth,
    And to rule over the day and over the night,
    And to divide the light from the darkness.
  And God saw that it was good.
  And Evening was and Morning was, a Fourth Day.


_Day Fifth._

    _And God said_--"Let the waters swarm
           with swarmers, having life,
    And let winged animals fly over the earth on the
           surface of the expanse of heaven."
    And God created great Reptiles,
    And every living thing that moveth,
    With which the waters swarmed after their kind,
    And every winged bird after its kind.
  And God saw that it was good.
    And God blessed them, saying--
    "Be fruitful and multiply,
    And fill the waters of the sea;
    And let birds multiply in the land."
  And Evening was and Morning was, a Fifth Day.

_Day Sixth._

    _And God said_--"Let the Land bring forth
           living things after their kind,
    Herbivores and smaller mammals and Carnivores after their kind."
    And it was so.
    And God made all Carnivores after their kind,
    And all Herbivores after their kind,
    And all minor mammals after their kind.
  And God saw that it was good.
    _And God said_--"Let us make man in our image,
           after our likeness,
    And let him have dominion over the fish in the sea
    And over the birds of the heavens,
    And over the Herbivora,
    And over the Earth,
    And over all the minor animals that creep upon the earth."
    And God created man in his own image,
    In the image of God created he him,
    Male and female created he them.
    And God blessed them.
    And God said unto them--
    "Be fruitful and multiply,
    And replenish the earth and subdue it,
    And have dominion over the fishes of the sea
    And over the birds of the air,
    And over all the animals that move upon the earth."
    _And God said_--"Behold, I have given you all herbs
           yielding seed,
    Which are on the surface of the whole earth,
    And every tree with fruit having seed,
    They shall be unto you for food.
    And to all the animals of the land
    And to all the birds of the heavens,
    And to all things moving on the land having the breath of life,
    I have given every green herb for food."
  And it was so.
  And God saw every thing that he had made,
      and behold it was very good.
  And Evening was and Morning was, a Sixth Day.


_Day Seventh._

    Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finished,
    And all the hosts of them.
    And on the seventh day God ended the work which he had made,
    And he rested on the seventh day from all his work
        which he had made.
    And God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it,
   Because that in it he rested from all his work that he had
        created and made.



CHAPTER III.

OBJECTS AND NATURE OF A REVELATION OF ORIGINS--_Continued._


                             "What if earth
  Be but a shadow of heaven, and things therein
  Each to the other like; more than on earth is thought."
                                                 MILTON.



(3) _Character of the Biblical Cosmogony, and general Views of Nature
which it Contains or to which it Leads._--Much of what appertains to the
character of the revelation of origins has been anticipated under
previous heads. We have only to read the Song of Creation, as given in
the last chapter, to understand its power and influence as a beginning
of religious doctrine. The revelation was written for plain men in the
infancy of the world. Imagine Chaldean or Hebrew shepherd listening to
these majestic lines from the lips of some ancient patriarch, and
receiving them as truly the words of God. What a grand opening to him of
both the seen and unseen worlds! Henceforth he has no superstitious
dread of the stars above, or of the lightning and thunder, or of the
dark woods and flowing waters beneath. They are all the works of the one
Creator, the same Creator who is his own Maker, in whose image and
shadow he is made. He can look up now to the heavens or around upon the
earth, and see in all the handiwork of God, and can worship God through
all. He can see that the power that cares for the birds and the flowers
of the field cares for him. He is no longer the slave and sport of
unknown and dreadful powers; they are God's workmanship and under his
control--nay, God has given him a mission to subdue and rule over them.
So these noble words raise him to a new manhood, and emancipate him from
the torture of endless fears, and open to him vast new fields of thought
and inquiry, which may enrich him with boundless treasures of new
religious and intellectual wealth. Imagine still farther that he wanders
into those great cities which are the seats of the idolatries of his
time. He enters magnificent temples, sees elaborately decorated altars,
huge images, gorgeous ceremonials, priests gay in vestments and imposing
in numbers. He is invited to bow down before the bull Apis, to worship
the statue of Belus or of Ishtar, of Osiris or of Isis. But this is not
in his book of origins. All these things are contrivances of man, not
works of God, and their aim is to invite him to adore that which is
merely his fellow-creature, that which he has the divine commission to
subdue and rule. So our primitive Puritan turns away. He will rather
raise an altar of rough stones in the desert, and worship the unseen yet
real Creator, the God that has no local habitation in temples made with
hands, yet is everywhere present. Such is the moral elevation to which
this revelation of origins raises humanity; and when there was added to
it the farther history of primeval innocence, of the fall, and of the
promise of a Redeemer, and of the fate of the godless antediluvians,
there was a whole system of religion, pure and elevating, and placing
the Abrahamidæ, who for ages seem alone to have held to it, on a plane
of spiritual vantage immeasurably above that of other nations. Farther,
every succeeding prophet whose works are included in the sacred canon,
following up these doctrines in the same spirit, and added new
treasures of divine knowledge from age to age.

But admitting all this, it may be asked, Are these ancient records of
any value to us? May we not now dispense with them, and trust to the
light of science? The infinitely varied and discordant notions of our
modern literature on these great questions of origin, the incapacity
of any philosophical system to reach the common mind for practical
purposes, and the baseless character of any religious system which
does not build on these great primitive truths, give a sufficient
answer. Farther, we may affirm that the greatest and widest
generalizations of our modern science have, in so far as they are of
practical importance, been anticipated in the revelations of the
Bible, and that in the cosmogony of Genesis and its continuation in
the other sacred books we have general views of the universe as broad
as those of any philosophies, ancient or modern. This is a hard test
for our revelation, but it can be endured, and we may shortly inquire
what we find in the Bible of such great general truths.

Many may be disposed to admit the accurate delineation of natural
facts open to human observation in the sacred Scriptures, who may not
be prepared to find in these ancient books any general views akin to
those of the ancient philosophers, or to those obtained by inductive
processes in modern times. Yet views of this kind are scattered
through the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, and are a natural
outgrowth and development of the great facts and principles asserted
in the first chapter of Genesis. They resolve themselves, almost as a
matter of course, into the two leading ideas of order and adaptation.
I have already quoted the eloquent admission by Baron Humboldt of the
presence of these ideas of the cosmos in Psalm civ. They are both
conspicuous in the narrative of creation, and equally so in a great
number of other passages. "Order is heaven's first law; and the second
is like unto it--that every thing serves an end. This is the sum of
all science. These are the two mites, even all that she hath, which
she throws into the treasury of the Lord; and, as she does so in
faith, Eternal Wisdom looks on and approves the deed."[17] These two
mites, lawfully acquired by science, by her independent exertions, she
may, however, recognize as of the same coinage with the treasure
already laid up in the rich storehouse of the Hebrew literature; but
in a peculiar and complex form, which may be illustrated under the
following general statements:

1. The Scriptures assert invariable natural law, and constantly
recurring cycles in nature. Natural law is expressed as the ordinance
or decree of Jehovah. From the oldest of the Hebrew books I select the
following examples:[18]

  "When he made a decree for the rain,
  And a way for the thunder-flash."

  --Job xxviii., 26.

  "Knowest thou the ordinances of the heavens?
  Canst thou establish a dominion even over the earth?"

  --Job xxxviii., 33.

The later books give us such views as the following:

  "He hath established them [the heavens] for ever and ever;
  He hath made a decree which shall not pass."

  --Psa. cxlviii., 6.

  "Thou art forever, O Jehovah, thy word is established
        in the heavens;
  Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth;
  They continue this day according to thine ordinances,
        for all are thy servants."

  --Psa. cxix., 90.

  "When he established the clouds above;
  When he strengthened the fountains of the deep;
  When he gave to the sea his decree,
  That the waters should not pass his commandment;
  When he appointed the foundations of the earth."

  --Prov. viii., 28.

Many similar instances will be found in succeeding pages; and in the
mean time we may turn to the idea of recurring cycles, which forms the
starting-point of the reasonings of Solomon on the current of human
affairs, in the book of Ecclesiastes: "One generation passeth away,
and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth for the ages. The
sun ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to its place whence
it arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth unto the north.
It whirleth about continually, and returneth again according to its
circuits. All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea doth not
overflow; unto the place whence the rivers came, thither they return
again." I might fill pages with quotations more or less illustrative
of the statement in proof of which the above texts are cited; but
enough has been given to show that the doctrine of the Bible is not
that of fortuitous occurrence, or of materialism, or of pantheism, or
of arbitrary supernaturalism, but of invariable natural law
representing the decree of a wise and unchanging Creator. It is a
common but groundless and shallow charge against the Bible that it
teaches an "arbitrary supernaturalism." What it does teach is that
all nature is regulated by the laws of God, which like himself are
unchanging, but which are so complex in their relations and
adjustments that they allow of infinite variety, and do not exclude
even miraculous intervention, or what appears to our limited
intelligence as such. In opposition to this, it is true, some
physicists have held that natural law is a fatal necessity.[19] If
they mean by this a merely hypothetical necessity that certain effects
must follow if certain laws act, this is in accordance with the
Biblical view, for nothing can resist the will of God. But if they
mean an absolute necessity that these laws can not be suspended or
counteracted by higher laws, or by the will of the Creator, they
assert what is not only contrary to Scripture, but absurd, for "blind
metaphysical necessity, which is the same always and everywhere, could
produce no variety of things."[20] It could lead merely to a dead and
inert equilibrium. On the hypothesis of mere physical necessity, the
universe either never could have existed, or must have come to an end
infinite ages ago, which is the same thing. Only on the hypothesis of
law proceeding from an intelligent will can we logically account for
nature.

2. The Bible recognizes progress and development in nature. At the
very outset we have this idea embodied in the gradual elaboration of
all things in the six creative periods, rising from the formless void
of the beginning, through successive stages of inorganic and organic
being, up to Eden and to man. Beyond this point the work of creation
stops; but there is to be an occupation and improvement of the whole
earth by man spreading from Eden. This process is arrested or impeded
by sin and the fall. Here commences the special province of the
Bible, in explaining the means of recovery from the fall, and of the
establishment of a new spiritual and moral kingdom, and finally of the
restoration of Eden in a new heaven and earth. All this is moral, and
relates to man, in so far as the present state of things is concerned;
but we have the commentary of Jesus: "My Father worketh hitherto, and
I work;" the remarkable statement of Paul, that the whole creation is
involved in the results of man's moral fall and restoration, and the
equally remarkable one that the Redeemer is also the maker of the
"worlds" or ages of the earth's physical progress, as well as of the
future "new heaven and new earth." Peter also rebukes indignantly
those scoffers who maintained that all things had remained as they are
since the beginning; and refers to the creation week and to the deluge
as earnests of the great changes yet in store for the earth.[21]

It is indeed curious to observe how in our version of the Bible this
idea of progress in the universe, or of "time-worlds," as it has been
called, has been variously replaced by the words "world" and
"eternity," owing to the defective ideas prevalent at the time when
the translation was made. In the Hebrew Scriptures the term _Olam_,
"age," and in the New Testament the equivalent term _Ai[=o]n_ have
been thus treated, and their real significance much obscured. Thus
when it is said, "by faith we understand that the _worlds_ were
framed," or "by him God made the _worlds_,"[22] or that certain of
God's plans have been hid "from the beginning of the _world_,"[23] the
reference is not to worlds in space, but to worlds in time, or ages of
God's working in the universe. So also these ages of God's working
are given to us as our only intelligible type of eternity, of which
absolutely we can have no conception. Thus God's "eternal purpose" is
his purpose of the ages. So when he is the "King eternal,"[24] and in
that capacity gives to his people "life everlasting," he is the King
of the ages, and gives life of the ages. So in the noble hymn
attributed to Moses (Psalm xc.), where our version has, "from
everlasting to everlasting thou art God,"[25] the original is, "from
age to age thou art, O God." It has perhaps been a defect of our
modern science that it has familiarized us merely with the existence
of worlds in space, and not with their existence in time. It is only
in comparatively modern times that the developments of chronological
geology and of physical astronomy have brought before us, not only the
long ages in which the earth was passing through its formative stages,
but also the fact that still longer æons are embraced in the history
of the other bodies of our solar system, and of the starry orbs and
nebulæ. These grand conceptions were already embodied in the Hebrew
revelation, and were used there as the means of giving some faint
approach to a conception of the unlimited existence of God himself, of
the ages in which his creative work has been going on, and of the
future life he has prepared for his redeemed people.

Such views of development and progress are not unknown to many ancient
cosmogonies and philosophical systems, but they had no stable
foundation in observed fact until the rise of modern geology and
physical astronomy; which enable us to affirm that, in addition to
those changeless physical laws which cause the bodies of the universe
to wheel in unvarying cycles, and all natural powers to reproduce
themselves, and, in addition to those organic laws which produce
unceasing successions of living individuals, there is a higher law of
progress. We can now trace back man, the animals and plants his
contemporaries, and others which preceded them, our continents and
mountain ranges, and the solid rocks of which they are composed--nay,
the very fabric of the solar system itself--to their several origins
at distinct points of time; and can maintain that since the earth
began to wheel around the sun, no succeeding year has seen it
precisely as it was in the year before. The old Hebrew record affirms,
and I presume scarcely any sane man really doubts, that this law of
progress emanates from the mind and power of one creative Being. When
men see in natural law only recurring cycles, they may be pardoned for
falling even into the absurdity of believing in eternal succession;
but when they see change and progress, and this in a uniform
direction, overmastering recurring cycles, and introducing new objects
and powers not accounted for by previous objects or powers, they are
brought very near to the presence of the Spiritual Creator. And hence,
although no science can reach back to the act of creation, this
doctrine is much more strongly held in our day by geologists than by
physicists. It is quite true that the idea of creative acts has been
superseded to a great extent by that of "creation by law," or by that
of "evolution." Still behind all there lies a primary creative power;
and the validity of these ideas and their bearing on theism and
creation we shall have to discuss in the sequel. In one thing only
does the Bible here part company with natural science. The Bible goes
on into the future, and predicts a final condition of our planet, of
which science can from its investigations learn nothing.

3. The Bible recognizes purpose, use, and special adaptation in
nature. It is, in short, full of natural theology, akin in some
respects to that which has been so elaborately worked out by so many
modern writers. Numerous passages in support of this will occur to
every one who has read the Scriptures. It is necessary here, however,
to direct attention to a distinction very obvious in Scripture, but
not always attended to by writers on this subject. The Bible maintains
the true "final cause" of all nature to be, not its material and
special adaptations or its value to man, but the pleasure or
satisfaction of the Creator himself. In the earlier periods of
Creation, before man was upon the earth, God contemplates his work and
pronounces it good. The heavenly hosts praise him, saying, "Thou hast
created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
Further, the Bible represents intelligences higher than man as sharing
in the delight which may be derived from the contemplation of God's
works. When the earth first rose from the waters to greet the light,
"the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for
joy." There are many things in nature that strongly impress the
naturalist with this same view, that the Creator takes pleasure in his
works; and, like human genius in its highest efforts, rejoices in
production, even if no sentient being should be ready to sympathize.
The elaborate structures of fossils, of which we have only fragmentary
remains, the profusion of natural objects of surpassing beauty that
grow and perish unseen by us, the delicate microscopic mechanism of
nearly all organic structures, point to other reasons for beauty and
order than those that concern man, or the mere utilities of human
beings; and though there are now naturalists who deny absolutely that
beauty is an object in nature, and assign even the colors of flowers
and insects to utility alone, and this of a very low order, this
doctrine is so repulsive to our higher sentiments that there is
little danger of its general acceptance; while the slightest
consideration shows that the utilities referred to could have been
secured without any of this consummate beauty associated with them,
and our perception of and delight in which mark in a way beyond the
ability of skepticism to cavil at our own spiritual kinship with the
Author of all this profusion of beauty. Yet man is represented as the
chief created being for whom this earth has been prepared and
designed. He obtains dominion over it. A chosen spot is prepared for
him, in which not only his wants but his tastes are consulted; and,
being made in the image of his Maker, his æsthetic sentiments
correspond with the beauties of the Maker's work, and he finds there
also food for his reason and imagination. This view of the subject, as
well as others already referred to, is finely represented in the
address of the Almighty to Job.[26]

The Bible also very often refers to the special adaptations of natural
objects and laws to each other, and to the promotion of the happiness
of sentient creatures lower than man. The 104th Psalm is replete with
notices of such adaptations, and so is the address to Job; and indeed
this view seems hardly ever absent from the minds of the Hebrew
writers, but has its highest applications in the lilies of the field,
that toil not neither do they spin, and the sparrows that are sold for
a farthing, yet the heavenly Father has clothed the one with
surpassing beauty, and provides food for the other, nor allows it to
fail without his knowledge. I may, by way of farther illustration,
merely name a few of the adaptations referred to in Job xxxviii. and
the following chapters. The winds and the clouds are so arranged as to
afford the required supplies of moisture to the wilderness where no
man is, to "cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth." For
similar objects the tempest is ordered, and the clouds arranged "by
wisdom." The adaptations of the wild ass, the wild goat, the ostrich,
the migratory birds, the horse, the hippopotamus, the crocodile, to
their several habitats, modes of life, and uses in nature, are most
vividly sketched and applied as illustrations of the consummate wisdom
of the Creator, which descends to the minutest details of organization
and habit.

It is to be observed here that in holding this doctrine of use and
adaptation in nature, the Bible is only consistent with its own theory
of rational theism. The Monotheist can not refer nature to a conflict
of antagonistic powers and forces. He must recognize in it a unity of
plan; and even those things which appear aberrant, irregular, or
noxious must have their place in this plan. Hence in the Bible God is
maker not only of the day but of the night, not only of the peaceful
cattle but of the voracious crocodile, not only of the sunshine and
shower but of the tornado and the earthquake. Further, in all these
things God is manifested, so that we may learn "his eternal power and
divinity[27] from the things which he has made," and in all these also
there are emblems of his relations to us. This argument from design is
in truth the only proof the Bible condescends to urge for the
existence of God; and it is the only one in which in his later days
our great English philosopher Mill could see any validity.[28]

If the reader happens to be familiar with the objections to the
doctrine of final causes, or teleology, in nature, urged in our day
by Spencer, Haeckel, and others, he will have seen from the foregoing
statements that these objections are in themselves baseless, or
inapplicable to this doctrine as maintained in the Bible. There is no
consistency in the position of men who, when they dig a rudely chipped
flint out of a bed of gravel, immediately infer an intelligent
workman, and who refuse to see any indication of a higher intelligence
in the creation of the workman himself. It is a blind philosophy which
professes to see in primal atoms the "promise and potency of mind,"
and which fails to perceive that such potency is more inconceivable
than the evidence of primary and supreme mind. The men who maintain
that wings were not planned for flight, but that flight has produced
wings, and thousands of like propositions, are simply amusing
themselves with paradoxes to which may very properly be applied the
strange word devised by Haeckel to express his theory of
nature--_Dysteleology_, or purposelessness. It is to be borne in mind,
however, that the teleology of the Bible is not of that narrow kind
which would make man the sole object of nature, and the supreme judge
of its adaptations. Inasmuch as God's plan goes over all the ages past
and future, and relates to the welfare of all sentient beings known or
unknown to us, and also to his own sovereign pleasure as the supreme
object, we may not be in a position either to understand or profit by
all its parts, and hence may expect to find many mysteries, and many
things that we can not at present reconcile with God's wisdom and
goodness. We know but "parts of his ways," the "fullness of his power
who can understand." "His judgments are unsearchable," "his ways are
past finding out."

4. The law of type or pattern in nature is distinctly indicated in the
Bible. This is a principle only recently understood by naturalists,
but it has more or less dimly dawned on the minds of many great
thinkers in all ages. Nor is this wonderful, for the idea of type is
scarcely ever absent from our own conceptions of any work that we may
undertake. In any such work we anticipate recurring daily toil, like
the returning cycles of nature. We look for progress, like that of the
growth of the universe. We study adaptation both of the several parts
to subordinate uses, and of the whole to some general design. But we
also keep in view some pattern, style, or order, according to which
the whole is arranged, and the mutual relations of the parts are
adjusted. The architect must adhere to some order of architecture, and
to some style within that order. The potter, the calico-printer, and
the silversmith must equally study uniformity of pattern in their
several manufactures. The Almighty Worker has exhibited the same idea
in his works. In the animal kingdom, for instance, we have four or
more leading types of structure. Taking any one of these--the
vertebrate, for example--we have a uniform general plan, embracing the
vertebral column constructed of the same elements; the members,
whether the arm of man, the limb of the quadruped, or the wing of the
bat or the bird, or the swimming-paddle of the whale, built of the
same bones. In like manner all the parts of the vertebral column
itself in the same animal, whether in the skull, the neck, or the
trunk, are composed of the same elementary structures. These types are
farther found to be sketched out--first in their more general, and
then in their special features--in proceeding from the lower species
of the same type to the higher, in proceeding from the earlier to the
later stages of embryonic development, and in proceeding from the more
ancient to the more recent creatures that have succeeded each other in
geological time. Man, the highest of the vertebrates, is thus the
archetype, representing and including all the lower and earlier
members of the vertebrate type. The above are but trite and familiar
examples of a doctrine which may furbish and has furnished the
material of volumes. There can be no question that the Hebrew Bible is
the oldest book in which this principle is stated. In the first
chapter of Genesis we have specific type in the creation of plants and
animals after their kinds or species, and in the formation of man in
the image and likeness of the Creator; and, as we shall find in the
sequel, there are some curious ideas of higher and more general types
in the grouping of the creatures referred to. The same idea is
indicated in the closing chapters of Job, where the three higher
classes of the vertebrates are represented by a number of examples,
and the typical likeness of one of these--the hippopotamus--to man,
seems to be recognized. Dr. McCosh has quoted, as an illustration of
the doctrine of types, a very remarkable passage from Psalm cxxxix.:

  "I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
  Marvellous are thy works,
  And that my soul knoweth right well.
  My substance was not hid from Thee,
  When I was made in secret,
  And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth:
  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect;
  And in thy book all my members were written,
  Which in continuance were fashioned when as yet there
    was none of them."

It would too much tax the faith of many to ask them to believe that
the writer of the above passage, or the Spirit that inspired him,
actually meant to teach--what we now know so well from geology--that
the prototypes of all the parts of the archetypal human structure may
be found in those fossil remains of extinct animals which may, in
nearly every country, be dug up from the rocks of the earth. No
objection need, however, be taken to our reading in it the doctrine of
embryonic development according to a systematic type.

Science, it is true, or rather I should perhaps say philosophical
speculation, has sometimes pushed this idea of plan into that of a
spontaneous genetic evolution of things in time, without any creative
superintendence or definite purpose. This way of viewing the matter
is, however, as we shall have occasion to see, both bald and
irrational, and wants the symmetry and completeness of that style of
thought which grasps at once progress and plan and adaptation, as
emanating from a Supreme Will. The question of how the plan has been
worked out will come up for detailed consideration farther on. In the
mean time we have before us the fact that the Bible represents the
cosmos as not the product of a blind conflict of self-existent forces,
but as the result of the production and guidance of these forces by
infinite wisdom.

It is more than curious that this idea of type, so long existing in an
isolated and often depised form, as a theological thought in the
imagery of Scripture, should now be a leading idea of natural science;
and that while comparative anatomy teaches us that the structures of
all past and present lower animals point to man, who, as Professor
Owen expresses it, has had all his parts and organs "sketched out in
anticipation in the inferior animals," the Bible points still farther
forward to an exaltation of the human type itself into what even the
comparative anatomist might perhaps regard as among the "possible
modifications of it beyond those realized in this little orb of ours,"
could he but learn its real nature.

Under the foregoing heads, of the object, the structure, the
authority, and the general cosmical views of the Scripture, I have
endeavored to group certain leading thoughts important as preliminary
to the study of the subject; and, in now entering on the details of
the Old Testament cosmogony, I trust the reader will pardon me for
assuming, as a working hypothesis, that we are studying an inspired
book, revealing the origin of nature, and presenting accurate pictures
of natural facts and broad general views of the cosmos, at least until
in the progress of our inquiry we find reason to adopt lower views;
and that he will, in the mean time, be content to follow me in that
careful and systematic analysis which a work claiming such a character
surely demands.



CHAPTER IV.

THE BEGINNING.


     "In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the
     earth."--Genesis i., 1.


It is a remarkable and instructive fact that the first verse of the
Hebrew sacred writings speaks of the material universe--speaks of it
as a whole, and as originating in a power outside of itself. The
universe, then, in the conception of this ancient writer, is not
eternal. It had a beginning, but that beginning in the indefinite and
by us unmeasured past. It did not originate fortuitously, or by any
merely accidental conflict of self-existent material atoms, but by an
act--an act of will on the part of a Being designated by that name
which among all the Semitic peoples represented the ultimate, eternal,
inscrutable source of power and object of awe and veneration. With the
simplicity and child-like faith of an archaic age, the writer makes no
attempt to combat any objections or difficulties with which this great
fundamental truth may be assailed. He feels its axiomatic force as the
basis of all true religion and sound philosophy, and the ultimate fact
which must ever bar our further progress in the investigation of the
origin of things--the production from non-existence of the material
universe by the eternal self-existent God.

It did not concern him to know what might be the nature of that
unconditioned self-existence; for though, like our ideas of space and
time, incomprehensible, it must be assumed. It did not concern him to
know how matter and force subsist, or what may be the difference
between a material universe cognizable by our senses and the absolute
want of all the phenomena of such a universe or of whatever may be
their basis and essence. Such questions can never be answered, yet the
succession of these phenomena must have had a commencement somewhere
in time. How simple and how grand is his statement! How plain and yet
how profound its teachings!

It is evident that the writer grasps firmly the essence of the
question as to the beginning of things, and covers the whole ground
which advanced scientific or philosophical speculation can yet
traverse. That the universe must have had a beginning no one now needs
to be told. If any philosophical speculator ever truly held that there
has been an endless succession of phenomena, science has now
completely negatived the idea by showing us the beginning of all
things that we know in the present universe, and by establishing the
strongest probabilities that even its ultimate atoms could not have
been eternal. But the question remains--If there was a beginning, what
existed in that beginning? To this question many partial and imperfect
answers have been given, but our ancient record includes them all.

If any one should say, "In the beginning was nothing." Yes, says
Genesis, there was, it is true, nothing of the present matter and
arrangements of nature. Yet all was present potentially in the will of
the Creator.

"In the beginning were atoms," says another. Yes, says Genesis, but
they were created; and so says modern science, and must say of
ultimate particles determined by weight and measure, and incapable of
modification in their essential properties--"They have the properties
of a manufactured article."[29]

"In the beginning were forces," says yet another. True, says Genesis;
but all forces are one in origin--they represent merely the fiat of
the eternal and self-existent. So says science, that force must in the
ultimate resort be an "expression of Will."[30]

"In the beginning was Elohim," adds our old Semitic authority, and in
him are the absolute and eternal thought and will, the Creator from
whom and by whom and in whom are all things.

Thus the simple familiar words, "In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth," answer all possible questions as to the origin
of things, and include all under the conception of theism. Let us now
look at these pregnant words more particularly as to their precise
import and significance.

The divine personality expressed by the Hebrew Elohim may be fairly
said to include all that can be claimed for the pantheistic conception
of "dynamis," or universal material power. Lange gives this as
included in the term Elohim, in his discussion of this term in his
book on Genesis. It has been aptly said that if, physically speaking,
the fall of a sparrow produces a gravitative effect that extends
throughout the universe, there can be no reason why it should be
unknown to God. God is thus everywhere, and always. Yet he is
everywhere and always present as a personality knowing and willing.
From his thought and will in the beginning proceeded the universe. By
him it was created.

What, then, is creation in the sense of the Hebrew writer. The act is
expressed by the verb _bara_, a word of comparatively rare occurrence
in the Scriptures, and employed to denote absolute creation, though
its primary sense is to cut or carve, and it is indeed a near relative
of our own English word "pare." If, says Professor Stuart, of Andover,
this word "does not mean to create in the highest sense, then the
Hebrews had no word by which they could designate this idea." Yet,
like our English "create," the word is used in secondary and
figurative senses, which in no degree detract from its force when
strictly and literally used. Since, however, these secondary senses
may often appear to obscure the primitive meaning, we must examine
them in detail.

In the first chapter of Genesis, after the general statement in verse
1, other verbs signifying to _form_ or _make_ are used to denote the
elaboration of the separate parts of the universe, and the word
"create" is found in only two places, when it refers to the
introduction of "great whales" (reptiles) and of man. These uses of
the word have been cited to disprove its sense of absolute creation.
It must be observed, however, that in the first of these cases we have
the earliest appearance of animal life, and in the second the
introduction of a rational and spiritual nature. Nothing but pure
materialism can suppose that the elements of vital and spiritual being
were included in the matter of the heavens and the earth as produced
in the beginning; and as the Scripture writers were not materialists,
we may infer that they recognized, in the introduction of life and
reason, acts of absolute creation, just as in the origin of matter
itself. In Genesis ii. and iii. we have a form of expression which
well marks the distinction between creation and making. God is there
said to have rested from all his works which he "created and
made"--literally, created "for or in reference to making," the word
for making being one of those already referred to.[31] The force of
this expression consists in its intimating that God had not only
finished the work of _creation_, properly so called, but also the
elaboration of the various details of the universe, as formed or
fashioned out of the original materials. Of a similar character is the
expression in Isaiah xlii., 5, "Jehovah, he that _created_ the heavens
and spread them out;" and that in Psalm cxlviii., 5, "He commanded and
they were _created_, he hath also established them for ever and ever."

In as far as I am aware, the word _bara_ in all the remaining
instances of its occurrence in the Pentateuch refers to the creation
of man, with the following exceptions: Exodus xxxiv., 10, "I will do
(create) marvels, such as have not been seen in all the earth;"
Numbers xvi., 30, "If the Lord make a new thing (create a creation),
and the earth open her mouth and swallow them up." These verses are
types of a class of expressions in which the proper term for creation
is applied to the production of something new, strange, and
marvellous; for instance, "Create in me a clean heart, O Lord;"
"Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth." It is, however,
evidently an inversion of sound exposition to say that these secondary
or figurative meanings should determine the primary and literal sense
in Genesis i. On the contrary, we should rather infer that the sacred
writers in these cases selected the proper word for creation, to
express in the most forcible manner the novel and thorough character
of the changes to which they refer, and their direct dependence on the
Divine will. By such expressions we are in effect referred back to the
original use of the word, as denoting the actual creation of matter
by the command of God, in contradistinction from those arrangements
which have been effected by the gradual operation of secondary agents,
or of laws attached to matter at its creation. It has been farther
observed[32] that in the Hebrew Scriptures this word _bara_ is applied
to God only as an agent, not to any human artificer; a fact which is
very important with reference to its true significance. Viewing
creation in this light, we need not perplex ourselves with the
question whether we should consider Genesis i., 1, to refer to the
essence of matter as distinguished from its qualities. We may content
ourselves with the explanation given by Paul in the eleventh of
Hebrews: "By faith we are certain that the worlds[33] were created by
the decree of God, so that that which _is seen_ was made of that which
_appears not_." Or, with reference to the other uses of the word, if
the first introduction of animal life was a creation, and if the
introduction of the rational nature of man was a creation, we may
suppose that the original creation was in like manner the introduction
or first production of those entities which we call matter and force,
and which to science now are as much ultimate facts as they were to
Moses.

The _nature_ of the act of creation being thus settled, its _extent_
may be ascertained by an examination of the terms heaven and earth.

The word "heavens" (_shamayim_) has in Hebrew as in English a variety
of significations. Of material heavens there are, in the quaint
language of Poole, "_tres regiones, ubi aves, ubi nubes, ubi sidera_;"
or (1) the atmosphere or firmament;[34] (2) the region of clouds in
the upper part of the atmosphere;[35] (3) the depths of space
comprehending the starry orbs.[36] Besides these we have the "heaven
of heavens," the abode of God and spiritual beings.[37] The
application of the term "heaven" to the atmosphere will be considered
when we reach the 6th and 7th verses. In the mean time we may accept
the word in this place as including the material heavens in the widest
sense: (1.) Because it is not here, as in verse 8th, restricted to the
atmosphere by the terms of the narrative; this restriction in verse
8th in fact implying the wider sense of the word in preceding verses.
(2.) Because the atmospheric firmament, elsewhere called heaven,
divides the waters above from those below, whereas it is evident that
all these waters, and of consequence the materials of the atmosphere
itself, are included in the earth of the following verse. (3.) Because
in verse 14th the sidereal heavens are spoken of as arranged from
pre-existing materials, which refers their actual creation back to
this passage.

In the words now under consideration we therefore regard the heavens
as including the whole material universe beyond the limits of our
earth. That this sense of the word is not unknown to the writers of
Scripture, and that they had enlarged and rational views of the
star-spangled abysses of space, will appear from the terms employed by
Moses in his solemn warning against the Sabæan idolatry, in
Deuteronomy iv.: "And lest thou lift up thine eyes to the heavens, and
when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the host
of the heavens, shouldest be incited to worship them and serve them
which Jehovah thy God hath appointed to all nations under the whole
heavens." To the same effect is the expression of the awe and wonder
of the poet king of Israel in Psalm viii.:

  "When I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers,
  The moon and the stars which thou hast ordained;
  What is man that thou art mindful of him?"

I may observe, however, that throughout the Scriptures the word in
question is much more frequently applied to the atmospheric than to
the sidereal heavens. The reason of this appears in the terms of verse
8th.

If we have correctly referred the term "heavens" to the whole of
extramundane space, then the word "earth" must denote our globe as a
distinct world, with all the liquid and aeriform substances on its
surface. The arrangement of the whole universe under the heads
"heaven" and "earth" has been derided as a division into "infinity and
an atom;" but when we consider the relative importance of the earth to
us, and that it constitutes the principal object of the whole
revelation to which this is introductory, the absurdity disappears,
and we recognize the classification as in the circumstances natural
and rational. The word "earth" (_aretz_) is, however, generally used
to denote the dry land, or even a region or district of country. It is
indeed expressly restricted to the dry land in verse 10th; but as in
the case of the parallel limitation of the word "heaven," we may
consider this as a hint that its previous meaning is more extended.
That it is really so, appears from the following considerations: (1.)
It includes the deep, or the material from which the sea and
atmosphere were afterwards formed. (2.) The subsequent verses show
that at the period in question no dry land existed. If instances of a
similar meaning from other parts of Scripture are required, I give
the following: Genesis ii., 1 to 4, "Thus the heavens and the earth
were finished, and all the host of them;" "these are the generations
of the heavens and the earth." In this general summary of the creative
work, the earth evidently includes the seas and all that is in them,
as well as the dry land; and the whole expression denotes the
universe. The well-known and striking remark of Job, "Who hangeth the
earth upon nothing," is also a case in point, and must refer to the
whole world, since in other parts of the same book the dry land or
continental masses of the earth are said, and with great truth and
propriety, to be supported above the waters on pillars or foundations.
The following passages may also be cited as instances of the
occurrence of the idea of the whole world expressed by the word
"earth:" Exodus x., 29, "And Moses said unto him, As soon as I am gone
out of the city, I will spread abroad my hands unto the Lord, and the
thunder shall cease, neither shall there be any more hail; that thou
mayest know the earth is the Lord's;" Deuteronomy x., 14, "Behold, the
heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's, the earth also, and
all that therein is."

The material universe was brought into existence in the "beginning"--a
term evidently indefinite as far as regards any known epoch, and
implying merely priority to all other recorded events. It can not be
the first day, for there is no expressed connection, and the work of
the first day is distinct from that of the beginning. It can not be a
general term for the whole six days, since these are separated from it
by that chaotic or formless state to which we are next introduced. The
beginning, therefore, is the threshold of creation--the line that
separates the old tenantless condition of space from the world-crowded
galaxies of the existing universe. The only other information
respecting it that we have in Scripture is in that fine descriptive
poem in Proverbs viii., in which the Wisdom of God personified--who
may be held to represent the Almighty Word, or Logos, introduced in
the formula "God said," and afterward referred to in Scripture as the
manifested or conditioned Deity, the Mediator between man and the
otherwise inaccessible Divinity, the agent in the work of creation as
well as in that of redemption--narrates the origin of all created
things:

  "Jehovah possessed[38] me, the beginning of his way,
  Before his work of old.
  I was set up from everlasting,
  From the beginning, before the earth was;
  When there were no deeps I was brought forth,
  When there were no fountains abounding in water."

The beginning here precedes the creation of the earth, as well as of
the deep which encompassed its surface in its earliest condition. The
beginning, in this point of view, stretches back from the origin of
the world into the depths of eternity. It is to us emphatically _the_
beginning, because it witnessed the birth of our material system; but
to the eternal Jehovah it was but the beginning of a great series of
his operations, and we have no information of its absolute duration.
From the time when God began to create the celestial orbs, until that
time when it could be said that he had created the heavens and the
earth, countless ages may have rolled along, and myriads of worlds may
have passed through various stages of existence, and the creation of
our planetary system may have been one of the last acts of that long
beginning.

The author of creation is Elohim, or God in his general aspect to
nature and man, and not in that special aspect in reference to the
Hebrew commonwealth and to the work of redemption indicated by the
name Jehovah (_Iaveh_). We need not enter into the doubtful etymology
of the word; but may content ourselves with that supported by many,
perhaps the majority of authorities, which gives it the meaning of
"Object of dread or adoration," or with that preferred by Gesenius,
which makes it mean the "Strong or mighty one." Its plural form has
also greatly tried the ingenuity of the commentators. After carefully
considering the various hypotheses, such as that of the plural of
majesty of the Rabbins, and the primitive polytheism supposed by
certain Rationalists, I can see no better reason than an attempt to
give a grammatical expression to that plurality in unity indicated by
the appearance of the Spirit or breath of God and his Word, or
manifested will and power, as distinct agents in the succeeding
verses. This was probably always held by the Hebrews in a general
form; and was by our Saviour and his apostles specialized in that
trinitarian doctrine which enables both John and Paul explicitly to
assert the agency of the second person of the Trinity in the creative
work.

This elementary trinitarian idea of the first chapter of Genesis may
be further stated thus: The name Elohim expresses the absolute
unconditioned will and reason--the Godhead. The manifestation of God
in creative power, and in the framing and ordering of the cosmos, is
represented by the formula "God said"--the equivalent of the Divine
Word. The further manifestation of God in love of and sympathy with
his work is represented by the Breath of God, and by the expression,
"God saw that it was good"--operations these of the Divine Spirit.

The aboriginal root of the word Elohim probably lies far back of the
Semitic literature, and comes from the natural exclamations "al,"
"lo," "la," which arise from the spontaneous action of the human vocal
organs in the presence of any object of awe or wonder. The plural form
may in like manner be simply equivalent to our terms Godhead or
Divinity, implying all that is essentially God without specification
or distinction of personalities. As Dr. Tayler Lewis well remarks in
his "Introduction to Genesis," we should not dismiss such plurals as
mere _usus loquendi_. The plural form of the name of God, of the
heavens (literally, the "heights"), of the _olamim_, or time-worlds,
of the word for life in Genesis (lives), indicates an idea of vastness
and diversity not measurable by speech, which must have been impressed
on the minds of early men, otherwise these forms would not have
arisen. God, heaven, time, life, were to them existences stretching
outward to infinity, and not to be denoted by the bare singular form
suitable to ordinary objects.

Fairly regarding, then, this ancient form of words, we may hold it as
a clear, concise, and accurate enunciation of an ultimate doctrine of
the origin of things, which with all our increased knowledge of the
history of the earth we are not in a position to replace with any
thing better or more probable. On the other hand, this sublime dogma
of creation leaves us perfectly free to interrogate nature for
ourselves, as to all that it can reveal of the duration and progress
of the creative work. But the positive gain which comes from this
ancient formula goes far beyond these negative qualities. If received,
this one word of the Old Testament is sufficient to deliver us forever
from the superstitious dread of nature, and to present it to us as
neither self-existent nor omnipotent, but as the mere handiwork of a
spiritual Creator to whom we are kin; as not a product of chance or
caprice, but as the result of a definite plan of the All-wise; as not
a congeries of unconnected facts and processes, but as a cosmos, a
well-ordered though complex machine, designed by Him who is the
Almighty and the supreme object of reverence. Had this verse alone
constituted the whole Bible, this one utterance would, wherever known
and received, have been an inestimable boon to mankind; proclaiming
deliverance to the captives of every form of nature-worship and
idolatry, and fixing that idea of unity of plan in the universe which
is the fruitful and stable root of all true progress in science. We
owe profound thanks to the old Hebrew prophet for these words--words
which have broken from the necks of once superstitious Aryan races
chains more galling than those of Egyptian bondage.



CHAPTER V.

THE DESOLATE VOID.


     "And the earth was desolate and empty, and darkness was upon
     the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved on the
     surface of the waters."--Genesis i., 2.


We have here a few bold outlines of a dark and mysterious scene--a
condition of the earth of which we have no certain intimation from any
other source, except the speculations based on modern discoveries in
physical science. It was "unshaped and empty," formless and
uninhabited. The words thus translated are sufficiently plain in their
meaning. The first is used by Isaiah to denote the desolation of a
ruined city, and in Job and the Psalms as characteristic of the
wilderness or desert. Both in connection are employed by Isaiah to
express the destruction of Idumea, and by Jeremiah in a powerful
description of the ruin of nations by God's judgments. When thus
united, they form the strongest expression which the Hebrew could
supply for solitary, uninhabited desolation, like that of a city
reduced to heaps of rubbish, and to the silence and loneliness of
utter decay.

In the present connection these words inform us that the earth was in
a chaotic state, and unfit for the residence of organized beings. The
words themselves suggest the important question: Are they intended to
represent this as the original condition of the earth? Was it a scene
of desolation and confusion when it sprang from the hand of its
Creator? or was this state of ruin consequent on convulsions which
may have been preceded by a very different condition, not mentioned by
the inspired historian? That it may have been so is rendered possible
by the circumstance that the words employed are generally used to
denote the ruin of places formerly inhabited, and by the want of any
necessary connection in time between the first and second verses. It
has even been proposed, though this does violence to the construction,
to read "and the earth became" desolate and empty. Farther, it seems,
_à priori_, improbable that the first act of creative power should
have resulted in the production of a mere chaos. The crust of the
earth also shows, in its alternations of strata and organic remains,
evidence of a great series of changes extending over vast periods, and
which might, in a revelation intended for moral purposes, with great
propriety be omitted.

For such reasons some eminent expositors of these words are disposed
to consider the first verse as a title or introduction, and to refer
to this period the whole series of geological changes; and this view
has formed one of the most popular solutions of the apparent
discrepancies between the geological and Scriptural histories of the
world. It is evident, however, that if we continue to view the term
"earth" as including the whole globe, this hypothesis becomes
altogether untenable. The subsequent verses inform us that at the
period in question the earth was covered by a universal ocean,
possessed no atmosphere and received no light, and had not entered
into its present relations with the other bodies of our system. No
conceivable convulsions could have effected such changes on an earth
previously possessing these arrangements; and geology assures us that
the existing laws and dispositions in these respects have prevailed
from the earliest periods to which it can lead us back, and that the
modern state of things was not separated from those which preceded it
by any such general chaos. To avoid this difficulty, which has been
much more strongly felt as these facts have been more and more clearly
developed by modern science, it has been held that the word earth may
denote only a particular region, temporarily obscured and reduced to
ruin, and about to be fitted up, by the operations of the six days,
for the residence of man; and that consequently the narrative of the
six days refers not to the original arrangement of the surface,
relations, and inhabitants of our planet, but to the retrieval from
ruin and repeopling of a limited territory, supposed to have been in
Central Asia, and which had been submerged and its atmosphere obscured
by aqueous or volcanic vapors. The chief support of this view is the
fact, previously noticed, that the word earth is very frequently used
in the signification of region, district, country; to which may be
added the supposed necessity for harmonizing the Scriptures with
geological discovery, and at the same time viewing the days of
creation as literal solar days.

Can we, however, after finding that in verse 1st the term earth must
mean the whole world, suddenly restrict it in verse 2d to a limited
region. Is it possible that the writer who in verse 10th for the first
time intimates a limitation of the meaning of this word, by the solemn
announcement, "And God called the _dry land_ earth," should in a
previous place use it in a much more limited sense without any hint of
such restriction. The case stands thus: A writer uses the word earth
in the most general sense; in the next sentence he is supposed,
without any intimation of his intention, to use the same word to
denote a region or country, and by so doing entirely to change the
meaning of his whole discourse from that which would otherwise have
attached to it. Yet the same writer when, a few sentences farther on,
it becomes necessary for him to use the word earth to denote the dry
land as distinguished from the seas, formally and with an assertion of
divine authority, intimates the change of meaning. Is not this
supposition contrary not only to sound principles of interpretation,
but also to common-sense; and would it not tend to render worthless
the testimony of a writer to whose diction such inaccuracy must be
ascribed. It is in truth to me surprising beyond measure that such a
view could ever have obtained currency; and I fear it is to be
attributed to a determination, at all hazards and with any amount of
violence to the written record, to make geology and religion coincide.
Must we then throw aside this simple and convenient method of
reconciliation, sanctioned by Chalmers, Smith, Harris, King,
Hitchcock, and many other great or respectable names, and on which so
many good men complacently rest. Truth obliges us to do so, and to
confess that both geology and Scripture refuse to be reconciled on
this basis. We may still admit that the lapse of time between the
beginning and the first day may have been great; but we must
emphatically deny that this interval corresponds with the time
indicated by the series of fossiliferous rocks.

Before leaving this part of the subject, I may remark that the
desolate and empty condition of the earth was not necessarily a
chaotic mass of confusion--_rudis indigestaque moles_; but in reality,
when physically considered, may have been a more symmetrical and
homogeneous condition than any that it subsequently assumed. If the
earth were first a vast globe of vapor, then a liquid spheroid, and
then acquired a crust not yet seamed by fissures or broken by
corrugations, and eventually covered with a universal ocean, then in
each of these early conditions it would, in regard to its form, be a
more perfect globe than at any succeeding time. That something of this
kind is the intention of our historian is implied in his subsequent
statements as to the absence of land and the prevalence of a universal
ocean in the immediately succeeding period, which imply that the crust
had not yet been ruptured or disturbed, but presented an even and
uniform surface, no part of which could project above the
comparatively thin fluid envelope.

The second clause introduces a new object--"_the deep_." Whatever its
precise nature, this is evidently something included in the earth of
verse 1st, and created with it. The word occurs in other parts of the
Hebrew Scriptures in various senses. It often denotes the sea,
especially when in an agitated state (Psa. xlii., 8; Job xxxviii.,
10). In Psalm cxxxv., however, it is distinguished from the sea:
"Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, in the earth, in
the seas, and _in all deeps_." In other cases it has been supposed to
refer to interior recesses of the earth, as when at the deluge "the
fountains of the great deep" are said to have been broken up. It is
probable, however, that this refers to the ocean. In some places it
would appear to mean the atmosphere or its waters; as Prov. viii.,
27-29, "When he prepared the heavens, I was there; when he described a
circle on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above,
when he strengthened the fountains of the deep." The Septuagint in
this passage reads "throne on the winds" and "fountains under the
heaven."[39] Though we can not attach much value to these readings,
there seems little reason to doubt that the author of this passage
understands by the deep the atmospheric waters, and not the sea,
which he mentions separately. The same meaning must be attached to the
word in another passage of the Book of Proverbs: "The Lord in wisdom
hath founded the earth, by understanding hath he established the
heavens; by his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds
drop down the small rain."

In the passage now under consideration, it would seem that we have
both the deep and the waters mentioned, and this not in a way which
would lead us to infer their identity. The darkness on the surface of
the deep and the Spirit of God on the face of the waters seem to refer
to the condition of two distinct objects at the same time. Neither can
the word here refer to subterranean cavities, for the ascription of a
surface to these, and the statement that they were enveloped in
darkness, would in this case have neither meaning nor use. For these
reasons I am induced to believe that the locality of the deep or abyss
is to be sought, not in the universal ocean or the interior of the
earth, but in the vaporous or aeriform mass mantling the surface of
our nascent planet, and containing the materials out of which the
atmosphere was afterward elaborated. This is a view leading to
important consequences: one of which is that the darkness on the
surface of the deep can not have been, as believed by the advocates of
a local chaos, a mere atmospheric obscuration; since even at the
_surface_ of what then represented the atmosphere darkness prevailed.
"God covered the earth with the deep as with a garment, and the waters
stood above the hills," and without this outer garment was the
darkness of space destitute of luminaries, at least of those greater
ones which are of primary importance to us. We learn from the
following verses that there was no layer of clear atmosphere in this
misty deep, separating the clouds from the ocean waters.

The last clause of the verse has always been obscure, and perhaps it
is still impossible to form a clear idea of the operation intended to
be described. We are not even certain whether it is intended to
represent any thing within the compass of ordinary natural laws, or to
denote a direct intervention of the Creator, miraculous in its nature
and confined to one period. It is possible that the general intention
of the statement may be to the effect that the agency of the divine
power in separating the waters from the incumbent vapors had already
commenced--that the Spirit which would afterward evoke so many wonders
out of the chaotic mass was already acting upon it in an unseen and
mysterious way, preparing it for its future destiny.

Some commentators, both Jewish and Christian, are, however, disposed
to view the _Ruach Elohim_, Spirit, or breath of God, as meaning a
wind of God, or mighty wind, according to a well-known Hebrew idiom.
The word in its primary sense means wind or breath, and there are
undoubted instances of the expression "wind of God" for a great or
strong wind. For example, Isaiah xl., 7: "The grass withereth because
the wind of the Lord bloweth upon it;" see also 2 Kings ii., 16. Such
examples, however, are very rare, and by no means sufficient of
themselves to establish this interpretation. Those who hold this view
do so mainly in consideration of the advantage which it affords in
attaching a definite meaning to the expression. Many of them are not,
however, aware of its precise import in a cosmical point of view. A
violent wind, before the formation of the atmosphere, and the
establishment of the laws which regulate the suspension and motions of
aqueous vapors and clouds, must have been merely an agitation of the
confused misty and vaporous mass of the deep; since, as
Ainsworth--more careful than modern interpreters--long ago observed,
"winde (which is the moving of the aier) was not created till the
second day, that the firmament was spred, and the aier made." Such an
agitation is by no means improbable. It would be a very likely
accompaniment of a boiling ocean, resting on a heated surface, and of
excessive condensation of moisture in the upper regions of the
atmosphere; and might act as an influential means of preparing the
earth for the operations of the second day. It is curious also that
the Phoenician cosmogony is said to have contained the idea of a
mighty wind in connection with this part of creation, and the idea of
seething or commotion in the primitive chaos also occurs in the
Assyrian tablets of creation, while the Quiché legend represents
Hurakon, the storm-god, as specially concerned in the creative
work.[40] On the other hand, the verb used in the text rather
expresses hovering or brooding than violent motion, and this better
corresponds with the old fable of the mundane egg, which seems to have
been derived from the event recorded in this verse. The more
evangelical view, which supposes the Holy Spirit to be intended, is
also more in accordance with the general scope of the Scripture
teachings on this subject; and the opposite idea is, as Calvin well
says, "too frigid" to meet with much favor from evangelical
theologians.

Chaos, the equivalent of the Hebrew "desolation and emptiness,"
figures largely in all ancient cosmogonies. That of the Egyptians is
interesting, not only from its resemblance to the Hebrew doctrine, but
also from its probable connection with the cosmogony of the Greeks.
Taking the version of Diodorus Siculus, which though comparatively
modern, yet corresponds with the hints derived from older sources, we
find the original chaos to have been an intermingled condition of
elements constituting heaven and earth. This is the Hebrew "deep." The
first step of progress is the separation of these; the fiery particles
ascending above, and not only producing light, but the revolution of
the heavenly bodies--a curious foreshadowing of the nebular hypothesis
of modern astronomy. After these, in the terms of the lines quoted by
Diodorus from Euripides, plants, birds, mammals, and finally man are
produced, not however by a direct creative fiat, but by the
spontaneous fecundity of the teeming earth. The Phoenician cosmogony
attributed to Sancuniathon has the void, the deep, and the brooding
Spirit; and one of the terms employed, "baau," is the same with the
Hebrew "bohu," void, if read without the points. The Babylonians,
according to Berosus, believed in a chaos--which, however, like the
literal-day theory of some moderns, produced many monsters before
Belus intervened to separate heaven and earth. But the Assyrian legend
found in the Nineveh tablets is very precise in its intimation of the
Chaos or _Tiamat_, the mother of all things; and, farther, it
recognizes this personified chaos as the principle of evil, whose
"dragon" becomes the tempter of the progenitors of mankind, exactly
like the Biblical serpent. This "dragon of the abyss" is thus
identical in name and function with the evil principle even of the
last book of the New Testament, and we have in this also probably the
origin of the Ahriman of the Avesta. Thus in these Eastern theologies
the primeval chaos becomes the type of evil as opposed to the order,
beauty, and goodness of the creation of God--a very natural
association; but one kept in the background by the Hebrew Scriptures,
as tending to a dualistic belief subversive of monotheism. The Greek
myth of Chaos, and its children Erebus and Night, who give birth to
Aether and Day, is the same tradition, personified after the fanciful
manner of a people who, in the primitive period of their civilization,
had no profound appreciation of nature, but were full of human
sympathies.[41] Lastly, in a hymn translated by Dr. Max Müller from
the Rig-Veda, a work probably far older than the Institutes of Menu,
we have such utterances as the following:

  "Nor aught nor nought existed: yon bright sky
  Was not, nor heaven's broad woof outstretched above.
  What covered all? what sheltered? what concealed?
  Was it the water's fathomless abyss? * * *
  Darkness there was, and all at first was veiled
  In gloom profound--an ocean without light;
  The germ that still lay covered in the husk
  Burst forth, one nature, from the fervent heat."

It is evident that the state of our planet which we have just been
considering is one of which we can scarcely form any adequate
conception, and science can in no way aid us, except by suggesting
hypotheses or conjectures. It is remarkable, however, that nearly all
the cosmological theories which have been devised contain some of the
elements of the inspired narrative. The words of Moses appear to
suggest a heated and cooling globe, its crust as yet unbroken by
internal forces, covered by a universal ocean, on which rested a mass
of confused vaporous substances; and it is of such materials, thus
combined by the sacred historian, that cosmologists have built up
their several theories, aqueous or igneous, of the early state of the
earth. Geology, as a science of observation and induction, does not
carry us back to this period. It must still and always say, with
Hutton, that it can find "no trace of a beginning, no prospect of an
end"--not because there has been no beginning or will be no end, but
because the facts which it collects extend neither to the one nor the
other. Geology, like every other department of natural history, can
but investigate the facts which are open to observation, and reason on
these in accordance with the known laws and arrangements of existing
nature. It finds these laws to hold for the oldest period to which the
rocky archives of the earth extend. Respecting the origin of these
general laws and arrangements, or the condition of the earth before
they originated, it knows nothing. In like manner a botanist may
determine the age of a forest by counting the growth rings of the
oldest trees, but he can tell nothing of the forests that may have
preceded it, or of the condition of the surface before it supported a
forest. So the archæologist may on Egyptian monuments read the names
and history of successive dynasties of kings, but he can tell nothing
of the state of the country and its native tribes before those
dynasties began or their monuments were built. Yet geology at least
establishes a probability that a time was when organized beings did
not exist, and when many of the arrangements of the surface of our
earth had not been perfected; and the few facts which have given birth
to the theories promulgated on this subject tend to show that this
pre-geological condition of the earth may have been such as that
described in the words now under consideration. I may remark, in
addition, that if the words of Moses imply the cooling of the globe
from a molten or intensely heated state down to a temperature at which
water could exist on its surface, the known rate of cooling of bodies
of the dimensions and materials of the earth shows that the time
included in these two verses of Genesis must have been enormous,
amounting it may be to many millions of years.

There are two other sciences besides geology which have in modern
times attempted to penetrate into the mysteries of the primitive
abyss, at least by hypothetical explanations--astronomy and chemistry.
The magnificent nebular hypothesis of La Place, which explains the
formation of the whole solar system by the condensation of a revolving
mass of gaseous matter, would manifestly bring our earth to the
condition of a fluid body, with or without a solid crust, and
surrounded by a huge atmosphere of its more volatile materials,
gradually condensing itself around the central nucleus. Chemistry
informs us that this vaporous mass would contain not only the
atmospheric air and water, but all the carbon, sulphur, phosphorus,
chlorine, and other elements, volatile in themselves, or forming
volatile compounds with oxygen or hydrogen, that are now imprisoned in
various states of combination in the solid crust of the earth. Such an
atmosphere--vast, dark, pestilential, and capable in its condensation
of producing the most intense chemical action--is a necessity of an
earth condensing from a vaporous and incandescent state. Thus, in so
far as scientific speculation ventures to penetrate into the genesis
of the earth, its conclusions are at one with the Mosaic cosmogony and
with the traditions of most ancient nations as to the primitive
existence of a chaos--formless and void, in which "nor aught nor
nought existed."

Some of the details of the Mosaic vision of the primeval chaos may be
supplied by the probabilities established by physics and chemistry.
Our first idea of the earth would be a vast vaporous ball, recently
spun out from the general mass of vapors forming the nebula which once
represented the solar system. This huge cloud, whirling its annual
round about the still vaporous centre of the system, would consist of
all the materials now constituting the solid rocks as well as those of
the seas and atmosphere, their atoms kept asunder by the force of
heat, preventing not only their mechanical union, but even their
chemical combination. But heat is being radiated on all sides into
space, and the opposing force of gravitation is little by little
gathering the particles toward the centre. At length a liquid nucleus
is formed, while upon this are being precipitated showers of
condensing matter from the still vast atmosphere to add to its volume.
As this process advances, a new brilliancy is given to the feebly
shining vapors by the incandescence of solid particles in the upper
layers of the atmosphere, and in this stage our earth would be a
little sun, a miniature of that which now forms the centre of our
system, and which still, by virtue of its greater mass, continues in
this state. But at length, by further cooling, this brilliancy is
lost, and the still fluid globe is surrounded by a vast cloudy pall,
in which condensing vapors gather in huge dark masses, and amid
terrible electrical explosions, pour, in constantly increasing, acid,
corrosive rains, upon the heated nucleus, combining with its
materials, or again flashing into vapors. Thus darkness dense and
gross would settle upon the vaporous deep, and would continue for long
ages, until the atmosphere could be finally cleared of its superfluous
vapors. In the mean time a crust of slag or cinder has been forming
upon the molten nucleus. Broken again and again by the heaving of the
seething mass, it at length sets permanently, and finally allows some
portion of the liquid rain condensed upon it to remain as a boiling
ocean. Then began the reign of the waters, under which the first
stratified rocks were laid down by the deposit of earthy and saline
matter suspended or dissolved in the heated sea. Such is the picture
which science presents to us of the genesis of the earth, and so far
as we can judge from his words, such must have been the picture
presented to the mental vision of the ancient seer of creation; but he
could discern also that mysterious influence, the "breath of Elohim,"
which moved on the face of the waters, and prepared for the evolution
of land and of life from their bosom. He saw--

  "An earth--formless and void;
  A vaporous abyss--dark at its very surface;
  A universal ocean--the breath of God hovering over it."

How could such a scene be represented in words? since it presented
none of the familiar features of the actual world. Had he attempted to
dilate upon it, he would, in the absence of the facts furnished by
modern science, have been obliged, like the writers of some of the
less simple and primitive cosmogonies already quoted,[42] to adopt the
feeble expedient of enumerating the things not present. He wisely
contents himself with a few well-chosen words, which boldly sketch the
crude materials of a world hopeless and chaotic but for the animating
breath of the Almighty, who has created even that old chaos out of
which is to be worked in the course of the six creative days all the
variety and beauty of a finished world.

In conclusion, the reader will perceive how this reticence of the
author of Genesis strengthens the argument for the primitive age of
the document, and for the vision-theory as to its origin; and will
also observe that, in the conception of this ancient writer, the
"promise and potency" of order and life reside not alone in the atoms
of a vaporous world, but also in the will of its Creator.



CHAPTER VI.

LIGHT AND CREATIVE DAYS.


     "And God said, Let light be, and light was; and God saw the
     light that it was good, and separated the light from the
     darkness; and God called the light Day; and the darkness he
     called Night. And Evening was and Morning was--Day
     one."--Genesis i., 3-5.


Light is the first element of order and perfection introduced upon our
planet--the first innovation on the old régime of darkness and
desolation. There is a beautiful propriety in this, for the Hebrew
_Aur_ (light) should be viewed as including heat and electricity as
well as light; and these three forces--if they are really distinct,
and not merely various movements of one and the same ether--are in
themselves, or the proximate causes of their manifestation, the prime
movers of the machinery of nature, the vivifying forces without which
the primeval desolation would have been eternal. The statement
presented here is, however, a bold one. Light without luminaries,
which were afterward formed--independent light, so to speak, shining
all around the earth--is an idea not likely to have occurred in the
days of Moses to the framer of a fictitious cosmogony, and yet it
corresponds in a remarkable manner with some of the theories which
have grown out of modern induction.

I have said that the Hebrew word translated "light" includes the
vibratory movements which we call heat and electricity as well. I make
this statement, not intending to assert that the Hebrews experimented
on these forces in the manner of modern science, and would therefore
be prepared to understand their laws or correlations as fully as we
can. I give the word this general sense simply because throughout the
Bible it is used to denote the solar light and heat, and also the
electric light of the thunder-cloud: "the light of His cloud," "the
bright light which is in the clouds." The absence of "_aur_,"
therefore, in the primeval earth, is the absence of solar radiation,
of the lightning's flash, and of volcanic fires. We shall in the
succeeding verses find additional reasons for excluding all these
phenomena from the darkness of the primeval night.

The light of the first day can not reasonably be supposed to have been
in any other than a visible and active state. Whether light be, as
supposed by the older physicists, luminous matter radiated with
immense velocity, or, as now appears more probable, merely the
undulations of a universally diffused ether, its motion had already
commenced. The idea of the matter of light as distinct from its power
of affecting the senses does not appear in the Scriptures any farther
than that the Hebrew name is probably radically identical with the
word ether now used to express the undulating medium by which light is
propagated; and if it did, the general creation of matter being stated
in verse 1, and the notice of the separation of light and darkness
being distinctly given in the present verse, there is no place left
for such a view here. For this reason, that explanation of these words
which supposes that on the first day the _matter_ of light, or the
ether whose motions produce light, was created, and that on the fourth
day, when luminaries were appointed, it became visible by beginning to
undulate, must be abandoned; and the connection between these two
statements must be sought in some other group of facts than that
connected with the existence of the matter of light as distinct from
its undulations.

What, then, was the nature of the light which on the first day shone
without the presence of any local luminary? It must have proceeded
from luminous matter diffused through the whole space of the solar
system, or surrounding our globe as with a mantle. It was "clothed
with light as with a garment,"

  "Sphered in a radiant cloud, for yet the sun was not."

We have already rejected the hypothesis that the primeval night
proceeded from a temporary obscuration of the atmosphere; and the
expression, "God said, Let light be," affords an additional reason,
since, in accordance with the strict precision of language which
everywhere prevails in this ancient document, a mere restoration of
light would not be stated in such terms. If we wish to find a natural
explanation of the mode of illumination referred to, we must recur to
one or other of the suppositions mentioned above, that the luminous
matter formed a nebulous atmosphere, slowly concentrating itself
toward the centre of the solar system, or that it formed a special
envelope of our earth, which subsequently disappeared.

We may suppose this light-giving matter to be the same with that which
now surrounds the sun, and constitutes the stratum of luminous
substance which, by its wondrous and unceasing power of emitting
light, gives him all his glory. To explain the division of the light
from the darkness, we need only suppose that the luminous matter, in
the progress of its concentration, was at length all gathered within
the earth's orbit, and then, as one hemisphere only would be
illuminated at a time, the separation of light from darkness, or of
day from night, would be established. This hypothesis, suggested by
the words themselves, affords a simple and natural explanation of a
statement otherwise obscure.

It is an instructive circumstance that the probabilities respecting
the early state of our planet, thus deduced from the Scriptural
narrative, correspond very closely with the most ingenious and truly
philosophical speculation ever hazarded respecting the origin of our
solar system. I refer to the cosmical hypothesis of La Place, which
was certainly formed without any reference to the Bible; and by
persons whose views of the Mosaic narrative are of that shallow
character which is too prevalent, has been suspected as of infidel
tendency. La Place's theory is based on the following properties of
the solar system, which will be found referred to in this connection
in many popular works on astronomy: 1. The orbits of the planets are
nearly circular. 2. They revolve nearly in the plane of the sun's
equator.[43] 3. They all revolve round the sun in one direction, which
is also the direction of the sun's rotation. 4. They rotate on their
axes also, as far as is known, in the same direction. 5. Their
satellites, with the exception of those of Uranus and Neptune, revolve
in the same direction. Now all these coincidences can scarcely have
been fortuitous, and yet they might have been otherwise without
affecting the working of the system; and, farther, if not fortuitous,
they correspond precisely with the results which would flow from the
condensation of a revolving mass of nebulous matter. La Place,
therefore, conceived that in the beginning the matter of our system
existed in the condition of a mass of vaporous material, having a
central nucleus more or less dense, and the whole rotating in a
uniform direction. Such a mass must, "in condensing by cold, leave in
the plane of its equator zones of vapor composed of substances which
required an intense degree of cold to return to a liquid or solid
state. These zones must have begun by circulating round the sun in the
form of concentric rings, the most volatile molecules of which must
have formed the superior part, and the most condensed the inferior
part. If all the nebulous molecules of which these rings are composed
had continued to cool without disuniting, they would have ended by
forming a liquid or solid ring. But the regular constitution which all
parts of the ring would require for this, and which they would have
needed to preserve when cooling, would make this phenomenon extremely
rare. Accordingly the solar system presents only one instance of
it--that of the rings of Saturn. Generally the ring must have broken
into several parts which have continued to circulate round the sun,
and with almost equal velocity, while at the same time, in consequence
of their separation, they would acquire a rotatory motion round their
respective centres of gravity; and as the molecules of the superior
part of the ring--that is to say, those farthest from the centre of
the sun--had necessarily an absolute velocity greater than the
molecules of the inferior part which is nearest it, the rotatory
motion common to all the fragments must always have been in the same
direction with the orbitual motion. However, if after their division
one of these fragments has been sufficiently superior to the others to
unite them to it by its attraction, they will have formed only a mass
of vapor, which, by the continual friction of all its parts, must have
assumed the form of a spheroid, flattened at the poles and expanded in
the direction of its equator."[44] Here, then, are rings of vapor left
by the successive retreats of the atmosphere of the sun, changed into
so many planets in the condition of vapor, circulating round the
central orb, and possessing a rotatory motion in the direction of
their revolution, while the solar mass was gradually contracting
itself round its centre and assuming its present organized form. Such
is a general view of the hypothesis of La Place, which may also be
followed out into all the known details of the solar system, and will
be found to account for them all. Into these details, however, we can
not now enter. Let us now compare this ingenious speculation with the
Scripture narrative. In both we have the raw material of the heavens
and the earth created before it assumed its distinct forms. In both we
have that state of the planets characterized as without form and void,
the condensing nebulous mass of La Place's theory being in perfect
correspondence with the Scriptural "deep." In both it is implied that
the permanent mutual relations of the several bodies of the system
must have been perfected long after their origin. Lastly, supposing
the luminous atmosphere of our sun to have been of such a character as
to concentrate itself wholly around the centre of the system, and that
as it became concentrated it acquired its intense luminosity, we have
in both the production of light from the same cause; and in both it
would follow that the concentration of this matter within the orbit of
the earth would effect the separation of day from night, by
illuminating alternately the opposite sides of the earth. It is true
that the theory of La Place does not provide for any such special
condensation of luminous matter, nor for any precise stage of the
process as that in which the arrangements of light and darkness should
be completed; but under his hypothesis it seems necessary to account
in some such way for the sole luminosity of the sun; and the point of
separation of day and night must have been a marked epoch in the
history of the process for each planet. The theory of accretion of
matter which has in modern times been associated with that of La Place
would equally well accord with the indications in our Mosaic
record.[45]

It is further to be observed that so long as the material of the earth
constituted a part of the great vaporous mass, it would be encompassed
with its diffused light, and that after it had been left outside the
contracting solar envelope, it might still retain some independent
luminosity in its atmosphere, a trace of which may still exist in the
auroral displays of the upper strata of the air. The earth might thus
at first be in total darkness. It might then be dimly lighted by the
surrounding nebulosity, or by a luminous envelope in its own
atmosphere. Then it might, as before explained, relapse into the
darkness of its misty mantle, and as this cleared away and the light
of the sun increased and became condensed, the latter would gradually
be installed into his office as the sole orb of day. It is quite
evident that we thus have a sufficient hypothetical explanation of the
light of the first of the creative æons; and this is all that in the
present state of science we can expect. "Where is the way where light
dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, that thou
shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and know the way to the house
thereof?"

For the reasons above given, we must regard the hypothesis of the
great French astronomer as a wonderful approximation to the grand and
simple plan of the construction of our system as revealed in
Scripture. Nor must we omit to notice that the telescope and the
spectroscope reveal to us in the heavens gaseous nebular bodies which
may well be new systems in progress of formation, and in which the
Creator is even now dividing the light from the darkness. Still
another thought in connection with this subject is that the theory of
a condensing system affords a measure of the aggregate time occupied
in the work of creation. Sir William Thomson's well-known calculations
give us one hundred millions of years as the possible age of the earth
as a planetary globe; but calculations of the sun's heat as produced
by gravitation alone would give a much less time. We have, however, a
right to assume an original heated condition of the vaporous mass from
which the sun was formed. Still the date above given would seem to be
a maximum rather than a minimum age for the solar system.

"God saw the light that it was good," though it illuminated but a
waste of lifeless waters. It was good because beautiful in itself, and
because God saw it in its relations to long trains of processes and
wonderful organic structures on which it was to act as a vivifying
agency. Throughout the Scriptures light is not only good, but an
emblem of higher good. In Psalm civ. God is represented as "clothing
himself with light as with a garment;" and in many other parts of
these exquisite lyrics we have similar figures. "The Lord is my light
and salvation;" "Lift up the light of thy countenance upon me;" "The
entrance of thy law giveth light;" "The path of the just is as a
shining light." And the great spiritual Light of the world, the "only
begotten of the Father," the mediator alike in creation and
redemption, is himself the "Sun of Righteousness." Perhaps the noblest
Scripture passage relating to the blessing of light is one in the
address of Jehovah to Job, which is unfortunately so imperfectly
translated in the English version as to be almost unintelligible:

  "Hast thou in thy lifetime given law to the morning,
  Or caused the dawn to know its place,
  That it may enclose the horizon in its grasp,
  And chase the robbers before it:
  It rolls along as the seal over the clay,
  Causing all things to stand forth in gorgeous apparel."[46]

                                       Job xxxviii., 12.


The concluding words, "Day one," bring us to the consideration of one
of the most difficult problems in this history, and one on which its
significance in a great measure depends--the meaning of the word
_day_, and the length of the days of creation.

In pursuing this investigation, I shall refrain from noticing in
detail the views of the many able modern writers who, from Cuvier, De
Luc, and Jameson, down to Hugh Miller, Donald McDonald, and Tayler
Lewis, have maintained the period theory, or those equally numerous
and able writers who have supported the opposite view. I acknowledge
obligations to them all, but prefer to direct my attention immediately
to the record itself.

The first important fact that strikes us is one which has not
received the attention it deserves, viz., that the word _day_ is
evidently used in three senses in the record itself. We are told
(verse 5th) that God called the _light_, that is, the diurnal
continuance of light, day. We are also informed that the _evening_ and
the _morning_ were the first day. Day, therefore, in one of these
clauses is the light as separated from the darkness, which we may call
the _natural day_; in the other it is the whole time occupied in the
creation of light and its separation from the darkness, whether that
was a _civil or astronomical day_ of twenty-four hours or some longer
period. In other words, the daylight, to which God is represented as
restricting the use of the term day, is only a part of a day of
creation, which included both light and darkness, and which might be
either a civil day or a longer period, but could not be the natural
day intervening between sunrise and sunset, which is the _ordinary_
day of Scripture phraseology. Again, in the 4th verse of chapter ii.,
which begins the second part of the history, the whole creative week
is called one day--"In the day that Jehovah Elohim made the earth and
the heavens." Such an expression must surely in such a place imply
more than a mere inadvertence on the part of the writer or writers.

To pave the way for a right understanding of the day of creation, it
may be well to consider, in the first place, the manner in which the
_shorter day_ is introduced. In the expression, "God _called_ the
light day," we find for the first time the Creator naming his works,
and we may infer that some important purpose was to be served by this.
The nature of this purpose we ascertain by comparison with other
instances of the same kind occurring in the chapter. God called the
darkness night, the firmament heaven, the dry land earth, the gathered
waters seas. In all these cases the purpose seems to have been one of
verbal definition, perhaps along with an assertion of sovereignty. It
was necessary to distinguish the diurnal darkness from that unvaried
darkness which had been of old, and to discriminate between the
limited waters of an earth having dry land on its surface and those of
the ancient universal ocean. This is effected by introducing two new
terms, night and seas. In like manner it was necessary to mark the new
application of the term earth to the dry land, and that of heaven to
the atmosphere, more especially as these were the senses in which the
words were to be popularly used. The intention, therefore, in all
these cases was to affix to certain things names different from those
which they had previously borne in the narrative, and to certain terms
new senses differing from those in which they had been previously
used. Applying this explanation here, it results that the probable
reason for calling the light day is to point out that the word occurs
in two senses, and that while it was to be the popular and proper term
for the natural day, this sense must be distinguished from its other
meaning as a day of creation. In short, we may take this as a plain
and authoritative declaration _that the day of creation is not the day
of popular speech_. We see in this a striking instance of the general
truth that in the simplicity of the structure of this record we find
not carelessness, but studied and severe precision, and are warned
against the neglect of the smallest peculiarities in its diction.

What, then, is the day of creation, as distinguished by Moses himself
from the natural day. The general opinion, and that which at first
sight appears most probable, is that it is merely the ordinary civil
day of twenty-four hours. Those who adopt this view insist on the
impropriety of diverting the word from its usual sense. Unfortunately,
however, for this argument, the word is not very frequently used in
the Scriptures for the whole twenty-four hours of the earth's
revolution. Its etymology gives it the sense of the time of glowing or
warmth, and in accordance with this the divine authority here limits
its meaning to the daylight. Accordingly throughout the Hebrew
Scriptures _yom_ is generally the natural and not the civil day; and
where the latter is intended, the compound terms "day and night" and
"evening and morning" are frequently used. Any one who glances over
the word "day" in a good English concordance can satisfy himself of
this fact. But the sense of natural day from sunrise to sunset is
expressly excluded here by the context, as already shown; and all that
we can say in favor of the interpretation that limits the day of
creation to twenty-four hours, is that next to the use of the word for
the natural day, which is its true popular meaning, its use for the
civil day is perhaps the most frequent. It is therefore by no means a
statement of the whole truth to affirm, as many writers have done,
that the civil day is _the ordinary_ meaning of the term. At the same
time we may admit that this is _one_ of its ordinary meanings, and
therefore may be its meaning here. Another argument frequently urged
is that the day of creation is said to have had an evening and
morning. We shall consider this more fully in the sequel, and in the
mean time may observe that it appears rather hazardous to attribute an
ordinary evening and morning to a day which, on the face of the
record, preceded the formation and arrangement of the luminaries which
are "for days and for years."[47]

But it may be affirmed that in the Bible long and undefined periods
are indicated by the word "day." In many of these cases the word is in
the plural: as Genesis iv., 3, "And after days it came to pass,"
rendered in our version "in process of time;" Genesis xl., 4, "days in
ward," rendered "a season." Such instances as these are not applicable
to the present question, since the plural may have the sense of
indefinite time, merely by denoting an undetermined number of natural
days. Passages in which the singular occurs in this sense are those
which strictly apply to the case in hand, and such are by no means
rare. A very remarkable example is that in Genesis ii., 4, already
mentioned, where we find, "In the day when Jehovah Elohim made the
earth and the heavens." This day must either mean the beginning, or
must include the whole six days; most probably the latter, since the
word "made" refers not to the act of creation, properly so called, but
to the elaborating processes of the creative week; and occurring as
this does immediately after the narrative of creation, it seems almost
like an intentional intimation of the wide import of the creative
days. It has been objected, however, that the expression "in the day"
is properly a compound adverb, having the force of "when" or "at the
time." But the learned and ingenious authors who urge this objection
have omitted to consider the relative probabilities as to whether the
adverbial use had arisen while the word _yom_ meant simply a day, or
whether the use of the noun for long periods was the reason of the
introduction of such an adverbial expression. The probabilities are in
favor of the latter, for it is not likely that men would construct an
adverb referring to indefinite time from a word denoting one of the
most precisely limited portions of time, unless that word had also a
second and more unlimited sense. Admitting, therefore, that the phrase
is an adverb of time, its use so early as the date of the composition
of Genesis, to denote a period longer than a literal day, seems to
imply that this indefinite use of the word was of high antiquity, and
probably preceded the invention of any term by which long periods
could be denoted.

This use of the word "day" is, however, not limited to cases of the
occurrence of the formula "in the day." The following are a few out of
many instances that might be quoted: Job xviii., 20, "They that come
after him shall be astonished at his day;" Job xv., 32, "It shall be
accomplished before his _time_;" Judges xviii., 30, "Until the day of
the captivity of the land;" Deut. i., 39, "And your children which in
that day had no knowledge of good and evil;" Gen. xxxix., 10, "And it
came to pass about that time" (on that day). We find also abundance of
such expressions as "day of calamity," "day of distress," "day of
wrath," "day of God's power," "day of prosperity." In such passages
the word is evidently used in the sense of era or period of time, and
this in prose as well as poetry.

There is a remarkable passage in the Psalms, which conveys the idea of
a day of God as distinct from human or terrestrial days:

  "Before the mountains were brought forth,
  Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world,
  Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
  Thou turnest man to destruction,
  And sayest, Return, ye children of men;
  For a thousand years are in thy sight as yesterday when it is past,
  And as a watch in the night."[48]

It is a singular coincidence that the authorship of this Psalm is
attributed to Moses, and that its style and language correspond with
the songs credited to him in Deuteronomy. It is farther to be observed
that the reference is to the long periods employed in creation as
contrasted with the limited space of years allotted to man. Its
meaning, too, is somewhat obscured by the inaccurate translation of
the third line. In the original it is, "From _olam_ to _olam_ thou
art, O El"--that is, "from age to age." These long ages of creation,
constituting a duration to us relatively eternal, were so protracted
that even a thousand years are but as a watch in the night. If this
Psalm is rightly attributed to the author of the first chapter of
Genesis, it seems absolutely certain that he understood his own
creative days as being _Olamim_ or æons. The same thought occurs in
the Second Epistle of Peter: "One day is with the Lord as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day."

That the other writers of the Old Testament understood the creative
days in this sense, might be inferred from the entire absence of any
reference to the work of creation as short, since it occupied only six
days. Such reference we may find in modern writers, but never in the
Scriptures. On the contrary, we receive the impression of the creative
work as long continued. Thus the divine Wisdom says in Prov. viii.,
The Lord possessed me "from the beginning of his way before his works
of old, from everlasting, before the antiquities of the earth." So in
Psalm cxlv., God's kingdom relatively to nature and providence is a
kingdom "of all ages." In Psalm civ., which is a poetical version of
the creative work, and the oldest extant commentary on Genesis i., it
is evident that there was no idea in the mind of the writer of a short
time, but rather of long consecutive processes; and I may remark here
that the course of the narrative itself in Genesis i., implies time
for the replenishing of the earth with various forms of being in
preparation for others, exactly as in Psalm civ.

Perhaps one of the most conclusive arguments in favor of the length of
the creative days is that furnished by the seventh day and the
institution of the Sabbath. In Genesis the seventh day is not said to
have had any evening or morning, nor is God said to have resumed his
work on any eighth day. Consequently the seventh day of creation must
be still current. Now in the fourth commandment the Israelites are
enjoined to "remember the Sabbath-day," because "in six days God
created the heavens and the earth." Observe here that the Sabbath is
to be remembered as an institution already known. Observe farther that
the commandment is placed in the middle of the Decalogue, a solitary
piece of apparently arbitrary ritual amid the plainest and most
obvious moral duties. Observe also that the reason given--namely,
God's six days' work and seventh day's rest--seems at first sight both
far-fetched and trivial, as an argument for abstaining from work in a
seventh part of our time. How is all this to be explained? Simply, I
think, on the supposition that the Lawgiver, and those for whom he
legislated, knew beforehand the history of creation and the fall, as
we have them recorded in Genesis, and knew that God's days are æons.
The argument is not, "God worked on six natural days, and rested on
the seventh; do you therefore the same." Such an argument could have
no moral or religious force, more especially as it could not be
affirmed that God habitually works and rests in this way. The argument
reaches far deeper and higher. It is this. God created the world in
six of his days, and on the seventh rested, and invited man in Eden to
enter on his rest as a perpetual Sabbath of happiness. But man fell,
and lost God's Sabbath. Therefore a weekly Sabbath was prescribed to
him as a memorial of what he had lost, and a pledge of what God has
promised in the renewal of life and happiness through our Saviour.
Thus the Sabbath is the central point of the moral law--the Gospel in
the Decalogue--the connection between God and man through the promise
of redemption. It is this and this alone that gives it its true
religious significance, but is lost on the natural-day theory. It
would farther seem that this view of the law was that of our Lord
himself, and was known to the Jews of his time, for, when blamed for
healing a man on the Sabbath, he says, "My Father worketh hitherto,
and I work"--an argument whose force depended on the fact that God
continues to work in his providence throughout his long Sabbath, which
has never been broken except by man. Farther, the writer of the
Epistle to the Hebrews takes this view in arguing as to the rest or
Sabbatism that remains to the people of God. His argument (chap. iv.,
4) may be stated thus: God finished his work and entered into his
rest. Man, in consequence of the fall, failed to do so. He has made
several attempts since, but unsuccessfully. Now Christ has finished
his work, and has entered into his Sabbath, and through him we may
enter into that rest of God which otherwise we can not attain to. This
does not, it is true, refer to the keeping of a Sabbath-day; but it
implies an understanding of the reference to God's olamic Sabbath,
and also implies that Christ, having entered into his Sabbatism in
heaven, gives us a warrant for the Christian Sabbath or Lord's day,
which has the same relation to Christ's present Sabbatism in heaven
that the old Sabbath had to God's rest from his work of creation.[49]

We may add to these considerations the use of the Greek term _Ai[=o]n_
in the New Testament, for what may be called time-worlds as
distinguished from space-worlds. For example, take the expression in
Heb. i., 2: "His Son, by whom he made the worlds," or, literally,
"constituted the æons"--the long time-worlds of the creation. For
God's worlds must exist in time as well as in space, and both may to
our minds alike appear as infinities. If, then, we find that Moses
himself seems to have understood his creative days as æons, that the
succeeding Old Testament writers favor the same view, that this view
is essential to the true significance of the Sabbath and the Lord's
day, and that it is sustained by Christ and his apostles, there is
surely no need for our clinging to a mediæval notion which has no
theological value, and is in opposition to the facts of nature. On the
contrary, should not even children be taught these grand truths, and
led to contemplate the great work of Him who is from æon to æon, and
to think of that Sabbatism which he prepared for us, and which he
still offers to us in the future, in connection with the succession of
worlds in time revealed by geology, and which rivals in grandeur and
perhaps exceeds in interest the extension of worlds in space revealed
by astronomy. In truth, we should bear in mind that the great
revelations of astronomy have too much habituated us to think of
space-worlds rather than time-worlds, while the latter idea was
evidently dominant with the Biblical writers as it is also with modern
geologists. Viewed as æons--divine days, or time-worlds--the days of
creation are thus a reality for all ages; and connect themselves with
the highest moral teachings of the Bible in relation to the fall of
man and God's plan for his restoration, begun in this seventh æon of
the world's long history, and to be completed in that second divine
Sabbatism, secured by the work of redemption, the final "rest" of the
"new heavens and new earth," which remains for the people of God.

But supposing that the inspired writer intended to say that the world
was formed in six long periods of time, could not he have used some
other word than _yom_ that would have been liable to fewer doubts.
There are words which might have been used, as, for instance, _eth_,
time, season, or _olam_, age, ancient time, eternity. The former,
however, has about it a want of precision as to its beginning and end
which unfits it for this use; the latter we have already seen is used
as equivalent to the creative _yom_. On the whole, I am unable to
find any instance which would justify me in affirming that, on the
supposition that Moses intended long periods, he could have better
expressed the idea than by the use of the word _yom_, more especially
if he and those to whom he wrote were familiar with the thought,
preserved to us in the mythology of the Hindoos and Persians, and
probably widely diffused in ancient Asia, that a working day of the
Creator immeasurably transcends a working day of man.[50]

Many objections to the view which I have thus endeavored to support
from internal evidence will at once occur to every intelligent reader
familiar with the literature of this subject. I shall now attempt to
give the principal of these objections a candid consideration.

(1.) It is objected that the time occupied in the work of creation is
given as a reason for the observance of the seventh day as a Sabbath;
and that this requires us to view the days of creation as literal
days. "For in six days Jehovah made the heaven and the earth, the sea
and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; therefore
Jehovah blessed the Sabbath-day and sanctified it." The argument used
here is, however, as we have already seen, one of analogy. Because God
rested on his seventh day, he blessed and sanctified it, and required
men in like manner to sanctify their seventh day.[51] Now, if it
should appear that the working day of God is not the same with the
working day of man, and that the Sabbath of God is of proportionate
length to his working day, the analogy is not weakened; more
especially as we find the same analogy extended to the seventh year.
If it should be said, God worked in the creation of the world in six
long ages, and rested on the seventh, therefore man, in commemoration
of this fact, and of his own loss of an interest in God's rest by the
fall, shall sanctify the seventh of his working days, the argument is
stronger, the example more intelligible, than on the common
supposition. This objection is, in fact, a piece of pedantic
hyperorthodoxy which has too long been handed about without
investigation. I may add to what has been already said in reference to
it, the following vigorous thrust by Hugh Miller:[52]

"I can not avoid thinking that many of our theologians attach a too
narrow meaning to the remarkable reason attached to the fourth
commandment by the divine Lawgiver. "God rested on the seventh day,"
says the text, "from all his work which he had created and made; and
God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." And such is the reason
given in the Decalogue why man should rest on the Sabbath-day. God
rested on the Sabbath-day and sanctified it; and therefore man ought
also to rest on the Sabbath and keep it holy. But I know not where we
shall find grounds for the belief that the Sabbath-day during which
God rested was merely commensurate with one of the Sabbaths of
short-lived man--a brief period measured by a single revolution of the
earth on its axis. We have not, as has been shown, a shadow of
evidence that he resumed his work of creation on the morrow; the
geologist finds no trace of post-Adamic creation; the theologian can
tell us of none. God's Sabbath of rest may still exist; the work of
redemption may be the work of his Sabbath-day. That elevatory process
through successive acts of creation, which engaged him during myriads
of ages, was of an ordinary week-day character; but when the term of
his moral government began, the elevatory process peculiar to it
assumed the divine character of the Sabbath. This special view appears
to lend peculiar emphasis to the reason embodied in the commandment.
The collation of the passage with the geologic record seems, as if by
a species of retranslation, to make it enunciate as its injunction,
"Keep this day, not merely as a day of memorial related to a past
fact, but also as a day of co-operation with God in the work of
elevation, in relation both to a present fact and a future purpose."
"God keeps his Sabbath," it says, "in order that he may save; keep
yours also that ye may be saved." It serves besides to throw light on
the prominence of the Sabbatical command, in a digest of law of which
no jot or tittle can pass away until the fulfillment of all things.
During the present dynasty of probation and trial, that special work
of both God and man on which the character of the future dynasty
depends is the Sabbath-day work of saving and being saved.

"The common objection to that special view which regards the days of
creation as immensely protracted periods of time, furnishes a
specimen, if not of reasoning in a circle, at least of reasoning from
a mere assumption. It first takes for granted that the Sabbath-day
during which God rested was a day of but twenty-four hours, and then
argues from the supposition that, in order to keep up the proportion
between the six previous working days and the seventh day of rest,
which the reason annexed to the fourth commandment demands, these
previous days must also have been twenty-four hours each. It would, I
have begun to suspect, square better with the ascertained facts, and
be at least equally in accordance with Scripture, to reverse the
process, and argue that because God's working days were immensely
protracted periods, his Sabbath also must be an immensely protracted
period. The reason attached to the law of the Sabbath seems to be
simply a reason of proportion: the objection to which I refer is an
objection palpably founded on considerations of proportion, and
certainly were the reason to be divested of proportion, it would be
divested also of its distinctive character as a reason. Were it as
follows, it could not be at all understood: "Six days shalt thou
labor, etc.; but on the seventh day shalt thou do no labor, etc.; for
in six immensely protracted periods of several thousand years each did
the Lord make the heavens and the earth, etc.; and then rested during
a brief day of twenty-four hours; therefore the Lord blessed the brief
day of twenty-four hours and hallowed it." This, I repeat, would not
be reason. All, however, that seems necessary to the integrity of the
reason, in its character as such, is that the proportion of six parts
to seven should be maintained. God's periods may be periods expressed
algebraically by letters symbolical of unknown quantities, and man's
periods by letters symbolical of quantities well known; but if God's
Sabbath be equal to one of his six working days, and man's Sabbath
equal to one of his six working days, the integrity of proportion is
maintained."

Not only does this view of the case entirely remove the objection,
but, as we have already seen, it throws a new light on the nature and
reason of the Sabbath. No good reason, except that of setting an
example, can be assigned for God's resting for a literal day. But if
God's Sabbath of rest from natural creation is still in progress, and
if our short Sabbaths are symbolical of the work of that great Sabbath
in its present gray morning and in its coming glorious noon, then may
the Christian thank this question, incidentally raised by geology and
its long periods, for a ray of light which shines along the whole
course of Scripture history, from the first Sabbath up to that final
"rest which remaineth for the people of God."[53]

(2.) It is objected that evening and morning are ascribed to the first
day. This has been already noticed; it may here be considered more
fully. The word evening in the original is literally the darkening,
the sunset, the dusk. Morning is the _opening_ or _breaking forth_ of
light--the daybreak. It must not be denied that the explanation of
these terms is attended with some difficulty, but this is not at all
lessened by narrowing the day to twenty-four hours. The first
operation of the first day was the creation of light; next we have the
Creator contemplating his work and pronouncing it to be good; then we
have the separation of the light and darkness, previously, it is to be
presumed, intermixed; and all this without the presence of a sun or
other luminary. Which of these operations occupied the evening, and
which the morning, if the day consisted of but twenty-four hours,
beginning, according to Hebrew custom, in the evening? Was the old
primeval darkness the evening or night, and the first breaking forth
of light morning? This is almost the only view compatible with the
Hebrew civil day beginning at evening, but it would at once lengthen
the day beyond twenty-four hours, and contradict the terms of the
record. Again, were the separated light and darkness the morning and
evening? If so, why is the evening mentioned first, contrary to the
supposed facts of the case? why, indeed, are the evening and morning
mentioned at all, since on that supposition this is merely a
repetition? Lastly, shall we adopt the ingenious expedient of dividing
the evening and morning between two days, and maintaining that the
evening belongs to the first and the morning to the second day, which
would deprive the first day of a morning, and render the creative
days, whatever their length, altogether different from Hebrew natural
or civil days? It is unnecessary to pursue such inquiries farther,
since it is evident that the terms of the record will not agree with
the supposition of natural evening and morning. This is of itself a
strong presumption against the hypothesis of civil days, since the
writer was under no necessity so to word these verses that they would
not give any rational or connected sense on the supposition of natural
evening and morning, unless he wished to be otherwise understood.

But what is the meaning of evening and morning, if these days were
long periods? Here fewer difficulties meet us. First: It is readily
conceivable that the beginning and end of a period named a day should
be called evening and morning. But what made the use of these
divisions necessary or appropriate? I answer that nature and
revelation both give grounds at least to suspect that the evening, or
earlier part of each period, was a time of comparative inaction,
sometimes even of retrogression, and that the latter part of each
period was that of its greatest activity and perfection. Thus, on the
views stated in a former chapter, in the first day there was a time
when luminous matter, either gradually concentrating itself toward the
sun, or surrounding the earth itself, shed a dim but slowly increasing
light; then there were day and night, the light increasing in
intensity as, toward the end of the period, the luminous matter became
more and more concentrated around the sun. So in our own seventh day,
the earlier part was a time of deplorable retrogression, and though
the Sun of Righteousness has arisen, we have seen as yet only a dim
and cloudy morning. On the theory of days of vision, as expounded by
Hugh Miller, in the "Testimony of the Rocks," in one of his noblest
passages, the evening and night fall on each picture presented to the
seer like the curtain of a stage. Secondly: Though the explanation
stated above is the most probable, the hypothesis of long periods
admits of another, namely, that the writer means to inform us that
evening and morning, once established by the separation of light from
darkness, continued without cessation throughout the remainder of the
period--rolling from this time uninterruptedly around our planet, like
the seal cylinder over the clay.[54] This explanation is, however,
less applicable to the following days than to the first. Nor does this
accord with the curious fact that the seventh day, which, on the
hypothesis of long periods, is still in progress, is not said to have
had an evening or morning.

(3.) It is objected that the first chapter of Genesis "is not a poem
nor a piece of oratorical diction," but a simple prosaic narrative,
and consequently that its terms must be taken in a literal sense. In
answer to this, I urge that the most truly literal sense of the word,
namely, the _natural_ day, is excluded by the terms of the narrative;
and that the word may be received as a literal day of the Creator, in
the sense of one of his working periods, without involving the use of
poetical diction, and in harmony with the wording of plain prosaic
passages in other parts of the Bible. Examples of this have already
been given. It is, however, true that, though the first chapter of
Genesis is not strictly poetical, it is thrown into a metrical form
which admits of some approach to a figurative expression in the case
of a term of this kind.

(4.) It has been urged that in cases where day is used to denote
period, as in the expressions "day of calamity," etc., the adjuncts
plainly show that it can not mean an ordinary day. In answer to this,
I merely refer to the internal evidence already adduced, and to the
deliberate character of the statements, in the manner rather of the
description of processes than of acts. The difficulties attending the
explanation of the evening and the morning, and the successive
creation of herbivorous and carnivorous animals, are also strong
indications which should serve here to mark the sense, just as the
context does in the cases above referred to.

(5.) In Professor Hitchcock's valuable and popular "Religion of
Geology," I find some additional objections, which deserve notice as
specimens of the learned trifles which pass current among writers on
this subject, much to the detriment of sound Scriptural literature. I
give them in the words of the author. 1. "From Genesis ii., 5 compared
with Genesis i., 11 and 12, it seems that it had not rained on the
earth till the third day; a fact altogether probable if the days were
of twenty-four hours, but absurd if they were long periods." It
strikes us that the absurdity here is all on the side of the short
days. Why should any prominence be given to a fact so common as the
lapse of two ordinary days without rain, more especially if a region
of the earth and not the whole is referred to, and in a document
prepared for a people residing in climates such as those of Egypt and
Palestine. But what could be more instructive and confirmatory of the
truth of the narrative than the fact that in the two long periods
which preceded the formation and clearing up of the atmosphere or
firmament, on which rain depends, and the elevation of the dry land,
which so greatly modifies its distribution, there had been no rain
such as now occurs. This is a most important fact, and one of the
marked coincidences of the record with scientific truth. The
objection, therefore, merely shows that the ordinary day hypothesis
tends to convert one of the finest internal harmonies of this
wonderful history into an empty and, in some respects, absurd
commonplace. 2. "This hypothesis (that days are long periods) assumes
that Moses describes the creation of all the animals and plants that
have ever lived on our globe. But geology decides that the species now
living, since they are not found in the rocks any lower than man
is,[55] could not have been contemporaneous with those in the rocks,
but must have been created when man was--that is, in the sixth day. Of
such a creation no mention is made in Genesis; the inference is that
Moses does not describe the creation of the existing races, but only
of those that lived thousands of years earlier, and whose existence
was scarcely suspected till modern times. Who will admit such an
absurdity?" In answer to this objection, I remark that it is based on
a false assumption. The hypothesis of long periods does not require us
to assume that Moses notices all the animals and plants that have ever
lived, but on the contrary that he informs us only of the _first
appearance_ of each great natural type in the animal and vegetable
kingdoms; just as he informs us of the first appearance of dry land on
the third day, but says nothing of the changes which it underwent on
subsequent days. Thus plants were created on the third day, and though
they may have been several times destroyed and renewed as to genera
and species, we infer that they continued to exist in all the
succeeding days, though the inspired historian does not inform us of
the fact. So also many tribes of animals were created in the early
part of the fifth day, and it is quite unnecessary for us to be
informed that these tribes continued to exist through the sixth day.
If the days were long periods, the inspired writer could not have
adopted any other course, unless he had been instructed to write a
treatise on Palæontology, and to describe the fauna and flora of each
successive period with their characteristic differences. 3. "Though
there is a general resemblance between the order of creation as
described in Genesis and by geology, yet when we look at the details
of the creation of the organic world, as required by this hypothesis,
we find manifest discrepancy. Thus the Bible represents plants only to
have been created on the third day, and animals not till the fifth;
and hence at least the lower half of the fossiliferous rocks ought to
contain nothing but vegetables. Whereas in fact the lower half of
these rocks, all below the carboniferous, although abounding in
animals, contain scarcely any plants, and these in the lowest strata
fucoids or sea-weeds. But the Mosaic account evidently describes
flowering and seed-bearing plants, not flowerless and seedless algæ.
Again, reptiles are described in Genesis as created on the fifth day;
but reptilia and batrachians existed as early as the time when the
lower carboniferous and even old red sandstone were in course of
deposition, as their tracks on those rocks in Nova Scotia and
Pennsylvania evince.[56] In short, if we maintain that Moses describes
fossils as well as living species, we find discrepancy instead of
correspondence between his order of creation and that of geology." In
this objection it is assumed that the geological history of the earth
goes back to the third day of creation, or, in other words, to the
dawn of organic life. None of the greater authorities in geology
would, however, now venture to make such an assertion, and the
progress of geology is rapidly making the contrary more and more
probable. The fact is that, on the supposition that the days of
creation are long periods, the whole series of the fossiliferous rocks
belongs to the fifth and sixth days; and that for the early plant
creation of the third day, and the great physical changes of the
fourth, geology has nothing as yet to show, except a mass of
metamorphosed eozoic rocks which have hitherto yielded no fossils
except a few Protozoa; but which contain vast quantities of carbon in
the form of graphite, which may be the remains of plants.

I have much pleasure in quoting, as a further answer to these
objections, the following from Professor Dana:[57]

"Accepting the account in Genesis as true, the seeming discrepancy
between it and geology rests mainly here: Geology holds, and has held
from the first, that the progress of creation was mainly through
secondary causes; for the existence of the science presupposes this.
Moses, on the contrary, was thought to sustain the idea of a simple
fiat for each step. Grant this first point to science, and what
farther conflict is there? _The question of the length of time_, it is
replied. But not so; for if we may take the record as allowing more
than six days of twenty-four hours, the Bible then places no limit to
time. _The question of the days and periods_, it is replied again. But
this is of little moment in comparison with the first principle
granted. Those who admit the length of time and stand upon days of
twenty-four hours have to place geological time _before_ the six days,
and then assume a chaos and reordering of creation, on the six-day and
fiat principle, after a previous creation that had operated for a long
period through secondary causes. Others take days as periods, and thus
allow the required time, admitting that creation was one in progress,
a grand whole, instead of a _first_ creation excepting man by one
method, and a _second_ with man by the other. This is now the
remaining question between the theologians and geologists; for all the
minor points, as to the exact interpretation of each day, do not
affect the general concordance or discordance of the Bible and
science.

"On this point geology is now explicit in its decision, and indeed has
long been so. It proves that there was no return to chaos, no great
revolution, that creation was beyond doubt one in its progress. We
know that some geologists have taken the other view. But it is only in
the capacity of theologians, and not as geologists. The Rev. Dr.
Buckland, in placing the great events of geology between the first and
second verses of the Mosaic account, did not pretend that there was a
geological basis for such an hypothesis; and no writer since has ever
brought forward the first fact in geology to support the idea of a
rearrangement just before man; not one solitary fact has ever been
appealed to. The conclusion was on Biblical grounds, and not in any
sense on geological. The best that Buckland could say, when he wrote
twenty-five years since, was that geology did not absolutely disprove
such an hypothesis; and that can not be said now.

"It is often asserted, in order to unsettle confidence in these
particular teachings of geology, that geology is a changing science.
In this connection the remark conveys an erroneous impression. Geology
is a progressive science; and all its progress tends to establish more
firmly these two principles: (1) The slow progress of creation through
secondary causes, as explained; and (2) the progress by periods
analogous to the days of Genesis."

I have, I trust, shown that the principal objections to the
lengthening of the Mosaic days into great cosmical periods are of a
character too light and superficial to deserve any regard. I shall now
endeavor to add to the internal evidence previously given some
considerations of an external character which support this view.

1. The fact that the creation was progressive, that it proceeded from
the formation of the raw material of the universe, through successive
stages, to the perfection of living organisms, if we regard the
analogy of God's operations as disclosed in the geological history of
the earth and in the present course of nature, must impress us with a
suspicion that long periods were employed in the work. God might have
prepared the earth for man in an instant. He did not choose to do so,
but on the contrary proceeded step by step; and the record he has
given us does not receive its full significance nor attain its full
harmony with the course of geological history, unless we can
understand each day of the creative week as including a long
succession of ages.

2. We have, as already explained, reason to believe that the seventh
day at least has been of long duration. At the close of the sixth, God
rested from all his work of material creation, and we have as yet no
evidence that he has resumed it. Neither theologians nor evolutionists
will, I presume, desire to maintain that any strictly creative acts
have occurred in the modern period of geology. We know that the
present day, if it is the seventh, has lasted already for at least six
thousand years, and, if we may judge from the testimony of prophecy,
has yet a long space to run, before it merges in that "new heaven and
new earth" for which all believers look, and which will constitute the
first day of an endless sabbatism.

3. The philosophical and religious systems of many ancient nations
afford intimations of the somewhat extensive prevalence in ancient
times of the notion of long creative periods, corresponding to the
Mosaic days. These notions, in so far as they are based on truth, are
probably derived from the Mosaic narrative itself, or from the
primitive patriarchal documents which may have formed the basis of
that narrative. They are, no doubt, all more or less garbled versions,
and can not be regarded as of any authority, but they serve to show
what was the interpretation of the document in a very remote
antiquity. I have collected from a variety of sources the following
examples:

The ancient mythology of Persia appears to have had six creative
periods, each apparently of a thousand years, and corresponding very
nearly with the Mosaic days.[58] The Chaldeans had a similar system,
to which in a previous chapter we have already referred. The Etruscans
possessed a history of the creation, somewhat resembling that of the
Bible, and representing the creation as occupying six periods of a
thousand years each.[59]

The Egyptians believed that the world had been subject to a series of
destructions and renewals, the intervals between which amounted to
120,000 years, or, according to other authorities, to 300,000 or
360,000 years. This system of destruction and renewal the Egyptian
priests appear to have wrought out into considerable detail, but
though important truths may be concealed under their mysterious
dogmas, it will not repay us to dwell on the fragments that remain of
them. There can be no doubt, however, that at least the basis of the
Egyptian cosmogony must have been the common property of all the
Hamite nations, of which Egypt was the greatest and most permanent;
and therefore in all probability derived from the ideas of creation
which were current not long after the Deluge. The Egyptians appear
also, as already stated, to have had a physical cosmogony, beginning
with a chaos in which heaven and earth were mingled, and from which
were evolved fiery matters which ascended into the heavens, and moist
earthy matters which formed the earth and the sea; and from these were
produced, by the agency of solar heat, the various animals. The terms
of this cosmogony, as it is given by Diodorus Siculus, indicate the
belief of long formative periods.[60]

The Hindoos have a somewhat extended, though, according to the
translations, a not very intelligible cosmogony. It plainly, however,
asserts long periods of creative work, and is interesting as an
ancient cosmogony preserved entire and without transmission through
secondary channels. The following is a summary, in so far as I have
been able to gather it, from the translation of the Institutes of Menu
by Sir W. Jones.[61]

The introduction to the Institutes represents Menu as questioned by
the "divine sages" respecting the laws that should regulate all
classes or castes. He proceeds to detail the course of creation,
stating that the "Self-existing Power,[62] undiscovered, but making
this world discernible, He whom the mind alone can perceive, whose
essence eludes the external senses, who has no visible parts, who
exists from eternity, even the soul of all being, whom no being can
comprehend, shone forth in person."

After giving this exalted view of the Creator, the writer proceeds to
state that the Self-existent created the waters, and then an egg, from
which he himself comes forth as Brahma the forefather of spirits. "The
waters are called Nara because they are the production of _Nara_, the
spirit of God, and since they were his first _Ayana_, or place of
motion, he thence is named _Narayana_, or moving on the waters. In the
egg Brahma remained a year, and caused the egg to divide, forming the
heaven above and the earth beneath, and the subtile ether, the eight
regions, and the receptacle of waters between. He then drew forth from
the supreme soul mind with all its powers and properties." The rest of
the account appears to be very confused, and I confess to a great
extent unintelligible to me. There follows, however, a continuation
of the narrative, stating that there is a succession of seven Menus,
each of whom produces and supports the earth during his reign. It is
in the account of these successive Menus that the following statement
respecting the days and years of Brahma occurs:

"A day of the Gods is equal to a year. Four thousand years of the Gods
are called a Critya or Satya age. Four ages are an age of the Gods.
_One thousand divine ages (equal to more than four millions of human
years) are a day of Brahma the Creator._ Seventy-two divine ages are
one manwantara. * * * The aggregate of four ages they call a divine
age, and believe that in every thousand such ages, or in every day of
Brahma, fourteen Menus are successively invested with the sovereignty
of the earth. Each Menu they suppose transmits his authority to his
sons and grandsons during a period of seventy-two divine ages, and
such a period they call a manwantara. Thirty such days (of the
Creator), or calpas, constitute a month of Brahma; twelve such months
one of his years, and 100 such years his age, of which they assert
that fifty years have elapsed. We are thus, according to the Hindoos,
in the first day or calpa of the fifty-first year of Brahma's life,
and in the twenty-eighth divine age of the _seventh manwantara_ of
that day. In the present day of Brahma the first Menu was named the
Son of the Self-existent, and by him the institutes of religion and
civil duties are said to have been delivered. In his time occurred a
new creation called the _Lotos_ creation." Of five Menus who succeeded
him, Sir William could find little but the names, but the accounts of
the seventh are very full, and it appears that in his reign the earth
was destroyed by a flood. Sir William suggests that the first Menu may
represent the creation, and that the seventh may be Noah. The name
Menu or Manu is equivalent to "man," and signifies "the
intelligent."[63]

In this Hindoo cosmogony we have many points of correspondence with
the Scripture narrative: for instance, the Self-existent Creator; the
agency of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit; the absolute creation of
matter; the hovering of the Spirit over the primeval waters; the
sevenfold division of the creative process; and the idea of days of
the Creator of immense duration. If we suppose the day of Brahma in
the Hindoo cosmogony to represent the Mosaic day, then it amounts to
no less than 4,320,000 years; or if, with Sir W. Jones, we suppose the
manwantara to represent the Mosaic day, its duration will be 308,571
years; and the total antiquity of the earth, without counting the
undefined "beginning," will be either more than twenty-five or than
two millions of years. It would be folly, however, to suppose that
these Hindoo numbers, which are probably purely conjectural, or based
on astronomical cycles, make any near approximation to the facts of
the case. The Institutes of Menu are probably in their present form
not of great antiquity, but there are other Hindoo documents of
greater age which maintain similar views, and it is probable that the
account of the creation in the Institutes is at least an imperfect
version of the original narrative as it existed among the earliest
colonists of India.[64] It corresponds in many points with the oldest
notions on these subjects that remain to us in the wrecks of the
mythology of Egypt and other ancient nations, and it aids in proving
that the fabulous ages of gods and demigods in the ancient mythologies
_are really pre-Adamite_; and belong not to human history, but to the
work of creation. It also shows that the idea of long creative periods
as equivalents of the Mosaic days must, in the infancy of the
postdiluvian world, have been very widely diffused. Such evidence is,
no doubt, of small authority in the interpretation of Scripture; but
it must be admitted that serious consideration is due to a method of
interpretation which thus tends to bring the Mosaic account into
harmony with the facts of modern science, and with the belief of
almost universal antiquity, and at the same time gives it its fullest
significance and most perfect internal symmetry of parts. It is also
very interesting to note the wide diffusion among the most ancient
nations of cosmological views identical in their main features with
those of the Bible, proving, almost beyond doubt, that these views had
some common and very ancient source, and commanded universal belief
among the primitive tribes of men.

I have hitherto in this part of the discussion avoided detailed
reference to what may be regarded as the "prophetic day" view of the
narrative of creation. This may be shortly stated as follows: In the
prophetical parts of Scripture the prophet sees in vision, as in a
picture or acted scene, the events that are to come to pass, and in
consequence represents years or longer periods by days of vision. Now
the revelation of the pre-Adamite past is in its nature akin to that
of the unknown future; and Moses may have seen these wondrous events
in vision--in visions of successive days--under the guise of which he
presents geological time. Some things in the form of the narrative
favor this view, and it certainly affords the most clearly
intelligible theory as to the mode in which such a revelation may have
been made to man. It is advocated by Kurtz, by the author of an
excellent little work, the "Harmony of the Mosaic and Geological
Records," by Hugh Miller, and more recently by Tayler Lewis. To these
writers I must refer for its more full illustration, and for the grand
pictorial view which it gives of the vision of the creative week.

In reviewing the somewhat lengthy train of reasoning into which the
term "day" has led us, it appears that from internal evidence alone it
can be rendered probable that the day of creation is neither the
natural nor the civil day. It also appears that the objections urged
against the doctrine of day-periods are of no weight when properly
scrutinized, and that it harmonizes with the progressive nature of the
work, the evidence of geology, and the cosmological notions of ancient
nations. I do not suppose that this position has been incontrovertibly
established; but I believe that every serious difficulty has been
removed from its acceptance; and with this, for the present, I remain
satisfied. Every step of our subsequent progress will afford new
criteria of its truth or fallacy.

One further question of some interest is--What, according to the
theory of long creative days and the testimony of geology, would be
the length and precise cosmical nature of these days? With regard to
the first part of the question, we do not know the actual value of our
geological ages in time; but it is probable that each great creative
æon may have extended through millions of years. As to the nature of
the days, this may have been determined by direct volitions of the
Creator, or indirectly by some of those great astronomical cycles
which arise from the varying eccentricity of the earth's orbit, or the
diminution of the velocity of its rotation, or by its gradual cooling.

With reference to these points, science has as yet little information
to give. Sir William Thomson has, indeed, indicated for the time since
the earth's crust first began to form a period of between one and two
hundred millions of years; but Professor Guthrie Tait, on the other
hand, argues that ten or fifteen millions of years are probably
sufficient,[65] and Lockyer has suggested an hypothesis of successive
rekindlings of the solar heat which might give a more protracted time
than that of Thomson. Some of the hypotheses of derivation current,
but which are based rather on philosophical speculation than on
scientific fact, would also require a longer time than that allowed by
Thomson; and it is to be regretted that some geologists, by giving
credence to such hypotheses of derivation, and by loose reasoning on
the time required for the denudation and deposition of rocks, have
been induced to commit themselves to very extravagant estimates as to
geological time. On the whole, it is evident that only the most vague
guesses can at present be based on the facts in our possession, though
the whole time required has unquestionably been very great, the
deposition of the series of stratified rocks probably requiring at
least the greater part of the minimum time allowed by Thomson.[66]

As to the cosmical nature of the periods, while some geologists appear
to regard the whole of geological time as a continuous evolution
without any breaks, it is evidently more in accordance with facts to
hold that there have been cycles of repose and activity succeeding
each other, and that these have been of different grades. In the
succession of deposits it is plain that periods of depression and
upheaval common to all the continental masses have succeeded each
other at somewhat regular intervals, and that within these periods
there have been alternations of colder and warmer climates. These,
however, are not equal to the creative days of our record, for they
are greatly more numerous. They are but the vastly protracted hours of
these almost endless days. Beyond and above these there is another
grade of geological period, marked not by mere gradual elevation and
depression of the continental areas, but by vast crumplings of the
earth's crust and enormous changes of level. Such a great movement
unquestionably closed the Eozoic period of geology. Another of less
magnitude occurred in what is termed the Permian age at the end of the
Palæozoic. A third terminated the Mesozoic age, and introduced the
Tertiary or Kainozoic. Perhaps we should reckon the glacial age,
though characterized by far less physical change than the others, as a
fourth. The possible physical causes which have been suggested for
such greater disturbances are the collapses of the crust in equatorial
regions, which may be supposed to have resulted at long intervals of
time, from the gradual retardation of the earth's rotation caused by
the tides, or the similar collapses and other changes due to the
shrinkages of the earth's interior caused by its gradual cooling, and
to the unequal deposition of material by water on different parts of
its surface.[67] The more full discussion of these points belongs,
however, to a future chapter.

These greater movements of the crust, would, as already stated,
coincide to some extent with the later creative days in the manner
indicated below:

  ==================================================================
  Collapse of crust at close of   | Close of Fourth Æon,
  Eozoic Time,                    | and beginning of Fifth.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
  Collapse in Permian Period and  | Middle of Fifth Æon.
  end of Palæozoic Time,          |
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
  Great subsidence and collapse   | Close of Fifth Æon, and beginning
  at close of Mesozoic Age,       | of Sixth.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
  Great subsidence of the         | End of Sixth Æon.
  Pleistocene or Glacial Age,     |
  ==================================================================

The question recurs--Why are God's days so long? He is not like us, a
being of yesterday. He is "from Olam to Olam," and even in human
history one day is with him as a thousand years; and we who live in
these later days of the world know full well how slow the march of his
plan has been even in human history. We shall know in the endless ages
of a future eternity that even to us these long creative days may at
last become but as watches in the night.



CHAPTER VII.

THE ATMOSPHERE.


     "And God said, Let there be an expanse between the waters;
     and let it separate the waters from the waters. And God made
     the expanse, and separated the waters which are under the
     expanse from the waters which are over the expanse: and it
     was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And the evening
     and the morning were the second day."--Genesis i. 6-8.


At the opening of the period to which we are now introduced the earth
was covered by the waters, and these were in such a condition that
there was no distinction between the seas and the clouds. No
atmosphere separated them, or, in other words, dense fogs and mists
everywhere rested on the surface of the primeval ocean. To understand
as far as possible the precise condition of the earth's surface at
this period, it will be necessary to notice the present constitution
of the atmosphere, especially in its relations to aqueous vapor.

The regular and constant constituents of the atmosphere are the
elements oxygen and nitrogen, which, at the temperature and pressure
existing on the surface of our globe, are permanently aeriform or
gaseous. Beside these gases, the air always contains a quantity of the
vapor of water in a perfectly aeriform and transparent condition. This
vapor is not, however, permanently gaseous. At all temperatures below
212 degrees it tends to the liquid state; and its elastic force, which
preserves its particles in the separated state of vapor, increases or
diminishes at a more rapid rate than the increase or diminution of
temperature. Hence the quantity of vapor that can be suspended in
clear air depends on the temperature of the air itself. As the
temperature of the air rises, its power of sustaining vapor increases
more rapidly than its temperature; and as the temperature of the air
falls, the elastic force of its contained vapor diminishes in a
greater ratio, until it can exist as an invisible vapor no longer, but
becomes condensed into minute bubbles or globules, forming cloud,
mist, or rain. Two other circumstances operate along with these
properties of air and vapor. The heat radiated from the earth's
surface causes the lower strata of air to be, in ordinary
circumstances, warmer than the higher; and, on the other hand, warm
air, being lighter than that which is colder, the warm layer of air at
the surface continually tends to rise through and above the colder
currents immediately over it. Let us consider the operation of the
causes thus roughly sketched in a column of calm air. The lower
portion becomes warmed, and if in contact with water takes up a
quantity of its vapor proportioned to the temperature, or in ordinary
circumstances somewhat less than this proportion. It then tends to
ascend, and as it rises and becomes mixed with colder air it gradually
loses its power of sustaining moisture, and at a height proportioned
to the diminution of temperature and the quantity of vapor originally
contained in the air, it begins to part with water, which becomes
condensed in the form of mist or cloud; and the surface at which this
precipitation takes place is often still more distinctly marked when
two masses or layers of air at different temperatures become
intermixed; in which case, on the principle already stated, the mean
temperature produced is unable to sustain the vapor proper to the two
extremes, and moisture is precipitated. It thus happens that layers
of cloud accumulate in the atmosphere, while between them and the
surface there is a stratum of clear air. Fogs and mists are in the
present state of nature exceptional appearances, depending generally
on local causes, and showing what the world might be but for that
balancing of temperature and the elastic force of vapor which
constitutes the atmospheric firmament.[68]

The quantity of water thus suspended over the earth is enormous. "When
we see a cloud resolve itself into rain, and pour out thousands of
gallons of water, we can not comprehend how it can float in the
atmosphere."[69] The explanation is--1st, the extreme levity of the
minute globules, which causes them to fall very slowly; 2d, they are
supported by currents of air, especially by the ascending currents
developed both in still air and in storms; 3dly, clouds are often
dissolving on one side and forming on another. A cloud gradually
descending may be dissolving away by evaporation at the base as fast
as new matter is being added above. On the other hand, an ascending
warm current of air may be constantly depositing moisture at the base
of the cloud, and this may be evaporating under the solar rays above.
In this case a cloud is "merely the visible form of an aerial space,
in which certain processes are at the moment in equilibrium, and all
the particles in a state of upward movement."[70] But so soon as
condensation markedly exceeds evaporation, rain falls, and the
atmosphere discharges its vast load of water--how vast we may gather
from the fact that the waters of all the rivers are but a part of the
overflowings of the great atmospheric reservoir. "God binds up the
waters in his thick cloud, and the cloud is not rent under them." It
is thus that the terrestrial waters are divided into those above and
those below that expanse of clear air in which we live and move,
exempt from the dense, dark mists of the earth's earlier state, yet
enjoying the benefits of the cloudy curtain that veils the burning
sun, and of the cloudy reservoirs that drop down rain to nourish every
green thing.

We have no reason to suppose that the laws which regulate mixtures of
gases and vapors did not prevail in the period in question. It is
probable that these laws are as old as the creation of matter; but the
condition of our earth up to the second day must have been such as
prevented them from operating as at present. Such a condition might
possibly be the result of an excessive evaporation occasioned by
internal heat. The interior of the earth still remains in a heated
state, and includes large subterranean reservoirs of melted rock, as
is proved by the increase of temperature in deep mines and borings,
and by the widely extended phenomena of hot springs and volcanic
action. At the period in question the internal temperature of the
earth was probably vastly greater than at present, and perhaps the
whole interior of the globe may have been in a state of igneous
fluidity. At the same time the external solid crust may have been
thin, and it was not fractured and thickened in places by the upheaval
of mountain chains or the deposition of great and unequal sheets of
sediment; for, as I may again remind the reader, the primitive chaos
did not consist of a confused accumulation of rocky masses, but the
earth's crust must then have been more smooth and unbroken than at any
subsequent period. This being the internal condition of the earth, it
is quite conceivable, without any violation of the existing laws of
nature, that the waters of the ocean, warmed by internal heat, may
have sent up a sufficient quantity of vapor to keep the lower strata
of air in a constant state of saturation, and to occasion an equally
constant precipitation of moisture from the colder strata above. This
would merely be the universal operation of a cause similar to that
which now produces fogs at the northern limit of the Atlantic Gulf
Stream, and in other localities where currents of warm water flow
under or near to cooler air. Such a state of things is more
conceivable in a globe covered with water, and consequently destitute
of the dry and powerfully radiating surfaces which land presents, and
receiving from without the rays, not of a solar orb, but of a
comparatively feeble and diffused luminous ether. The continued action
of these causes would gradually cool the earth's crust and its
incumbent waters, until the heat from without preponderated over that
from within, when the result stated in the text would be effected.

The statements of our primitive authority for this condition of the
earth might also be accounted for on the supposition that the
permanently gaseous part of the atmosphere did not at the period in
question exist in its present state, but that it was on the second day
actually elaborated and caused to take its place in separating the
atmospheric from the oceanic waters. The first is by far the more
probable view; but we may still apply to such speculations the words
of Elihu, the friend of Job:

  "Stand still and consider the wonderful works of God.
  Dost thou know when God disposes them,
  And the lightning of his cloud shines forth?
  Dost thou know the poising of the dark clouds,
  The wonderful works of the Perfect in knowledge?"

We may now consider the words in which this great improvement in the
condition of the earth is recorded. The Hebrew term for the atmosphere
is _Rakiah_, literally, something expanded or beaten out--an expanse.
It is rendered in our version "firmament," a word conveying the notion
of support and fixity, and in the Septuagint "_Stereoma_," a word
having a similar meaning. The idea conveyed by the Hebrew word is not,
however, that of _strength_, but of _extent_; or as Milton--the most
accurate of expositors of these words--has it:

  "The firmament, expanse of liquid, pure,
  Transparent, elemental air, diffused
  In circuit to the uttermost convex
  Of this great round."

That this was really the way in which this word was understood by the
Hebrews appears from several passages of the Bible. Job says of God,
"Who alone _spreadeth_ out the heavens."[71] David, in the 104th
Psalm, which is a poetical paraphrase of the history of creation,
speaks of the Creator as "_stretching_ out the heavens as a curtain."
In later writers, as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, similar expressions
occur. The notion of a solid or arched firmament was probably
altogether remote from the minds of these writers. Such beliefs may
have prevailed at the time when the Septuagint translation was made,
but I have no hesitation in affirming that no trace of them can be
found in the Old Testament. In proof of this, I may refer to some of
the passages which have been cited as affording the strongest
instances of this kind of "accommodation." In Exodus xxiv., 10, we
are told, "And they saw the God of Israel, and under his feet as it
were a paved work of sapphire, and as it were the heaven itself in its
clearness." This is evidently a comparison of the pavement seen under
the feet of Jehovah to a sapphire in its color, and to the heavens in
its transparency. The intention of the writer is not to give
information respecting the heavens, or to liken them either to a
pavement or a sapphire; all that we can infer is that he believed the
heavens to be clear or transparent. Job mentions the "pillars of
heaven," but the connection shows that this is merely a poetical
expression for lofty mountains. The earthquake causes these pillars of
heaven to "tremble." We are informed in the book of Job that God "ties
up his waters in his thick cloud, and the cloud is not rent under
them." We are also told of the "treasures of snow and the treasures of
hail," and rain is called the "bottles of heaven," and is said to be
poured out of the "lattices of heaven." I recognize in all these mere
poetical figures, not intended to be literally understood. Some
learned writers wish us to believe that the intention of the Bible in
these places is actually to teach that the clouds are contained in
skin bottles, or something similar, and that they are emptied through
hatches in a solid firmament. To found such a belief, however, on a
few figurative statements, seems ridiculous, especially when we
consider that the writers of the Scriptures show themselves to be well
acquainted with nature, and would not be likely on any account to
deviate so far from the ordinary testimony of the senses; more
especially as by doing so they would enable every unlettered man who
has seen a cloud gather on a mountain's brow or dissolve away before
increasing heat to oppose the evidence of his senses to their
statements, and perhaps to reject them with scorn as a barefaced
imposture. But, lastly, we are triumphantly directed to the question
of Elihu in his address to Job:

  "Hast thou with him stretched out the sky,
  Which is firm and like a molten mirror?"

But the word translated sky here is not "_rakiah_," or "_shamayim_,"
but another signifying the _clouds_, so that we should regard Elihu as
speaking of the apparent firmness or stability, and the beautiful
reflected tints of the clouds. His words may be paraphrased thus:
"Hast thou aided Him in spreading out those clouds, which appear so
stable and self-sustaining, and so beautifully reflect the
sunlight?"[72] The above passages form the only authority which I can
find in the Scriptures for the doctrine of a solid firmament, which
may therefore be characterized as a modern figment of men more learned
in books but less acquainted with nature than the Scripture writers.
As a contrast to all such doctrines I may quote the sublime opening of
the poetical account of creation in Psalm civ., which we may also take
here as elsewhere as the oldest and most authoritative commentary on
the first chapter of Genesis:

  "Bless the Lord, O my soul!
  O Lord, my God, thou art very great:
  Thou art clothed with honor and majesty,
  Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment,
  Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain (of a tent),
  _Who layest the beams of thy chambers in the waters,
  Who makest the clouds thy chariots,
  Who walkest upon the wings of the wind_."

The waters here are those above the firmament, the whole of this part
of the Psalm being occupied with the heavens; and there is no place
left for the solid firmament, of which the writer evidently knew
nothing. He represents God as laying his chambers on the waters,
instead of on the supposed firmament, and as careering in cloudy
chariots on the wings of the wind, instead of over a solid arch. For
all the above reasons, we conclude that the "expanse" of the verses
under consideration was understood by the writers of the book of God
to be _aerial_, not _solid_; and the "establishment of the clouds
above," as it is finely called in Proverbs, is the effect of those
meteorological laws to which I have already referred, and which were
now for the first time brought into operation by the divine
Legislator. The Hebrew theology was not of a kind to require such
expedients as that of solid heavenly arches; it recurred at once to
the will--the decree--of Jehovah; and was content to believe that
through this efficient cause the "rivers run into the sea, yet the sea
is not full," for "to the place whence the rivers came, thither they
return again," through the agency of those floating clouds, "the
waters above the heavens," which "pour down rain according to the
vapor thereof."

God called the expanse "Heaven." In former chapters we have noticed
that heaven in the popular speech of the Hebrews, as in our own, had
different meanings, applying alike to the cloudy, the astral, and the
spiritual heavens. The Creator here sanctions its application to the
aerial expanse; and accordingly throughout the Scriptures it is used
in this way; _rakiah_ occurs very rarely, as if it had become nearly
obsolete, or was perhaps regarded as a merely technical or descriptive
term. The divine sanction for the use of the term heaven for the
atmosphere is, as already explained, to indicate that this popular
use is not to interfere with its application to the whole universe
beyond our earth in verse 1st.

The poetical parts of the Bible, and especially the book of Job, which
is probably the most ancient of the whole, abound in references to the
atmosphere and its phenomena. I may quote a few of these passages, to
enable us to understand the views of these subjects given in the
Bible, and the meaning attached to the creation of the atmosphere, in
very ancient periods. In Job, 38th chapter, we have the following:

  "In what way is the lightning distributed,
  And how is the east wind spread abroad over the earth?
  Who hath opened a channel for the pouring rain,
  Or a way for the thunder-flash?
  To cause it to rain on the land where no man is,
  In the desert where no one dwells;
  To saturate the desolate and waste ground,
  And to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth."

Here we have the unequal and unforeseen distribution of
thunder-storms, beyond the knowledge and power of man, but under the
absolute control of God, and designed by him for beneficent purposes.
Equally fine are some of the following lines:

  "Dost thou lift up thy voice to the clouds,
  That abundance of waters may cover thee?
  Dost thou send forth the lightnings, and they go,
  And say unto thee, Here are we?
  Who can number the clouds by wisdom,
  Or cause the bottles of heaven to empty themselves?
  When the dust groweth into mire,
  And the clods cleave fast together?"

In the 36th and 37th chapters of the same book we have a grand
description of atmospheric changes in their relation to man and his
works. The speaker is Elihu, who in this ancient book most favorably
represents the knowledge of nature that existed at a time probably
anterior to the age of Moses--a knowledge far superior to that which
we find in the works of many modern poets and expositors, and
accompanied by an intense appreciation of the grandeur and beauty of
natural objects:

  "For he draweth up the drops of water,
  Rain is condensed[73] from his vapor,
  Which the clouds do drop,
  And distill upon man abundantly.
  Yea, can any understand the distribution of the clouds
  Or the thundering of his tabernacle.[74]
  Behold he spreadeth his lightning upon it,
  He covereth it as with the depths of the sea.[75]
  By these he executes judgment on the people,
  By these also he giveth food in abundance;
  His hands he covers with the lightning,
  And commands it (against the enemy) in its striking;
  He uttereth to it his decree,[76]
  Concerning the herd as well as proud man.
  At this also my heart trembles,
  And bounds out of its place;
  Hear attentively the thunder of his voice,
  And the loud sound that goes from his mouth.
  He directs it under the whole heavens,
  And his lightning to the ends of the earth.
  After it his voice roareth,
  He thundereth with the voice of his majesty;
  And delays not (the tempest) when his voice is heard.
  God thundereth marvellously with his voice,
  He doeth wonders which we can not comprehend;
  For he saith to the snow, Be thou on the earth.
  Also to the pouring rain, even the great rain of his might.
  He sealeth up the hand of every man,
  That all men may know his work.
  Then the beasts go to their dens,
  And remain in their caverns.
  Out of the south cometh the whirlwind
  And cold out of the north,
  By the breath of God the frost is produced
  And the breadth of waters becomes bound;
  With moisture he loads the thick cloud,
  He spreads the cloud of his lightning,
  And it is turned about by his direction,
  To execute his pleasure on the face of the world;
  Whether for correction, for his land, or for mercy,
  He causeth it to come.
  Hearken unto this, O Job,
  Stand still and consider the wonderful works of God.
  Dost thou know when God disposes these things,
  And the lightning of his cloud flashes forth?
  Dost thou know the poising of the clouds,
  The wonderful work of the Perfect in knowledge?
  When thy garments become warm
  When he quieteth the earth by the south wind;
  Hast thou with him spread out the clouds
  Firm and like a molten mirror?"[77]

It would not be easy to find, in the poetry of any nation or time, a
description of so many natural phenomena, so fine in feeling or
truthful in delineation. It should go far to dispel the too prevalent
ideas of early Oriental ignorance, and should lead to a more full
appreciation of these noble pictures of nature, unsurpassed in the
literature of any people or time. I trust that the previous
illustrations are sufficient to show, not only that the _stereoma_, or
solid firmament of the Septuagint, is not to be found in Scripture,
but that the positive doctrine of the Bible on the subject is of a
very different character. For instance, in the above extract from the
book of Job, Elihu speaks of the poising or suspension of the clouds
as inscrutable, and tells us that God draws up water into the clouds,
and pours down rain according to the vapor thereof; he also speaks of
the clouds as being scattered before the brightness of the sun; and
notices, in truthful as well as exalted language, the nature and
succession of the lightning's flash, the thunder, and the
precipitation of rain that follows. Solomon also informs us that the
"establishment of the clouds above" is due to the law or will of
Jehovah. Finally, in this connection, the divine sanction given to the
use of the term heaven for the atmosphere may in itself be regarded as
an intimation that no definite barrier separates our film of
atmosphere from the boundless abyss of heaven without.

Of this period natural science gives us no intimation. In the earliest
geological epochs organic life, dry land, and an atmosphere already
existed. At the period now under consideration the two former had not
been called into existence, and the latter was in process of
elaboration from the materials of the primeval deep. If the formation
of the atmosphere in its existing conditions was, as already hinted, a
result of the gradual cooling of the earth, then this period must have
been of great length, and the action of the heated waters on the crust
of the globe may have produced thick layers of detrital matter
destined to form the first soils of the succeeding æon. We know
nothing, however, of these primitive strata, and most of them must
have been removed by denuding agencies in succeeding periods, or
restored by subterranean heat to the crystalline state. The events and
results of this day may be summed up as follows:

"At the commencement of the period the earth was enveloped by a misty
or vaporous mantle. In its progress those relations of air and vapor
which cause the separation of the clouds from the earth by a layer of
clear air, and the varied alternations of sunshine and rain, were
established. At the close of the period the newly formed atmosphere
covered a universal ocean; and there was probably a very regular and
uniform condition of the atmospheric currents, and of the processes of
evaporation and condensation."

But while we must affirm that no idea of a solid atmospheric vault can
be detected in the Bible, and while we may also affirm that such an idea
would have been altogether foreign to its tone, which invariably refers
all things not to secondary machinery, but to the will and fiat of the
Supreme, we must not forget that a most important moral purpose was to
be served by the assertion of the establishment of the atmospheric
expanse. Among all nations the phenomena of the atmosphere have had
important theological and mythological relations. The ever-changing and
apparently capricious aspects of the atmosphere and its clouds, the
terrible effects of storms, and the balmy influence of sunshine and
calm, deeply impress the minds of simple and superstitious men, and
this all the more that in their daily life and expeditions they are
constantly subjected to the effects of atmospheric vicissitudes. Hence
the greatest gods of all the ancient nations are weather-gods--rulers of
the atmospheric heavens--displaying their anger in the thunder-storm and
tornado. It is likely that in most cases, as in many barbarous tribes of
modern times, these weather-gods were malevolent beings contending
against the genial influences of the heavenly Sun-god; but in nearly
every case their supposed practical importance has elevated them, as in
the case of the Olympian Zeus, the Scandinavian Thor, and the American
Hurakon, to the place of supreme divinity. This was one of the
superstitions which the Hebrew monotheism had to overcome. Hence the
atmosphere is affirmed to be under Jehovah's law, and all its phenomena
are attributed to his power. The value of this as cutting at the root of
the most widespread superstitions it is easy to understand, and it has a
farther value in teaching that even the apparently unstable and
capricious air is a thing established from the first and amenable to the
ordinance of God. How difficult it has been to eradicate superstitious
views of the atmosphere may be learned from the fact that St. Paul, in
writing to the enlightened citizens of Ephesus, could speak of the power
which the heathen worshipped as the "Prince of the powers of the air,"
and it is also evidenced by the abundant notions of this kind which have
survived from the Middle Ages among the more ignorant part of the people
even in lands called Christian.

While, however, the Bible affirms the atmosphere to be subject to law,
it does not carry this into the domain of physical necessity, and
affirm with some modern materialistic philosophers that it is useless
to pray for rain. It is God who gives rain from heaven and fruitful
seasons, and what he gives he can withhold. Perhaps no part of our
subject can better than this illustrate the rational distinction
between a mere physical fatalism, or a mere superstitious fear of
capricious nature, and that belief in a divine Lawgiver which lies
between these extremes. Modern science may smile at the poor Indian,
who in his fear invokes Hurakon or Tlaloc or the terrible
Thunder-bird, and may even despise that nobler worship of the great
Phoenician Sun-god, the source and fountain of all light and life;
against which, though it was the grandest of all the old idolatries,
Elijah waged war to the death. But may it not equally deride the faith
of Elijah himself, when, after three years of drought, he prayed in
the sight of assembled Israel for rain? It may do so if physical law
amounts to an invariable necessity, and if there is no supreme Will
behind it. But if natural laws are the expression of the divine will,
if these laws are multiform and complicated in their relations, and
regulate vastly varied causes interacting with each other, and if the
action and welfare of man come within the scope of these laws, then
there is nothing irrational in the supposition that God, without any
capricious or miraculous intervention, may have so correlated the
myriad adjustments of his creation as that, while it is his usual rule
that rain falls alike on the evil and on the good, he may make its
descent at particular times and places to depend on the needs and
requests of his own children. In truth the belief in law is essential
to the philosophical conception of prayer. If the universe were a mere
chaos of chances, or if it were a result of absolute necessity, there
would be no place for intelligent prayer; but if it is under the
control of a Lawgiver, wise and merciful, not a mere manager of
material machinery, but a true Father of all, then we can go to such
a being with our requests, not in the belief that we can change his
great plans, or that any advantage could result from this if it were
possible, but that these plans may be made in his boundless wisdom and
love to meet our necessities. There is also in the Bible the farther
promise that, if we are truly the children of God, regulating our
conduct by his will and enlightened by his spirit, we shall know how
to pray for what is in accordance with his divine purpose, and how to
receive with gladness whatever he sees fit to give. While, therefore,
the Biblical doctrine as to natural law emancipates us from fears of
angry storm-demons, it draws us near to a heavenly Father, whose power
is above all the tempests of earth, and who, while ruling by law, has
regulated all things in conformity with the higher law of love. When
God had made the atmosphere, he saw that it was good, and the highest
significance is given to this by the consideration that God is love.
The position of the Bible is thus the true mean between superstitions
at once unhappy and debasing, and a materialistic infidelity that
would reduce the universe to a dead, remorseless machine, in which we
must struggle for a precarious existence till we are crushed between
its wheels.



CHAPTER VIII.

THE DRY LAND AND THE FIRST PLANTS.


     "And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered
     into one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
     And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of
     waters called he seas; and God saw that it was good.

     "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the springing herb,
     the herb bearing seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit,
     after its kind, whose seed is in it on the earth: and it was
     so. And the earth brought forth the tender herb, the herb
     yielding seed, and the tree bearing fruit whose seed is in
     it, after its kind; and God saw that it was good."--Genesis
     i., 10, 11.

These are events sufficiently simple and intelligible in their general
character. Geology shows us that the emergence of the dry land must
have resulted from the elevation of parts of the bed of the ancient
universal ocean, and that the agent employed in such changes is the
bending and crumpling of the outer crust of the earth, caused by
lateral pressure, and operating either in a slow and regular manner or
by sudden paroxysms. It farther informs us that the existing
continents consist of stratified or bedded masses, more or less
inclined, fissured and irregularly elevated, and usually supported by
crystalline rocks which have been produced among them, or forced up
beneath or through them by internal agencies, and which truly
constitute the pillars and foundations of the earth. These elevations,
it is true, were successive, and belong to different periods; but the
appearance of the first dry land is that intended here.

The elevation of the dry land is more frequently referred to in
Scripture than any other cosmological fact; and while all have been
misapprehended, the statements on this subject have been even more
unjustly dealt with than others. In the text, the word "earth"
(_aretz_[78]) is, by divine sanction, narrowed in meaning to the dry
land; but while some expositors are quite willing to restrict it to
this, or even a more limited sense, in the first and second verses of
this chapter, almost the only verses in the Bible where the terms of
the narrative make such a restriction inadmissible, they are equally
ready to understand it as meaning the whole globe in places where the
explanatory clause in the verse now under consideration teaches us
that we should understand the land only, as distinguished from the
sea. I may quote some of these passages, and note the views they give;
always bearing in mind that, after the intimation here given, we must
understand the term "earth" as applying _only to the continents_ or
_dry land_, unless where the context otherwise fixes the meaning. We
may first turn to Psalm civ.:

  "Thou laidst the foundations of the earth,
  That it should never be removed;
  Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment;
  The waters stood above the mountains;
  At thy rebuke they fled;
  At the sound of thy thunder they hasted away;
  Mountains ascended, valleys descended
  To the place thou hast appointed for them:
  Thou hast appointed them bounds that they may not pass,
  That they return not again to cover the earth."

The position of these verses in this "the hymn of creation" leaves no
doubt that they refer to the events we are now considering. I have
given above the literal reading of the line that refers to the
elevation of mountains and subsidence of valleys; admitting, however,
that the grammatical construction gives an air of probability to the
rendering in our version, "they go up by the mountains, they go down
by the valleys," which, on the other hand, is rendered very improbable
by the sense. In whichever sense we understand this line, the picture
presented to us by the Psalmist includes the elevation of the
mountains and continents, the subsidence of the waters into their
depressed basins, and the firm establishment of the dry land on its
rocky foundations, the whole accompanied by a feature not noticed in
Genesis--the voice of God's thunder--or, in other words, electrical
and volcanic explosions. The following quotations refer to the same
subject:

  "Before the mountains were settled,
  Before the hills was I (the Wisdom of God) brought forth;
  While as yet he had not made the earth,
  Nor the plains, nor the higher parts of the habitable world.
  When he gave the sea his decree
  That the waters should not pass his limits,
  When he determined the foundations of the earth."

  --Proverbs viii., 25.

  "Thou hast established the earth, and it endureth,
  According to thy decrees they continue this day,
  For all are thy servants."

  --Psalm cxix., 90.

  "Who shaketh the earth out of its place,
  And its pillars tremble."

  --Job ix., 6.

  "Where wast thou when I founded the earth?
  Declare, if thou hast knowledge.
  Who hath fixed the proportion thereof, if thou knowest?
  Who stretched the line upon it?
  Upon what are its foundations settled?
  Or who laid its corner-stone,
  When the morning stars sang together,
  And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
  Who shut up the sea with doors
  In its bursting forth as from the womb?
  When I made the cloud its garment,
  And swathed it in thick darkness,
  I measured out for it my limit,
  And fixed its bars and doors;
  And said, Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther,
  And here shall thy proud waves be stayed."

  --Job xxxviii., 4.

In these passages the foundation of the earth at first, as well as the
shaking of its pillars by the earthquake, are connected with what we
usually call natural law--the decree of the Almighty--the unchanging
arrangements of an unchangeable Creator, whose "hands formed the dry
land."[79] This is the ultimate cause not only of the elevation of the
land, but of all other natural things and processes. The naturalist
does not require to be informed that the details, in so far as they
are referred to in the above passages, are perfectly in accordance
with what we know of the nature and support of continental masses.
Geological observation and mathematical calculation have in our day
combined their powers to give clear views of the manner in which the
fractured strata of the earth are wedged and arched together, and
supported by internal igneous masses upheaved from beneath, and
subsequently cooled and hardened. A general view of these facts which
we have learned from scientific inquiry, the Hebrews gleaned with
nearly as much precision from the short account of the elevation of
the land in Genesis, and from the later comments of their inspired
poets. From the same source our own great poet, Milton, learned these
cosmical facts, before the rise of geology, and expressed them in
unexceptionable terms:

            "The mountains huge appear
  Emergent, and their broad bare backs upheave
  Into the clouds, their tops ascend the sky.
  So high as heaved the tumid hills, so low
  Down sunk a hollow bottom, broad and deep,
  Capacious bed of waters."

In further illustration of the opinions of the Scripture writers
respecting the nature of the earth, and the disturbances to which it
is liable, I quote the following passages. The first is from the
magnificent description of Jehovah descending to succor his people
amid the terrors of the earthquake, the volcano, and the
thunder-storm, in Psalm xviii.:

  "Then shook and trembled the earth,
  The foundations of the hills moved and were shaken,
  Because he was angry.
  Smoke went up from his nostrils,
  Fire from his mouth devoured,
  Coals were kindled by it.
  Then were seen the channels of the waters,
  And the foundations of the world were discovered,
  At thy rebuke--O Jehovah--
  At the blast of the breath of thy nostrils."

In another place in the Psalms we find volcanic action thus tersely
sketched:

  "He looketh on the earth and it trembleth,
  He toucheth the hills and they smoke."

  --Psalm civ., 32.

Perhaps the most remarkable discourse on this subject in the whole
Bible is that in Job xxviii., in which mining operations are
introduced as an illustration of the difficulty of obtaining true
wisdom. This passage is interesting both from its extreme antiquity,
and the advancement in knowledge and practical skill which it
indicates. It presents, however, many difficulties; and its details
have almost entirely lost their true significance in our common
English version:

  "Surely there is a vein for silver,
  And a place for the gold which men refine;
  Iron is taken from the earth,
  And copper is molten from the ore.
  To the end of darkness and to all extremes man searcheth,
  For the stones of darkness and the shadow of death.
  He opens a passage [shaft] from where men dwell,
  Unsupported by the foot, they hang down and swing to and fro.[80]
  The earth--out of it cometh bread;
  And beneath, it is overturned as by fire.[81]
  Its stones are the place of sapphires,
  And it hath lumps[82] of gold.
  The path (thereto) the bird of prey hath not known,
  The vulture's eye hath not seen it.[83]
  The wild beasts' whelps have not trodden it,
  The lion hath not passed over it.
  Man layeth his hand on the hard rock,
  He turneth up the mountains from their roots,
  He cutteth channels [_adits_] in the rocks,
  His eye seeth every precious thing.
  He restraineth the streams from trickling,
  And bringeth the hidden thing to light.
  But where shall wisdom be found,
  And where is the place of understanding?"

This passage, incidentally introduced, gives us a glimpse of the
knowledge of the interior of the earth and its products, as it existed
in an age probably anterior to that of Moses. It brings before us the
repositories of the valuable metals and gems--the mining operations,
apparently of some magnitude and difficulty, undertaken in extracting
them--and the wonderful structure of the earth itself, green and
productive at the surface, rich in precious metals beneath, and deeper
still the abode of intense subterranean fires. The only thing wanting
to give completeness to the picture is some mention of the fossil
remains buried in the earth; and, as the main thought is the eager and
successful search for useful minerals, this can hardly be regarded as
a defect. The application of all this is finer than almost any thing
else in didactic poetry. Man can explore depths of the earth
inaccessible to all other creatures, and extract thence treasures of
inestimable value; yet, after thus exhausting all the natural riches
of the earth, he too often lacks that highest wisdom which alone can
fit him for the true ends of his spiritual being. How true is all
this, even in our own wonder-working days! A poet of to-day could
scarcely say more of subterranean wonders, or say it more truthfully
and beautifully; nor could he arrive at a conclusion more pregnant
with the highest philosophy than the closing words:

  "The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom;
  And to depart from evil is understanding."

The emergence of the dry land is followed by a repetition of the
approval of the Creator. "God saw that it was good." To our view that
primeval dry land would scarcely have seemed good. It was a world of
bare, rocky peaks, and verdureless valleys--here active volcanoes,
with their heaps of scoriæ and scarcely cooled lava currents--there
vast mudflats, recently upheaved from the bottom of the
waters--nowhere even a blade of grass or a clinging lichen. Yet it was
good in the view of its Maker, who could see it in relation to the
uses for which he had made it, and as a fit preparatory step to the
new wonders he was soon to introduce. Then too, as we are informed in
Job xxxviii., "The morning stars sang together, and all the sons of
God shouted for joy." We also, when we think of the beautiful variety
of the terrestrial surface, the character and composition of its
soils, the variety of climate and exposure resulting from its degrees
of elevation, the arrangements for the continuance of springs and
streams, and many other beneficial provisions connected with the
merely mechanical arrangements of the dry land, may well join in the
tribute of praise to the All-wise Creator. There is, however, a
farther thought suggested by the approval of the great Artificer. In
this wondrous progress of creation, it seems as if every thing at
first was in its best estate. No succeeding state could parallel the
unbroken symmetry of the earth in the fluid and vaporous condition of
the "deep." Before the elevation of the land, the atmospheric currents
and the deposition of moisture must have been surpassingly regular.
The first dry land may have presented crags and peaks and ravines and
volcanic cones in a more marvellous and perfect manner than any
succeeding continents--even as the dry and barren moon now, in this
respect, far surpasses the earths. In the progress of organic life,
geology gives similar indications, in the variety and magnitude of
many animal types on their first introduction; so that this may very
possibly be a law of creation.

During the emergence of the first dry land, large quantities of
detrital matter must have been deposited in the waters, and in part
elevated into land. All of these beds would, probably, be destitute of
organic remains; but if such beds were formed and still remain, they
are probably unknown to us, for the oldest formations that we
know--those of the Eozoic age--contain traces of such remains. It has,
indeed, been suggested that these most ancient organisms are, as it
were, overlooked in the history of creation, or regarded as equivalent
to those shapeless monsters and animals of the darkness that are
referred to in the older Turanian versions of this story of creation.
I doubt very much, however, if this is a fair interpretation of our
ancient record; but we shall be in a better position to discuss it
when we come to the actual introduction of animals.

Modern analogy would induce us to believe that the land was not
elevated suddenly; but either by a series of small paroxysms, as in
the case of Chili, or by a gradual and imperceptible movement, as in
the case of Sweden--two of the most remarkable modern instances of
elevation of land--accompanied, however, in the case of the last by
local subsidence.[84] In either of these ways the seas and rivers
would have time to smooth the more rugged inequalities, to widen the
ravines into valleys, and to spread out sediment in the lower grounds;
thus fitting the surface for the habitation of plants and animals. We
must not suppose, however, that the dry land had any close resemblance
to that now existing in its form or distribution. Geology amply
proves that since the first appearance of dry land, its contour has
frequently been changed, and probably also its position. Hence nearly
all our present land consists of rocks which have been formed under
the waters, long after the period now under consideration, and have
been subsequently hardened and elevated; and since all the existing
high mountain ranges are of a comparatively late age, it is probable
that this primeval dry land was low, as well as, in the earlier part
of the period at least, of comparatively small extent. It is, however,
by no means certain that there may not have been a greater expanse of
land toward the close of this period than that which afterwards
existed in those older periods of animal life to which the earliest
fossiliferous rocks of the geologist carry us back; since, as already
hinted, it seems to be a rule in creation that each new object shall
be highly developed of its kind at its first appearance, and since
there have been in geological time many great subsidences as well as
elevations. Neither must we forget that the oldest land has been
subjected throughout geological time to wearing and degrading
agencies, and that from its waste the later formations have been
mainly derived.

It would be wrong, however, to omit to state that, though we may know
at present no remains of the first dry land, we are not ignorant of
its general distribution; for the present continents show, in the
arrangement of their formations and mountain chains, evidence that
they are parts of a plan sketched out from the beginning. It has often
been remarked by physical geographers that the great lines of coast
and mountain ranges are generally in directions approaching to
northeast and southwest, or northwest and southeast, and that where
they run in other directions, as in the case of the south of Europe
and Asia, they are much broken by salient and re-entering angles,
formed by lines having these directions. Professor R. Owen, of
Tennessee, and Professor Pierce, of Harvard College, were, I believe,
the first to point out that these lines are in reality parts of great
circles tangent to the polar circles, and the latter to suggest a
theory of their origin, based on the action of solar heat and the
seasons on a cooling earth. This has been more fully stated by Mr. W.
Lowthian Green in his curious book, "Vestiges of the Molten
Globe."[85] It would appear that the great circles in question are in
reality at right angles to the line of direction of the attraction of
the sun and moon at the period of either solstice, and when they
happen to be in conjunction or opposition at these periods; and that
such circles would be the lines on which the thin crust of a cooling
globe would be most likely to be ruptured by its internal tidal-wave.
Whatever the cause of the phenomenon, it is evident that in the
formation of its surface inequalities the earth has cracked--so to
speak--along two series of great circles tangent to the polar circles;
and that these, with certain subordinate lines of fracture running
north and south and east and west, have determined the forms of the
continents from their origin.

M. Elie de Beaumont, and after him most other geologists, have
attributed the elevation of the continents and the upheaval and
plication of mountain chains to the secular refrigeration of the
earth, causing its outer shell to become too capacious for its
contracting interior mass, and thus to break or bend, and to settle
toward the centre. This view would well accord with the terms in which
the elevation of the land is mentioned throughout the Bible, and
especially with the general progress of the work as we have gleaned
it from the Mosaic narrative; since from the period of the desolate
void and aeriform deep to that now before us secular refrigeration
must have been steadily in progress. Let us also observe here that the
earliest fractures of the crust would determine the first coast lines,
and the first slopes along which sedimentary matter would descend from
the land and be deposited in the sea. They would also modify the
direction of the ocean currents. Thus the deposition of new formations
would be directed by these old lines, as would also to some extent the
course of all subsequent fractures and plications. Thus it happens
that the lines of outcrop of the oldest rocks first raised out of the
waters already marked out the forms of the continents, and that the
later formations appear rather as fillings-up and extensions of the
skeleton established by the first dry land. Farther, the lines of
plication first established along the borders of the continents formed
resisting walls along which, in the continued contraction of the
earth, pressure was exerted from the ocean bed, widening and elevating
these lines of upheaval, and still farther fixing the general forms of
the continents, and giving variety to their surfaces. In the progress
of geological time there have also been successive depressions and
re-elevations of the continental plateaus, subjecting them alternately
to the wearing and disintegrating action of the atmosphere and its
waters, and to the influence of waves and ocean currents, and
especially to that of the deep-seated polar currents which have
throughout geological ages been loading the submerged areas of the
earth's surface with the products of the waste caused by frost and ice
in the polar regions. These causes again have been progressively
increasing the oblateness of the earth's figure, and, along with the
slackening of its rotation, preparing the way for those periodical
collapses in the equatorial and temperate regions which form the
boundaries of some of our most important geological periods.[86]
Throughout all these changes the great general plan of the continents,
first sketched out when the "foundations of the earth" were laid,
before Eozoic time, was being elaborated.

The same creative period that witnessed the first appearance of dry
land saw it also clothed with vegetation; and it is quite likely that
this is intended to teach that no time was lost in clothing the earth
with plants--that the first emerging portions received their vegetable
tenants as they became fitted for them--and that each additional
region, as it rose above the surface of the waters, in like manner
received the species of plants for which it was adapted. What was the
nature of this earliest vegetation? The sacred writer specifies three
descriptions of plants as included in it; and, by considering the
terms which he uses, some information on this subject may be gained.

_Deshé_, translated "grass" in our version, is derived from a verb
signifying to spring up or bud forth; the same verb, indeed, used in
this verse to denote "bringing forth," literally causing to spring up.
Its radical meaning is, therefore, vegetation in the act of sprouting
or springing forth; or, as connected with this, young and delicate
herbage. Thus, in Job xxxviii., "To satisfy the desolate and waste
ground, and to cause the bud of the _young herbage_ to spring forth."
Here the reference is, no doubt, to the bulbous and tuberous rooted
plants of the desert plains, which, fading away in the summer drought,
burst forth with magical rapidity on the setting-in of rain. The
following passages are similar: Psalm xxiii., "He maketh me to lie
down in green pastures" (literally, young or _tender herbage_);
Deuteronomy xxiii., "Small rain upon the _tender herb_;" Isaiah
xxxvii., "_Grass_ on the house-tops." The word is also used for
herbage such as can be eaten by cattle or cut down for fodder, though
even in these cases the idea of young and tender herbage is evidently
included; "Fat as a heifer at _grass_" (Jer. xiv.)--that is, feeding
on young succulent grass, not that which is dry and parched. "Cut down
as the grass, or wither as the green herb," like the soft, tender
grass, soon cut down and quickly withering. With respect to the use of
the word in this place, I may remark: 1. It is not here correctly
translated by the word "grass;" for grass bears seed, and is,
consequently, a member of the second class of plants mentioned. Even
if we set aside all idea of inspiration, it is obviously impossible
that any one living among a pastoral or agricultural people could have
been ignorant of this fact. 2. It can scarcely be a general term,
including all plants when in a young or tender state. The idea of
their springing up is included in the verb, and this was but a very
temporary condition. Besides, this word does not appear to be employed
for the young state of shrubs or trees. 3. We thus appear to be shut
up to the conclusion that _deshé_ here means those plants, mostly
small and herbaceous, which bear no proper seeds;[87] in other words,
the Cryptogamia--as fungi, mosses, lichens, ferns, etc. The remaining
words are translated with sufficient accuracy in our version. They
denote seed-bearing or phoenogamous herbs and trees. The special
mention of the fructification of plants is probably intended not only
for distinction, but also to indicate the new power of organic
reproduction now first introduced on the surface of our planet, and to
mark its difference from the creative act itself. That this new and
wondrous phenomenon should be so stated is thus in strict scientific
propriety, and it is precisely the point that would be seized by an
intelligent spectator of the visions of creation, who had previously
witnessed only the accretion and disintegration of mineral substances,
and to whom this marvellous power of organic reproduction would be in
every respect a new creation.

The arrangement of plants in the three great classes of cryptogams,
seed-bearing herbs, and fruit-bearing trees differs in one important
point--viz., the separation of herbaceous plants from trees--from
modern botanical classification. It is, however, sufficiently natural
for the purposes of a general description like this, and perhaps gives
more precise ideas of the meaning intended than any other arrangement
equally concise and popular. It is also probable that the object of
the writer was not so much a natural-history classification as an
account of the _order_ of creation, and that he wishes to affirm that
the introduction of these three classes of plants on the earth
corresponded with the order here stated. This view renders it
unnecessary to vindicate the accuracy of the arrangement on botanical
grounds, since the historical order was evidently better suited to the
purpose in view, and in so far as the earlier appearance of
cryptogamous plants is concerned, it is in strict accordance with
geological fact.

A very important truth is contained in the expression "after its
kind"--that is, after its _species_; for the Hebrew "_min_," used
here, has strictly this sense, and, like the Greek _idea_ and the
Latin _species_, conveys the notion of form as well as that of kind.
It is used to denote species of animals, in Leviticus i., 14, and in
Deuteronomy xiv., 15. We are taught by this statement that plants were
created each kind by itself; and that creation was not a sort of
slump-work to be perfected by the operation of a law of development,
as fancied by some modern speculators. In this assertion of the
distinctness of species, and the production of each as a distinct part
of the creative plan, revelation tallies perfectly with the
conclusions of natural science, which lead us to believe that each
species, as observed by us, is permanently reproductive, variable
within narrow limits, and incapable of permanent intermixture with
other species; and though hypotheses of modification by descent, and
of the production of new species by such modification, may be formed,
they are not in accordance with experience, and are still among the
unproved speculations which haunt the outskirts of true science. We
shall be better prepared, however, to weigh the relations of such
hypotheses to our revelation of origins when we shall have reached the
period of the introduction of animal life.

Some additional facts contained in the recapitulation of the creative
work in Chapter II. may very properly be considered here, as they seem
to refer to the climatal conditions of the earth during the growth of
the most ancient vegetation, and before the final adjustment of the
astronomical relations of the earth on the fourth day. "And every
shrub of the land before it was on the earth, and every herb of the
land before it sprung up. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain
on the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; but a mist
ascended from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground."
This has been supposed to be a description of the state of the earth
during the whole period anterior to the fall of man. There is,
however, no Scripture evidence of this; and geology informs us that
rain fell as at present far back in the Palæozoic period, countless
ages before the creation of man or the existing animals. Although,
however, such a condition of the earth as that stated in these verses
has not been known in any geological period, yet it is not
inconceivable, but in reality corresponds with the other conditions of
nature likely to have prevailed on the third day, as described in
Genesis. The land of this period, we may suppose, was not very
extensive nor very elevated. Hence the temperature would be uniform
and the air moist. The luminous and calorific matter connected with
the sun still occupied a large space, and therefore diffused heat and
light more uniformly than at present. The internal heat of the earth
may still have produced an effect in warming the oceanic waters. The
combined operation of these causes, of which we, perhaps, have some
traces as late as the Carboniferous period, might well produce a state
of things in which the earth was watered, not by showers of rain, but
by the gentle and continued precipitation of finely divided moisture,
in the manner now observed in those climates in which vegetation is
nourished for a considerable part of the year by nocturnal mists and
copious dews. The atmosphere, in short, as yet partook in some slight
degree of the same moist and misty character which prevailed before
the "establishment of the clouds above"--the airy firmament of the
second day. The introduction of these explanatory particulars by the
sacred historian furnishes an additional argument for the theory of
long periods. That vegetation should exist for two or three natural
days without rain or the irrigation which is given in culture, was, as
already stated, a circumstance altogether unworthy of notice; but the
growth during a long period of a varied and highly organized flora,
without this advantage, and by the aid of a special natural provision
afterward discontinued, was in all respects so remarkable and so
highly illustrative of the expedients of the divine wisdom that it
deserved a prominent place.

It is evident that the words of the inspired writer include plants
belonging to all the great subdivisions of the vegetable kingdom. This
earliest vegetation was not rude or incomplete, or restricted to the
lower forms of life. It was not even, like that of the coal period,
solely or mainly cryptogamous or gymnospermous. It included trees
bearing fruit, as well as lichens and mosses, and it received the same
stamp of approbation bestowed on other portions of the work--"it was
good." We have a good right to assume that its excellence had
reference not only to its own period, but to subsequent conditions of
the earth. Vegetation is the great assimilating power, the converter
of inorganic into organic matter suitable for the sustenance of
animals. In like manner the lower tribes of plants prepare the way for
the higher. We should therefore have expected _à priori_ that
vegetation would have clothed the earth before the creation of
animals, and a sufficient time before it to allow soils to be
accumulated, and surplus stores of organic matter to be prepared in
advance: this consideration alone would also induce us to assign a
considerable duration to the third day. After the elevation of land,
and the draining off from it of the saline matter with which it would
be saturated, a process often very tedious, especially in low tracts
of ground, the soil would still consist only of mineral matter, and
must have been for a long period occupied by plants suited to this
condition of things, in order that sufficient organic matter might be
accumulated for the growth of a more varied vegetation; a
consideration which perhaps illustrates the order of the plants in the
narrative.

It may be objected to the above views that, however accordant with
chemical and physiological probabilities, they do not harmonize with
the facts of geology; since the earliest fossiliferous formations
contain almost exclusively the remains of animals, which must
therefore have preceded, or at least been coeval with, the earliest
forms of terrestrial vegetation. This objection is founded on
well-ascertained facts, but facts which may have no connection with
the third day of creation when regarded as a long period. The oldest
geological formations are of marine origin, and contain remains of
marine animals, with those of plants supposed to be allied to the
existing algæ or sea-weeds. Geology can not, however, assure us either
that no land plants existed contemporaneously with these earliest
animals, or that no land flora preceded them. These oldest
fossiliferous rocks may mark the commencement of animal life, but they
testify nothing as to the existence or non-existence of a previous
period of vegetation alone. Farther, the rocks which contain the
oldest remains of life exist as far as yet known in a condition so
highly metamorphic as almost to preclude the possibility of their
containing any distinguishable vegetable fossils; yet they contain
vast deposits of carbon in the form of graphite, and if this, like
more modern coaly matter, was accumulated by vegetable growth, it must
indicate an exuberance of plants in these earliest geological periods,
but of plants as yet altogether unknown to us. It is possible,
therefore, that in these Eozoic rocks we may have remnants of the
formations of the third Mosaic day; and if we should ever be so
fortunate as to find any portion of them containing vegetable fossils,
and these of species differing from any hitherto known, either in a
fossil state or recent, and rising higher, in elevation and complexity
of type, than the flora of the succeeding Silurian and Carboniferous
eras, we may then suppose that we have penetrated to the monuments of
this third creative æon. The only other alternative by which these
verses can be reconciled with geology is that adopted by the late Hugh
Miller, who supposes that the plants of the third day are those of the
Carboniferous period; but, besides the apparent anachronism involved
in this, we now know that the coal flora consisted mainly of
cryptogams allied to ferns and club-mosses, and of gymnosperms allied
to the pines and cycads, the higher orders of plants being almost
entirely wanting. For these reasons we are shut up to the conclusion
that this flora of the third day must have its place before the
Palæozoic period of geology.

To those who are familiar with the vast lapse of time required by the
geological history of the earth, it may be startling to ascribe the
whole of it to three or four of the creative days. If, however, it be
admitted that these days were periods of unknown duration, no reason
remains for limiting their length any farther than the facts of the
case require. If in the strata of the earth which are accessible to us
we can detect the evidence of its existence for myriads of years, why
may not its Creator be able to carry our view back for myriads more.
It may be humbling to our pride of knowledge, but it is not on any
scientific ground improbable, that the oldest animal remains known to
geology belong to the middle period of the earth's history, and were
preceded by an enormous lapse of ages in which the earth was being
prepared for animal existence, but of which no records remain, except
those contained in the inspired history.

It would be quite unphilosophical for geology to affirm either that
animal life must always have existed, or that its earliest animals are
necessarily the earliest organic beings. To use, with a slight
modification, the words of an able thinker on these subjects,[88]
"For ages the prejudice prevailed that the historical period, or that
which is coeval with the life of man, exhausted the whole history of
the globe. Geologists removed that prejudice," but must not substitute
"another in its place, viz., that geological time is coeval with the
globe itself, or that organic life always existed on its surface."

A second doubt as to the existence of this primitive flora may be
based on the statement that it included the highest forms of plants.
Had it consisted only of low and imperfect vegetables, there might
have been much less difficulty in admitting its probability. Farther,
we find that even in the Carboniferous period scarcely any plants of
the higher orders flourished, and there was a preponderance of the
lower forms of the vegetable kingdom. We have, however, in geological
chronology, many illustrations of the fact that the progress of
improvement has not been continuous or uninterrupted, and that the
preservation of the flora and fauna of many geological periods has
been very imperfect. Hence the occurrence in one particular stratum or
group of strata of few or low representatives of animal and vegetable
life affords no proof that a better state of things may not have
existed previously. We also find, in the case of animals, that each
tribe attained to its highest development at the time when, in the
progress of creation, it occupied the summit of the scale of life.
Analogy would thus lead us to believe that when plants alone existed,
they may have assumed nobler forms than any now existing, or that
tribes now represented by few and humble species may at that time have
been so great in numbers and development as to fill all the offices of
our present complicated flora, as well as, perhaps, some of those now
occupied by animals. We have this principle exemplified in the
Carboniferous flora, by the magnitude of its arborescent club-mosses,
and the vast variety of its gymnosperms. For this reason we may
anticipate that if any remains of this early plant-creation should be
disinterred, they will prove to be among the most wonderful and
interesting geological relics ever discovered, and will enlarge our
views of the compass and capabilities of the vegetable kingdom, and
especially of its lower forms.

A farther objection is the uselessness of the existence of plants for
a long period, without any animals to subsist on or enjoy them, and
even without forming any accumulation of fossil fuel or other products
useful to man. The only direct answer to this has already been given.
The previous existence of plants may have been, and probably was,
essential to the comfort and subsistence of the animals afterwards
introduced. Independently of this, however, we have an analogous case
in the geological history of animals, which prevents this fact from
standing alone. Why was the earth tenanted so long by the inferior
races of animals, and why were so much skill and contrivance expended
on their structures, and even on their external ornament, when there
was no intelligent mind on earth to appreciate their beauties. Even in
the present world we may as well ask why the uninhabited islands of
the ocean are found to be replete with luxuriant vegetable life, why
God causes it to rain in the desert where human foot never treads, or
why he clothes with a marvellous exuberance of beautiful animal and
plant forms the depths of the sea. We can but say that these things
seemed and seem good to the Creator, and may serve uses unknown to us;
and this is precisely what we must be content to say respecting the
plant-creation of the Eozoic period.

Some writers[89] on this subject have suggested that the cosmical use
of this plant-creation was the abstraction from the atmosphere of an
excess of carbonic acid unfavorable to the animal life subsequently to
be introduced. This use it may have served, and when its effects had
been gradually lost through metamorphism and decay, that second great
withdrawal of carbon which took place in the Carboniferous period may
have been rendered necessary. The reasons afforded by natural history
for supposing that plants preceded animals are thus stated by
Professor Dana:

"The proof from science of the existence of plants before animals is
inferential, and still may be deemed satisfactory. Distinct fossils
have not been found, all that ever existed in the azoic[90] rocks
having been obliterated. The arguments in the affirmative are as
follows:

"1. The existence of limestone rocks among the other beds, similar
limestones in later ages having been of organic origin; also the
occurrence of carbon in the shape of graphite, graphite being, in
known cases in rocks, a result of the alteration of the carbon of
plants.

"2. The fact that the cooling earth would have been fitted for
vegetable life for a long age before animals could have existed; the
principle being exemplified everywhere that the earth was occupied at
each period with the highest kinds of life the conditions allowed.

"3. The fact that vegetation subserved an important purpose in the
coal-period in ridding the atmosphere of carbonic acid for the
subsequent introduction of land animals, suggests a valid reason for
believing that the same great purpose, the true purpose of vegetation,
was effected through the ocean before the _waters_ were fitted for
animal life.

"4. Vegetation being directly or mediately the food of animals, it
must have had a previous existence. The latter part of the azoic age
in geology we therefore regard as the age when the plant kingdom was
instituted, the latter half of the third day in Genesis. However short
or long the epoch, it was one of the great steps of progress."

In concluding the examination of the work of the third day, I must
again remind the reader that, on the theory of long creative periods,
the words under consideration must refer to the first introduction of
vegetation, in forms that have long since ceased to exist. Geology
informs us that in the period of which it is cognizant the vegetation
of the earth has been several times renewed, and that no plants of the
older and middle geological periods now exist. We may therefore rest
assured that the vegetable species, and probably also many of the
generic and family forms of the vegetation of the third day, have long
since perished, and been replaced by others suited to the changed
condition of the earth. It is indeed probable that during the third
and fourth days themselves there might be many removals and renewals
of the terrestrial flora, so that perhaps every species created at the
commencement of the introduction of plants may have been extinct
before the close of the period. Nevertheless it was marked by the
introduction of vegetation, which in one or another set of forms has
ever since clothed the earth.

At the commencement of the third day the earth was still covered by
the waters. As time advanced islands and mountain-peaks arose from
the ocean, vomiting forth the molten and igneous materials of the
interior of the earth's crust. Plains and valleys were then spread
around, rivers traced out their beds, and the ocean was limited by
coasts and divided by far-stretching continents. At the command of the
Creator plants sprung from the soil--the earliest of organized
structures--at first probably few and small, and fitted to contend
against the disadvantages of soils impregnated with saline particles
and destitute of organic matter; but as the day advanced increasing in
number, magnitude, and elevation, until at length the earth was
clothed with a luxuriant and varied vegetation, worthy the approval of
the Creator, and the admiring song of the angelic "sons of God."



CHAPTER IX.

LUMINARIES.


     "And God said, Let there be luminaries in the expanse of
     heaven, to divide the day from the night; and let them be
     for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years. And
     let them be for luminaries in the expanse of heaven, to give
     light on the earth: and it was so.

     "And God made two great luminaries, the greater luminary to
     preside over the day, the lesser luminary to preside over
     the night. He made the stars also. And God placed them in
     the expanse of heaven to give light on the earth, and to
     preside over the day and over the night, and to separate the
     light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And
     the evening and the morning were the fourth day."--Genesis
     i., 14-19.


After so long a sojourn on the earth, we are in these verses again
carried to the heavens. Every scientific reader is struck with the
position of this remarkable statement, interrupting as it does the
progress of the organic creation, and constituting a break in the
midst of the terrestrial history which is the immediate subject of the
narrative; thus, in effect, as has often been remarked, dividing the
creative week into two portions. Why was the completion of the
heavenly bodies so long delayed? Why were light and vegetation
introduced previously? If we can not fully answer these questions, we
may at least suppose that the position of these verses is not
accidental, though certainly not that which would have been chosen for
its own sake by any fabricator of systems ancient or modern. Let us
inquire, however, what are the precise terms of the record.

1. The word here used to denote the objects produced clearly
distinguishes them from the product of the first day's creation. Then
God said, "Let _light_ be;" he now says, "Let _luminaries_ or
light-bearers be." We have already seen that the light of the first
day may have emanated from an extended luminous mass, at first
occupying the whole extent of the solar system, and more or less
attached to the several planetary bodies, and afterwards concentrated
within the earth's orbit. The verses now under consideration inform us
that the process of concentration was now complete, that our great
central luminary had attained to its perfect state. This process of
concentration may have been proceeding during the whole of the
intervening time, or it may have been completed at once by some more
rapid process of the nature of a direct interposition of creative
power.

2. The division of light from darkness is expressed by the same terms,
and is of the same nature with that on the first day. This separation
was now produced in its full extent by the perfect condensation of the
luminiferous matters around the sun.

3. The heavenly bodies are said to be intended for _signs_--that is,
for marks or indications--either of the seasons, days, and years
afterwards mentioned, or of the majesty and power of the true God, as
the Creator of objects so grand and elevated as to become to the
ignorant heathen objects of idolatrous worship; or perhaps of the
earthly events they are supposed to influence. The arrangements now
perfected for the first time enabled natural days, seasons, and years
to have their limits accurately marked. Previously to this period
there had been no distinctly marked seasons, and consequently no
natural separation of years, nor were the limits of days at all
accurately defined.

4. The terms _expanse_ and _heaven_, previously applied to the
atmosphere, are here combined to denote the more distant starry and
planetary heavens. There is no ambiguity involved in this, since the
writer must have well known that no one could so far mistake as to
suppose that the heavenly bodies are placed in that atmospheric
expanse which supports the clouds.

5. The luminaries were _made_ or appointed to their office on the
fourth day. They are not said to have been created, being included in
the creation of the beginning. They were now completed, and fully
fitted for their work. An important part of this fitting seems to have
been the setting or placing them in the heavens, conveying to us the
impression that the mutual relations and regular motions of the
heavenly bodies were now for the first time perfected.

6. The stars are introduced in a parenthetical manner, which leaves it
doubtful whether we are merely informed in general terms that they are
works of God, as well as those heavenly bodies which are of more
importance to us, or that they were arranged as heavenly luminaries
useful to our earth on the fourth day. The term includes the fixed
stars, and it is by no means probable that these were in any way
affected by the work referred to the fourth day, any farther than
their appearance from our earth is concerned. This view is confirmed
by the language of the 104th Psalm, which in this part of the work
mentions the sun and moon alone, without the fixed stars or planets.

It is evident that the changes referred to this period related to the
whole solar system, and resulted in the completion of that system in
the form which it now bears, or at least in the final adjustment of
the motions and relations of the earth; and we have reason to believe
that the condensation of the luminous envelope around the sun was one
of the most important of these changes. On the hypothesis of La Place,
already referred to as most in accordance with the earlier stages of
the work, there seems to be no especial reason why the completion of
the process of elaboration of the sun and planets should be
accelerated at this particular stage. We can easily understand,
however, that those closing steps which brought the solar system into
a state of permanent and final equilibrium would form a marked epoch
in the work; and we can also understand that now, on the eve of the
introduction of animal life, there is a certain propriety in the
representation of the Creator interfering to close up the merely
inorganic part of his great work, and bring this department at least
to its final perfection. The fourth day, then, in geological language,
marks _the complete introduction of "existing causes" in inorganic
nature_, and we henceforth find no more creative interference, except
in the domain of organization. This accords admirably with the
deductions of modern geology, and especially with that great principle
so well expounded by Sir Charles Lyell, and which forms the true basis
of modern geological reasonings--that we should seek in existing
causes of change for the explanation of the appearances of the rocks
of the earth's crust. Geology probably carries us back to the
introduction of animal life; and shows us that since that time land,
sea, and atmosphere, summer and winter, day and night--all the great
inorganic conditions affecting animal life--have existed as at
present, and have been subject to modifications the same in kind with
those which they now experience, though perhaps different in degree.
In this ancient record we find in like manner that the period
immediately preceding the creation of animals witnessed the completion
of all the great general arrangements on which these phenomena
depend. The Bible, therefore, and science agree in the truth that
existing causes have been in full force since the creation of animals;
and that since that period the exercise of creative power has been
limited to the organic world. This has a curious bearing, not often
thought of, on modern theories of evolution as compared with the
teaching of the Bible. In one important sense, absolute creation, in
so far as the inorganic universe is concerned, is in our Mosaic
narrative limited to the production of matter and force at first. All
else is called making, forming, or appointing. Thus the production of
all the arrangements of the waters, the atmosphere, the earth, and the
heavens, in the work of the first four days, and even the introduction
of plants, may be correctly termed an evolution or development from
preformed materials, with the single exception that the reproductive
power and specific diversities of plants are recognized as entirely
new facts. Creation is properly resumed when animal life is
introduced. Hence, in so far as a comparison with the terms of Genesis
is concerned, hypotheses as to the evolution of animal life from
inorganic matter are in a different position from hypotheses as to the
previous evolution of the parts of inorganic nature; and still more so
from statements as to the progress of inorganic nature subsequent to
the introduction of animals; since within that period, which really
includes the whole of geological time, absolutely no creation whatever
in the domain of inanimate nature is affirmed in the Biblical record
to have taken place. On the contrary, all the arrangements of
inorganic nature are represented as finally completed before the
creation of animals.

The obliquity of the earth's axis, which gives us the changes of the
seasons, is apparently included in the arrangements of the fourth
creative day. The cause of this obliquity, and the time when it may
have attained to its present amount, have been fertile themes of
discussion. It is clear, however, that if this obliquity was
established, as appears to be stated here, before the introduction of
animal life, it can have no bearing on the changes of climate of which
we have evidence in geological time since the dawn of animal life,
unless, indeed, it is capable of greater variation than astronomers
admit; and the same remark applies to supposed changes in the position
of the poles themselves. There is, however, nothing in this record to
oppose the idea of any secular changes in these arrangements under the
laws appointed in the fourth creative period.

The record relating to the fourth day is silent respecting the mundane
history of the period; and geology gives no very certain information
concerning it. If, however, we assume that any of the Eozoic or
pre-eozoic rocks are deposits of this or the preceding period, we may
infer from the disturbances and alteration which these have suffered,
prior to the deposition of the Cambrian and Silurian, that during or
toward the close of this day the crust of the earth was affected by
great movements. There is another consideration also leading to
important conclusions in relation to this period. In the earliest
fossiliferous rocks there seems to be good evidence that the dry land
contemporary with the seas in which they were formed was of very small
extent. Now, since on the third day a very plentiful and highly
developed vegetation was produced, we may infer that during that
period the extent of dry land was considerable, and was probably
gradually increasing. If, then, the Cambrian and Silurian systems, so
rich in marine organic remains, belong to the commencement of the
fifth day, we must conclude that during the fourth much of the land
previously existing had been again submerged. In other words, during
the third day the extent of terrestrial surface was increasing, on the
fourth day it diminished, and on the fifth it again increased, and
probably has on the whole continued to increase up to the present
time. One most important geological consequence of this is that the
marine animals of the fifth day probably commenced their existence on
sea bottoms which were the old soil surfaces of submerged continents
previously clothed with vegetation, and which consequently contained
much organic matter fitted to form a basis of support for the newly
created animals.

I shall close my remarks on the fourth day by a few quotations from
those passages of Scripture which refer to the objects of this day's
work. I have already referred to that beautiful passage in Deuteronomy
where the Israelites are warned against the crime of worshipping those
heavenly bodies which the Lord God hath "divided to every nation under
the whole heaven." In the book of Job also we find that the heavenly
bodies were in his day regarded as signal manifestations of the power
of God, and that several of the principal constellations had received
names:

  "He commandeth the sun, and it shineth not;
  He sealeth up the stars;[91]
  He alone spreadeth out the heavens,
  And walketh on the high waves of the sea;[92]
  He maketh Arcturus, Orion,
  The Pleiades, and the hidden chambers of the south;
  Who doeth great things past finding out;
  Yea, marvellous things beyond number."

  --Job ix., 9.

  "Canst thou tighten the bonds of the Pleiades,[93]
  Or loose the bands of Orion?
  Canst thou bring forth the Mazzaroth in their season,
  Or lead forth Arcturus and its sons?
  Knowest thou the laws of the heavens,
  Or hast thou appointed their dominion over the earth?"

  --Job xxxviii., 31.

I may merely remark on these passages that the chambers of the south
are supposed to be those parts of the southern heavens invisible in
the latitude in which Job resided. The bonds of Pleiades and of Orion
probably refer to the apparently close union of the stars of the
former group, and the wide separation of those of the latter; a
difference which, to the thoughtful observer of the heavens, is more
striking than most instances of that irregular grouping of the stars
which still forms a question in astronomy, from the uncertainty
whether it is real, or only an optical deception arising from stars at
different distances coming nearly into a line with each other. I have
seen in some recent astronomical work this very instance of the
Pleiades and Orion taken as a marked illustration of this
problematical fact in astronomy. _Mazzaroth_ are supposed by modern
expositors to be the signs of the Zodiac.

On the whole, the Hebrew books give us little information as to the
astronomical theories of the time when they were written. They are
entirely non-committal as to the nature of the connections and
revolutions of the heavenly bodies; and indeed regard these as matters
in their time beyond the grasp of the human mind, though well known to
the Creator and regulated by his laws. From other sources we have
facts leading to the belief that even in the time of Moses, and
certainly in that of the later Biblical writers, there was not a
little practical astronomy in the East, and some good theory. The
Hindoo astronomy professes to have observations from 3000 B.C., and
the arguments of Baily and others, founded on internal evidence, give
some color of truth to the claim. The Chaldeans at a very early period
had ascertained the principal circles of the sphere, the position of
the poles, and the nature of the apparent motions of the heavens as
the results of revolution on an inclined axis. The Egyptian astronomy
we know mainly from what the Greeks borrowed from it. Thales, 640
B.C., taught that the moon is lighted by the sun, and that the earth
is spherical, and the position of its five zones. Pythagoras, 580
B.C., knew, in addition to the sphericity of the earth, the obliquity
of the ecliptic, the identity of the evening and morning star, and
that the earth revolves round the sun. This Greek astronomy appears
immediately after the opening of Egypt to the Greeks; and both these
philosophers studied in that country. Such knowledge, and more of the
same character, may therefore have existed in Egypt at a much earlier
period.

The Psalms abound in beautiful references to the creation of the
fourth day:

  "When I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers,
  The moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
  What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
  Or the son of man, that thou visitest him?"
                               --Psalm viii.


  "Who telleth the number of the stars,
  Who calleth them all by their names.
  Great is our Lord, and of great praise;
  His understanding is infinite.
  The Lord lifteth up the meek;
  He casteth the wicked to the ground."
                               --Psalm cxlvii.


  "The heavens declare the glory of God,
  The firmament showeth his handiwork;
  Day unto day uttereth speech,
  Night unto night showeth knowledge.
  They have no speech nor language,
  Their voice is not heard;
  Yet their line is gone out to all the earth,
  And their words to the end of the world.
  In them hath he set a pavilion for the sun,
  Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
  And rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
  Its going forth is from the end of the heavens,
  And its circuit unto the end of them.
  And there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."
                              --Psalm xix.

These are excellent illustrations of the truth of the Scripture mode
of treating natural objects, in connection with their Maker. It is but
a barren and fruitless philosophy which sees the work and not its
author--a narrow piety which loves God but despises his works. The
Bible holds forth the golden mean between these extremes, in a strain
of lofty poetry and acute perception of the great and beautiful,
whether seen in the Creator or reflected from his works.

The work of this day opens up a wide field for astronomical
illustration, more especially in relation to the wisdom and
benevolence of the Creator as displayed in the heavens; but it would
be foreign to our present purpose to enter into these.

It may be well, however, to think for a moment of the importance of
the facts suggested by the writer of Genesis in mentioning the use of
the heavenly bodies as signs of time. To what extent civilization or
even the continued existence of man as an intelligent being would have
been possible without the marks of subdivision of time given by the
great astronomical clock of the universe, it is almost impossible for
us to imagine. Without such marks of time, in any case, the whole
fabric of human culture must have been different from what it is.
Farther, in connection with this, it is a grand thought of our early
revelation that all these heavenly bodies, however magnificent, and
however they might seem to the heathen to be objects of worship, are
but marks on God's clock, parts of a mere machine which keeps time for
us, and is therefore our servant, as the children of the great
Artificer, and not our ruler. The idea has been termed an astrological
one; but astrology as a means of divination has no place in the
record. The heavenly bodies are under the law of the Creator, and
their function relatively to us is to give light and to give time.
Astrological divination is an outgrowth of the Sabæan idolatry, and
held in abomination by the monotheistic author of Genesis. His object
may be summed up in the following general statements:

1. The heavenly hosts and their arrangements are the work of Jehovah,
and are regulated wholly by his laws or ordinances; a striking
illustration of the recognition by the Hebrew writer both of creative
interference, and that stable, natural law which too often withdraws
the mind of the philosopher from the ideas of creation and of
providence.

2. The heavenly bodies have a relation to the earth--are parts of the
same plan, and, whatever other uses they were made to serve, were made
for the benefit of man.

3. The general physical arrangements of the solar system were
perfected before the introduction of animals on our planet.



CHAPTER X.

THE LOWER ANIMALS.


     "And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarming living
     creatures, and let birds fly on the surface of the expanse
     of heaven. And God created great reptiles, and every living
     moving thing, which the waters brought forth abundantly,
     after their kind, and every bird after its kind; and God saw
     that it was good.

     "And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and
     fill the waters of the seas, and let the flying creatures
     multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were
     the fifth day."--Genesis i., 20-23.


In these words, so full of busy, active, thronging life, we now enter
on that part of the earth's history which has been most fully
elucidated by geology, and we have thus an additional reason for
carefully weighing the terms of the narrative, which here, as in other
places, contain large and important truths couched in language of the
simplest character.

1. In accordance with the views now entertained by the best
lexicographers, the word translated in our version "creeping things"
has been rendered "prolific or swarming creatures." The Hebrew is
_Sheretz_, a noun derived from the verb used in this verse to denote
bringing forth abundantly. It is loosely translated in the Septuagint
_Erpeta_, reptiles; and this view our English translators appear to
have adopted, without, perhaps, any very clear notions of the
creatures intended. The manner in which it is used in other passages
places its true meaning beyond doubt. I select as illustrations of
the most apposite character those verses in Leviticus in which clean
and unclean animals are specified, and in which we have a right to
expect the most precise zoological nomenclature that the Hebrew can
afford. In Leviticus xi., 20-23, _insects_ are defined to be _flying
sheretzim_, and in verse 29, etc., under the designation "_sheretzim
of the land_," we have animals named in our version the weasel, mouse,
tortoise, ferret, chameleon, lizard, snail, and mole. The first of
these animals is believed to have been a burrowing creature, perhaps a
mole; the second, from the meaning of its name, "ravager of fields,"
is thought to have been a mouse. Some doubt, however, attends both of
these identifications, but it appears certain that the remaining six
species are small reptiles, principally lizards. We learn, therefore,
that the smaller reptiles, and _perhaps_ also a few small mammals, are
_sheretzim_. In verses 41 and 42 we are introduced to other tribes.
"And every _sheretz_ that swarmeth on the earth shall be an
abomination unto you; it shall not be eaten; whatsoever goeth upon the
belly (serpents, worms, snails, etc.), and whatsoever hath more feet
(than four) (insects, arachnidans, myriapods)." In verses 9 and 10 of
the same chapter we have an enumeration of the _sheretzim_ of the
waters: "Whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas
and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and
scales in the seas and the rivers, of all that swarm in the waters
(all the _sheretzim_ of the waters), they shall be an abomination unto
you." Here the general term _sheretz_ includes all the fishes and the
invertebrate animals of the waters. From the whole of the above
passages we learn that this is a general term for all the invertebrate
animals and the two lower classes of vertebrates, or, in other words,
for the whole animal kingdom except the mammalia and birds. To all
these creatures the name is particularly appropriate, all of them
being oviparous or ovoviviparous, and consequently producing great
numbers of young and multiplying very rapidly. The only other
creatures which can be included under the term are the two doubtful
species of small mammals already mentioned. Nothing can be more fair
and obvious than this explanation of the term, based both on etymology
and on the precise nomenclature of the ceremonial law. We conclude,
therefore, that the prolific animals of the fifth day's creation
belonged to the three Cuvierian sub-kingdoms of the Radiata,
Articulata, and Mollusca, and to the classes of Fish and Reptiles
among the vertebrata.

2. One peculiar group of _sheretzim_ is especially distinguished by
name--the _tanninim_, or "great whales" of our version. It would be
amusing, had we time, to notice the variety of conjectures to which
this word has given rise, and the perplexities of commentators in
reference to it. In our version and the Septuagint it is usually
rendered dragon; but in this place the seventy have thought proper to
put _Ketos_ (whale), and our translators have followed them.
Subsequent translators and commentators have laid under contribution
all sorts of marine monsters, including the sea-serpent, in their
endeavors to attach a precise meaning to the word; while others have
been content to admit that it may signify any kind or all kinds of
large aquatic animals. The greater part of the difficulty appears to
have arisen from confounding two distinct words, _tannin_ and _tan_,
both names of animals; and the confusion has been increased by the
circumstance that in two places the words have been interchanged,
probably by errors of transcribers. _Tan_ occurs in twelve places, and
from these we can gather that it inhabits ruined cities, deserts, and
places to which ostriches resort, that it suckles its young, is of
predaceous and shy habits, utters a wailing cry, and is not of large
size, nor formidable to man. The most probable conjecture as to the
animal intended is that of Gesenius, who supposes it to be the jackal.
The other word (_tannin_), which is that used in the text, is applied
as an emblem of Egypt and its kings, and also of the conquering kings
of Babylon. It is spoken of as furious when enraged, and formidable to
man, and is said to be an inhabitant of rivers and of the sea, but
more especially of the Nile. In short, it is the crocodile of the
Nile. We can easily understand the perplexity of those writers who
suppose these two words to be identical, and endeavor to combine all
the characters above mentioned in one animal or tribe of animals. As a
farther illustration of the marked difference in the meanings of the
two words, we may compare the 34th and 37th verses of the fifty-first
chapter of Jeremiah. In the first of these verses the King of Babylon
is represented as a "dragon" (_tannin_), which had swallowed up
Israel. In the second it is predicted that Babylon itself shall become
heaps, a dwelling-place for "dragons" (_tanim_). There can be no doubt
that the animals intended here are quite different. The devouring
_tannin_ is a huge predaceous river reptile, a fit emblem of the
Babylonian monarch; the _tan_ is the jackal that will soon howl in his
ruined palaces. It is interesting to know that philologists trace a
connection between _tannin_ and the Greek _teino_, Latin _tendo_, and
similar words, signifying to stretch or extend, in the Sanscrit,
Gothic, and other languages, leading to the inference that the Hebrew
word primarily denotes a lengthened or extended creature, which
corresponds well with its application to the crocodile. Taking all the
above facts in connection, we are quite safe in concluding that the
creatures referred to by the word under consideration are literally
large reptilian animals; and, from the special mention made of them,
we may infer that, in their day, they were the lords of creation.[94]

3. In verse 21 the remainder of the _sheretzim_, besides the larger
reptiles, are included in the general expression, "Living creature
that moveth." The term "living creature" is, literally, "creature
having the breath of life;" the power of respiration being apparently
in Hebrew the distinctive character of the animal. The word moveth
(_ramash_), in its more general sense, expresses the power of
voluntary motion, as exhibited in animals in general. In a few places,
however, it has a more precise meaning, as in 1 Kings iv., 33, where
the vertebrated animals are included in the four classes of "beasts,
fowl, _creeping things_ (or reptiles, _remes_), and fishes." In the
present connection it probably has its most general sense; unless,
indeed, the apparent repetition in this verse relates to the
amphibious or semi-terrestrial creatures associated with the great
reptiles; and, in that case, the humbler reptilian animals alone may
be meant.

4. We may again note that the introduction of animal life is marked by
the use of the word "create," for the first time since the general
creation of the heavens and the earth. We may also note that the
animal, as well as the plant, was created "after its kind," or
"species by species." The animals are grouped under three great
classes--the Remes, the Tanninim, and the Birds; but, lest any
misconception should arise as to the relations of species to these
groups, we are expressly informed that the species is here the true
unit of the creative work. It is worth while, therefore, to note that
this most ancient authority on this much controverted topic connects
species on the one hand with the creative fiat, and on the other with
the power of continuous reproduction.

5. In addition to the great mass of _sheretzim_, so accurately
characterized by Milton as

  "----Reptile with spawn abundant,"

the creation of the fifth day included a higher tribe of oviparous
animals--the birds, the fowl or winged creature of the text. Birds
alone, we think, must be meant here, as we have already seen that
insects are included under the general term _sheretzim_.

6. It is farther to be observed that _the waters_ give origin to the
first animals--an interesting point when we consider the contrast here
with the creation of plants and of the higher animals, both of which
proceed from the earth.

7. It can not fail to be observed that we have in these verses two
different arrangements of the animals created, neither corresponding
exactly with what modern science teaches us to regard as the true
grouping of the animal kingdom, according to its affinities. The order
in the first enumeration should, from the analogy of the chapter,
indicate that of successive creation. The order of the second list
may, perhaps, be that of the relative importance of the animals, as it
appeared to the writer. Or there may have been a twofold division of
the period--the earlier commencing with the creation of the humbler
invertebrates, the later characterized by the great reptiles--which is
the actual state of the case as disclosed by geology.

8. The Creator recognizes the introduction of sentient existence and
volition by _blessing_ this new work of his hands, and inviting the
swarms of the newly peopled world to enjoy that happiness for which
they were fitted, and to increase and fill the earth, inaugurating
thus a new power destined to still higher developments.

When we inquire what information geology affords respecting the period
under consideration, the answer may be full and explicit. Geological
discovery has carried us back to an epoch corresponding with the
beginning of this day, and has disclosed a long and varied series of
living beings, extending from this early period up to the introduction
of the higher races of animals. To enter on the geological details of
these changes, and on descriptions of the creatures which succeeded
each other on the earth, would swell this volume into a treatise on
palæontology, and would be quite unnecessary, as so many excellent
popular works on this subject already exist. I shall, therefore,
confine myself to a few general statements, and to marking the points
in which Scripture and geology coincide in their respective histories
of this long period, which appears to include the whole of the
Palæozoic and Mesozoic epochs of geology, with their grand and varied
succession of rock formations and living beings.

In the Primordial or oldest fossiliferous rocks next in succession to
those great Eozoic formations in which protozoa alone have been
discovered, we find the remains of crustaceans, mollusks, and
radiates--such as shrimps, shell-fish, and starfishes--which appear to
have inhabited the bottom of a shallow ocean. Among these were some
genera belonging to the higher forms of invertebrate life, but
apparently as yet no vertebrated animals. Fishes were then introduced,
and have left their remains in the upper Silurian rocks, and very
abundantly in the Devonian and Carboniferous, in the latter of which
also the first reptiles occur, but are principally members of that
lower group to which the frogs and newts and their allies belong. The
animal kingdom appears to have reached no higher than the reptiles in
the Palæozoic or primary period of geology, and its reptiles are
comparatively small and few; though fishes had attained to a point of
perfection which they have not since exceeded. There was also,
especially in the Carboniferous age, an abundant and luxuriant
vegetation. The Mesozoic period is, however, emphatically the age of
reptiles. This class then reached its climax, in the number,
perfection, and magnitude of its species, which filled all those
stations in the economy of nature now assigned to the mammalia. Birds
also belong to this era, though apparently much less numerous and
important than at present. Only a few species of small mammals, of the
lowest or marsupial type, appear as a presage of the mammalian
creation of the succeeding tertiary era. In these two geological
periods, then--the Palæozoic and Mesozoic--we find, first, the lower
_sheretzim_ represented by the invertebrata and the fishes, then the
great reptiles and the birds; and it can not be denied that, if we
admit that the Mosaic day under consideration corresponds with these
geological periods, it would be impossible better to characterize
their creations in so few words adapted to popular comprehension. I
may add that all the species whose remains are found in the Palæozoic
and Mesozoic rocks are extinct, and known to us only as fossils; and
their connection with the present system of nature consists only in
their forming with it a more perfect series than our present fauna
alone could afford, unless, indeed, we should find reason to believe
that any modern animals are their modified descendants. They belong to
the same system of types, but are parts of it which have served their
purpose and have been laid aside. The coincidences above noted between
geology and Scripture may be summed up as follows:

1. According to both records, the causes which at present regulate the
distribution of light, heat, and moisture, and of land and water,
were, during the whole of this period, much the same as at present.
The eyes of the trilobite of the old Silurian rocks are fitted for the
same conditions with respect to light with those of existing animals
of the same class. The coniferous trees of the coal measures show
annual rings of growth. Impressions of rain-marks have been found in
the shales of the coal measures and Devonian system. Hills and
valleys, swamps and lagoons, rivers, bays, seas, coral reefs and shell
beds, have all left indubitable evidence of their existence in the
geological record. On the other hand, the Bible affirms that all the
earth's physical features were perfected on the fourth day, and
immediately before the creation of animals. The land and the water
have undergone during this long lapse of ages many minor changes.
Whole tribes of animals and plants have been swept away and replaced
by others, but the general aspect of inorganic nature has remained the
same.

2. Both records show the existence of vegetation during this period;
though the geologic record, if taken alone, would, from its want of
information respecting the third day, lead us to infer that plants are
no older than animals, while the Bible does not speak of the nature of
the vegetation that may have existed on the fifth day.

3. Both records inform us that reptiles and birds were the higher and
leading forms of animals, and that all the lower forms of animals
co-existed with them. In both we have especial notice of the gigantic
Saurian reptiles of the latter part of the period; and if we have the
remains of a few small species of mammals in the Mesozoic rocks,
these, like a few similar creatures apparently included under the word
_sheretz_ in Leviticus, are not sufficiently important to negative
the general fact of the reign of reptiles.[95]

4. It accords with both records that the work of creation in this
period was gradually progressive. Species after species was locally
introduced, extended itself, and, after having served its purpose,
gradually became extinct. And thus each successive rock formation
presents new groups of species, each rising in numbers and perfection
above the last, and marking a gradual assimilation of the general
conditions of our planet to their present state, yet without any
convulsions or general catastrophes affecting the whole earth at once.

5. In both records the time between the creation of the first animals
and the introduction of the mammalia as a dominant class forms a
well-marked period. I would not too positively assert that the close
of the fifth day accords precisely with that of the Mesozoic or
secondary period. The well-marked line of separation, however, in many
parts of the world, between this and the earlier tertiary rocks
succeeding to it, points to this as extremely probable.

It thus appears that Scripture and geology so far concur respecting
the events of this period as to establish, even without any other
evidence, a probability that the fifth day corresponds with the
geological ages with which I have endeavored to identify it. Geology,
however, gives us no means of measuring precisely the length of this
day; but it gives us the impression that it occupied an enormous
length of time, compared with which the whole human period is quite
insignificant; and rivalling those mythical "days of the Creator"
which we have noticed as forming a part of the Hindoo mythology.

Why was the earth thus occupied for countless ages by an animal
population whose highest members were reptiles and birds? The fact can
not be doubted, since geology and Scripture, the research of man and
the Word of God, concur in affirming it. We know that the lowest of
these creatures was, in its own place, no less worthy of the Creator
than those which we regard as the highest in the scale of
organization, and that the animals of the ancient, equally with those
of the modern world, abounded in proofs of the wisdom, power, and
goodness of their Maker. Comparative anatomy has shown that these
extinct animals, though often varying much from their modern
representatives, are in no respect rude or imperfect; that they have
the same appearance of careful planning and elaborate execution, the
same combination of ornament and utility, the same nice adaptation to
the conditions of their existence, which we observe in modern
creatures. In addition to this, the many new and wonderful
contrivances and combinations which they present, and their relations
to existing objects, have greatly enlarged our views of the variety
and harmony of the whole system of nature. They are, therefore, in
these respects, not without their use as manifestations of the
Creator, in this our later age.

There is another reason, hinted at by Buckland, Miller, and other
writers on this subject, which weighs much with my mind. All animals
and plants are constructed on a few leading types or patterns, which
are again divided into subordinate types, just as in architecture we
have certain leading styles, and these again may admit of several
orders, and these of farther modifications. Types are farther modified
to suit a great variety of minor adaptations. Now we know that the
earth is, at any one time, inadequate to display all the modifications
of all the types. Hence our existing system of organic nature, though
probably more complete than any that preceded it, is still only
fragmentary. It is like what architecture would be, if all memorials
of all buildings more than a century old were swept away. But, from
the beginning to the end of the creative work, there has been, or will
be, room for the whole plan. Hence fossils are little by little
completing our system of nature; and, if all were known, would perhaps
wholly do so. The great plan must be progressive, and all its parts
must be perishable, except its last culminating-point and archetype,
man. Tennyson expresses this truth in the following lines:

  "The wish that of the living whole
      No life may fail beyond the grave;
      Derives it not from what we have
  The likest God within the soul?

  Are God and Nature then at strife,
      That Nature lends such evil dreams?
      So careful of the type she seems,
  So careless of the single life.

  'So careful of the type?' but no.
      From scarped cliff and quarried stone
      She cries, 'a thousand types are gone;
  I care for nothing, all shall go.

  'Thou makest thine appeal to me:
      I bring to life, I bring to death:
      The spirit does but mean the breath:
  I know no more.' And he, shall he,

  Man, her last work, who seem'd so fair,
      Such splendid purpose in his eyes,
      Who roll'd the psalm to wintry skies,
  Who built him fanes of fruitless prayer,

  Who trusted God was love indeed,
      And love Creation's final law--
      Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw,
  With ravine, shriek'd against his creed--

  Who loved, who suffer'd countless ills,
      Who battled for the True, the Just,
      Be blown about the desert dust,
  Or seal'd within the iron hills?

  No more? A monster, then, a dream,
      A discord. Dragons of the prime,
      That tare each other in their slime,
  Were mellow music match'd with him.

  O life as futile, then, as frail!
      O for thy voice to soothe and bless!
      What hope of answer, or redress?
  Behind the veil, behind the veil."

The farther explanation given by evolutionists that those ancient
forms of life may be the actual ancestors of the present animals, and
that through all the ages the Creator was gradually perfecting his
work by a series of descents with modification, was probably not
before the mind of our ancient Hebrew authority, nor need we attach
much value to it till some proof of the process has been obtained from
Nature. A farther reason, however, which was intelligible to the
author of Genesis, and which is fondly dwelt on in succeeding books of
the Bible, depends on the idea that the Creator himself is not
indifferent to the marvellous structures, instincts, and powers which
he has bestowed upon the lower races of animals. Witness the answer
of the Almighty to Job, when he spake out of the whirlwind to
vindicate his own plans in creation and providence; and brought before
the patriarch a long train of animals, explaining and dwelling on the
structure and powers of each, in contrast with the puny efforts and
rude artificial contrivances of man. Witness also the preservation, in
the rocks, of the fossil remains of extinct creatures, as if he who
made them was unwilling that the evidence of their existence should
perish, and purposely treasured them through all the revolutions of
the earth, that through them men might magnify his name. The Psalmist
would almost appear to have had all these thoughts before his mind
when he poured out his wonder in the 104th Psalm:

  "O Lord, how manifold are thy works!
  In wisdom hast thou made them all.
  The earth is full of thy riches;
  So is this wide and great sea,
  Wherein are moving things innumerable,
  Creatures both small and great.
  There go the ships [or "floating animals"];
  There is leviathan, which thou hast formed to sport therein:
  That thou givest them they gather.
  Thou openest thy hand, they are filled with good;
  Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled;
  Thou takest away their breath, they return to their dust.
  Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created,
  And thou renewest the face of the earth."

There are, however, good reasons to believe that, in the plans of
divine wisdom, the long periods in which the earth was occupied by the
inferior races were necessary to its subsequent adaptation to the
residence of man. To these periods our present continents gradually
grew up in all their variety and beauty. The materials of old rocks
were comminuted and mixed to form fertile soils,[96] and stores of
mineral products were accumulated to enable man to earn his
subsistence and the blessings of civilization by the sweat of his
brow. If it pleased the Almighty during these preparatory stages to
replenish the land and sea with living things full of life and beauty
and happiness, who shall venture to criticise his procedure, or to say
to Him, "What doest thou?"

It would be decidedly wrong, in the present state of that which is
popularly called science, to omit to inquire here what relation to the
work of the fifth creative day those theories of development and
evolution which have obtained so great currency may bear. The long
time employed in the introduction of the lower animals, the use of the
terms "make" and "form," instead of "create," and the expression "let
the waters bring forth," may well be understood as countenancing some
form of mediate creation, or of "creation by law," or "theistic
evolution," as it has been termed; but they give no countenance to the
idea either of the spontaneous evolution of living beings under the
influence of merely physical causes and without creative intervention,
or of the transmutation of one kind of animal into another. Still,
with reference to this last idea, it is plain that revelation gives us
no definition of species as distinguished from varieties or races, so
that there is nothing to prevent the supposition that, within certain
limits indicated by the expression "after its kind," animals or plants
may have been so constituted as to vary greatly in the progress of
geological time.

If we ask whether any thing is known to science which can give even a
decided probability to the notion that living beings are parts of an
undirected evolution proceeding under merely dead insentient forces,
and without intention, the answer must be emphatically no.

I have elsewhere fully discussed these questions, and may here make
some general statements as to certain scientific facts which at
present bar the way against the hypothesis of evolution as applied to
life, and especially against that form of it to which Darwin and his
disciples have given so great prominence.

1. The albuminous or protoplasmic material, which seems to be
necessary to the existence of every living being, is known to us as a
product only of the action of previously living protoplasm. Though it
is often stated that the production of albumen from its elements is a
process not differing from the formation of water or any other
inorganic material from its elements, this statement is false in fact,
since, though many so-called organic substances have been produced by
chemical processes, no particle of either living or non-living
organizable matter of the nature of protoplasm has ever been so
produced. The origin, therefore, of this albuminous matter is as much
a mystery to us at present as that of any of the chemical elements.

2. Though some animals and plants are very simple in their visible
structure, they all present vital properties not to be found in dead
albuminous matter, and no mode is known whereby the properties of life
can be communicated to dead matter. All the experiments hitherto made,
and very eminently those recently performed by Pasteur, Tyndall, and
Dallinger, lead to the conclusion that even the simplest living beings
can be produced only from germs originating in previously living
organisms of similar structure. The simplest living organisms are
thus to science ultimate facts, for which it can not account except
conjecturally.

3. No case is certainly known in human experience where any species of
animal or plant has been so changed as to assume all the characters of
a new species. Species are thus practically to science unchangeable
units, the origin of which we have as yet no means of tracing.

4. Though the general history of animal life in time bears a certain
resemblance to the development of the individual animal from the
embryo, there is no reason whatever to believe that this is more than
a mere relation of analogy, arising from the fact that in both cases
the law of procedure is to pass from the simpler forms to the more
complex, and from the more generalized to the more specialized. The
external conditions and details of the two kinds of series are
altogether different, and become more so the more they are
investigated. This shows that the causes can not have been similar.

5. In tracing back animals and groups of animals in geological time,
we find that they always end without any link of connection with
previous beings, and in circumstances which render any such
connections improbable. In the work of our next creative day, the
series of animals preceding the modern horse has been cited as a good
instance of probable evolution; but not only are the members of the
series so widely separated in space and time that no connection can be
traced, but the earliest of them, the _Orohippus_, would require, on
the theory, to have been preceded by a previous series extending so
far back that it is impossible, under any supposition of the
imperfection of our present knowledge, to consider such extension
probable. The same difficulty applies to every case of tracing back
any specific form either of animal or plant. This general result
proves, as I have elsewhere attempted to show,[97] that the
introduction of the various animal types must have been abrupt, and
under some influence quite different from that of evolution.

These are what I would term the five fatal objections to evolution as
at present held, as a means of accounting for the introduction and
succession of animals. To what extent they may be weakened or
strengthened by the future progress of science it is impossible to
say, but so long as they exist it is mere folly and presumption to
affirm that modern science supports the doctrine of evolution. There
can be no doubt, however, that the Bible leaves us perfectly free to
inquire as to the plan and method of the Creator, and that, whatever
discoveries we may make, we shall find that his plans are orderly,
methodical, and continuous, and not of the nature of an arbitrary
patchwork.

Though science as yet gives us no certain laws for the introduction of
new specific types, it indicates certain possible modes of the
origination of varieties, races, and sub-species of previously
existing types. One of these is that struggle for existence against
adverse external conditions, which, however, has been harped upon too
exclusively by the Darwinian school, and which will give chiefly
depauperated and degraded forms. Another is that expansion under
exceptionally favorable conditions which arises where species are
admitted to wider new areas of geographical range and more abundant
and varied means of sustenance. Land animals and plants must have
experienced this in times of continental elevation; marine animals and
plants in times of continental depression. Another is the tendency to
what has been called reproductive retardation and acceleration which
species undergo under conditions exceptionally unfavorable or
favorable, and which in some modern aquatic animals produces
differences so great that members of the same species have sometimes
been placed in different genera. Lastly, it is conceivable that
species may have been so constructed that after a certain number of
generations they may spontaneously undergo either abrupt or gradual
changes, similar to those which the individual undergoes at certain
stages of growth. This last furnishes the only true analogy possible
between embryology and geological succession.

While, however, science is silent as to the production of new specific
types, and only gives us indications as to the origin of varieties and
races, it is curious that the Bible suggests three methods in which
new organisms may be, and according to it have been introduced by the
Creator. The first is that of immediate and direct creation, as when
God created the great Tanninim. The second is that of mediate
creation, through the materials previously existing, as when he said,
"Let the land bring forth plants," or "Let the waters bring forth
animals." The third is that of production from a previous organism by
power other than that of ordinary reproduction, as in the origination
of Eve from Adam, and the miraculous conception of Jesus. These are
the only points in which its teachings approach the limits of
speculations as to evolution, and they certainly leave scope enough
for the legitimate inquiries of science.[98]



CHAPTER XI.

THE HIGHER ANIMALS AND MAN.


     "And God said, Let the land bring forth animals after their
     kinds; the herbivora, the reptiles, and the carnivora, after
     their kinds; and it was so. And God made carnivorous mammals
     after their kinds, and herbivorous mammals after their
     kinds, and every reptile of the land after its kind; and God
     saw that it was good.

     "And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our
     likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the
     birds of the air, and over the herbivora and over all the
     land. So God created man in his own image, in the image of
     God created he him; male and female created he them. And God
     blessed them; and God said, Be fruitful and multiply, and
     replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over
     the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air, and over
     every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

     "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
     seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree
     in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it
     shall be for food, and to every beast of the earth and to
     every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon
     the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green
     herb for meat; and it was so. And God saw every thing that
     he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And evening and
     morning were the sixth day."--Genesis i., 24-31.


The creation of animals, unlike that of plants, occupies two days.
Here our attention is restricted to the inhabitants of the _land_, and
chiefly to their higher forms. Several new names are introduced to our
notice, which I have endeavored to translate as literally as possible
by introducing zoological terms where those in common use were
deficient.

1. The first tribe of animals noticed here is named _Bhemah_, "cattle"
in our version; and in the Septuagint "quadrupeds" in one of the
verses, and "cattle" in the other. Both of these senses are of common
occurrence in the Scriptures, cattle or domesticated animals being
usually designated by this word; while in other passages, as in 1
Kings iv., 33, where Solomon is said to have written a treatise on
"_beasts_, fowls, creeping things, and fishes," it appears to include
all the mammalia. Notwithstanding this wide range of meaning, however,
there are passages, and these of the greatest authority in reference
to our present subject, in which it strictly means the herbivorous
mammals, and which show that when it was necessary to distinguish
these from the predaceous or carnivorous tribes this term was
specially employed. In Leviticus xi., 22-27, we have a specification
of all the Bhemoth that might and might not be used for food. It
includes all the true ruminants, with the coney, the hare, and the
hog, animals of the rodent and pachydermatous orders. The carnivorous
quadrupeds are designated by a different generic term. In this chapter
of Leviticus, therefore, which contains the only approach to a system
in natural history to be found in the Bible, _bhemah_ is strictly a
synonym of _herbivora_, including especially ungulates and rodents.
That this is its proper meaning here is confirmed by the
considerations that in this place it can denote but a part of the land
quadrupeds, and that the idea of cattle or domesticated animals would
be an anachronism. At the same time there need be no objection to the
view that the especial capacity of ruminants and other herbivora for
domestication is connected with the use of the word in this place.

2. The word _remes_, "creeping things" in our version, as we have
already shown, is a very general term, referring to the power of
motion possessed by animals, especially on the surface of the ground.
It here in all probability refers to the additional types of
terrestrial reptiles, and other creatures lower than the mammals,
introduced in this period.

3. The compound term (_hay'th-eretz_) which I have ventured to render
"carnivora," is literally animal of the land; but though thus general
in its meaning, it is here evidently intended to denote a particular
tribe of animals inhabiting the land, and not included in the scope of
the two words already noticed. In other parts of Scripture this term
is used in the sense of a "wild beast." In a few places, like the
other terms already noticed, it is used of all kinds of animals, but
that above stated is its general meaning, and perfectly accords with
the requirements of the passage.

The creation of the sixth day therefore includes--1st, the herbivorous
mammalia; 2d, a variety of terrestrial reptilia, and other lower forms
not included in the work of the previous day; 3d, the carnivorous
mammalia. It will be observed that the order in the two verses is
different. In verse 24th it is herbivora, "creeping things," and
carnivora. In verse 25th it is carnivora, herbivora, and "creeping
things." One of these may, as in the account of the fifth day,
indicate the order of _time_ in the creation, and the other the order
of _rank_ in the animals made, or there may have been two divisions of
the work, in the earlier of which herbivorous animals took the lead,
and in the later those that are carnivorous. In either case we may
infer that the herbivora predominated in the earlier creations of the
period.

It is almost unnecessary to say this period corresponds with the
Tertiary or Cainozoic era of geologists. The coincidences are very
marked and striking. As already stated, though in the later secondary
period there were great facilities for the preservation of mammals in
the strata then being deposited, only a few small species of the
humblest order have been found; and the occurrence of the higher
orders of this class is to some extent precluded by the fact that the
place in nature now occupied by the mammals was then provided for by
the vast development of the reptile tribes. At the very beginning of
the tertiary period all this was changed; most of the gigantic
reptiles had disappeared, and terrestrial mammals of large size and
high organization had taken their place. Perhaps no geological change
is more striking and remarkable than the sudden disappearance of the
reptilian fauna at the close of the mesozoic, and the equally abrupt
appearance of numerous species of large mammals, and this not in one
region only, but over both the great continents, and not only where a
sudden break occurs in the series of formations, but also where, as in
Western America, they pass gradually into each other. During the whole
tertiary period this predominance of the mammalia continued; and as
the mesozoic was the period of giant reptiles, so the tertiary was
that of great mammals. It is a singular and perhaps not accidental
coincidence that so many of the early tertiary mammals known to us are
large herbivora, such as would be included in the Hebrew word
_bhemah_; and that in the book of Job the hippopotamus is called
_behemoth_, the plural form being apparently used to denote that this
animal is the chief of the creatures known under the general term
_bhemah_, while geology informs us that the prevailing order of
mammals in the older tertiary period was that of the ungulates, and
that many of the extinct creatures of this group are very closely
allied to the hippopotamus. Behemoth thus figures in the book of Job,
not only as at the time a marked illustration of creative power, but
to our farther knowledge also as a singular remnant of an extinct
gigantic race. It is at least curious that while in the fifth day
great reptiles like those of the secondary rocks form the burden of
the work, in the sixth we have a term which so directly reminds us of
those gigantic pachyderms which figure so largely in the tertiary
period. Large carnivora also occur in the tertiary formations, and
there are some forms of reptile life, as, for example, the serpents,
which first appear in the tertiary.

I may refer to any popular text-book of geology in evidence of the
exact conformity of this to the progress of mammalian life, as we now
know it in detail from the study of the successive tertiary deposits.
The following short summary from Dana, though written several years
ago, still expresses the main features of the case:

"The quadrupeds did not all come forth together. Large and powerful
herbivorous species first take possession of the earth, with only a
few small carnivora. These pass away. Other herbivora with a larger
proportion of carnivora next appear. These also are exterminated; and
so with others. Then the carnivora appear in vast numbers and power,
and the herbivora also abound. Moreover these races attain a magnitude
and number far surpassing all that now exist, as much so indeed, on
all the continents, North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and
Australia, as the old mastodon, twenty feet long and nine feet high,
exceeds the modern buffalo. Such, according to geology, was the age of
mammals, when the brute species existed in their greatest
magnificence, and brutal ferocity had free play; when the dens of
bears and hyenas, prowling tigers and lions far larger than any now
existing, covered Britain and Europe. Mammoths and mastodons wandered
over the plains of North America, huge sloth-like Megatheria passed
their sluggish lives on the pampas of South America, and elephantine
marsupials strolled about Australia.

"As the mammalian age draws to a close, the ancient carnivora and
herbivora of that era all pass away, excepting, it is believed, a few
that are useful to man. New creations of smaller size peopled the
groves; the vegetation received accessions to its foliage, fruit-trees
and flowers, and the seas brighter forms of water life. This we know
from comparisons with the fossils of the preceding mammalian age.
There was at this time no chaotic upturning, but only the opening of
creation to its fullest expansion; and so in Genesis no new day is
begun, it is still the _sixth day_."

The creation of man is prefaced by expressions implying deliberation
and care. It is not said, "Let the earth bring forth" man, but let us
form or fashion man. This marks the relative importance of the human
species, and the heavenly origin of its nobler immaterial part. Man is
also said to have been "created," implying that in his constitution
there was something new and not included in previous parts of the
work, even in its material. Man was created, as the Hebrew literally
reads, the shadow and similitude of God--the greatest of the visible
manifestations of Deity in the lower world--the reflected image of his
Maker, and, under the Supreme Lawgiver, the delegated ruler of the
earth. Now for the first time was the earth tenanted by a being
capable of comprehending the purposes and plans of Jehovah, of
regarding his works with intelligent admiration, and of shadowing
forth the excellences of his moral nature. For countless ages the
earth had been inhabited by creatures wonderful in their structures
and instincts, and mutely testifying, as their buried remains still
do, to the Creator's glory; but limited within a narrow range of
animal propensities, and having no power of raising a thought or
aspiration toward the Being who made them. Now, however, man enters on
the scene, and the sons of God, who had shouted for joy when the first
land emerged from the bosom of the deep, saw the wondrous spectacle of
a spiritual nature analogous to their own, united to a corporeal frame
constructed on the same general type with the higher of those
irrational creatures whose presence on earth they had so long
witnessed.

Man was to rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and
the _bhemah_ or herbivorous animals. The carnivorous creatures are not
mentioned, and possibly were not included in man's dominion. We shall
find an explanation of this farther on. The nature of man's dominion
we are left to infer. In his state of innocence it must have been a
mild and gentle sway, interfering in no respect wilts the free
exercise of the powers of enjoyment bestowed on animals by the
Creator, a rule akin to that which a merciful man exercises over a
domesticated animal, and which some animals are capable of repaying
with a warm and devoted affection. Now, however, man's rule has become
a tyranny. "The whole creation groans" because of it. He desolates the
face of nature wherever he appears, unsettling the nice balance of
natural agencies, and introducing remediless confusion and suffering
among the lower creatures, even when in the might of his boasted
civilization he professes to renovate and improve the face of nature.
He retains enough of the image of his Maker to enable him to a great
extent to assert his dominion, and to aspire after a restoration of
his original paradise, but he has lost so much that the power which he
retains is necessarily abused to selfish ends.

Man, like the other creatures, was destined to be fruitful and
multiply and replenish the earth. We are also informed in chapter
second that he was placed in a "garden," a chosen spot in the alluvial
plains of Western Asia, belonging to the later geological formations,
and thus prepared by the whole series of prior geological changes,
replenished with all things useful to him, and containing nothing
hurtful, at least in so far as the animal creation was concerned.
These facts, taken in connection, lead to grave questions. How is the
happy and innocent state of man consistent with the contemporaneous
existence of carnivorous and predaceous animals, which, as both
Scripture and geology state, were created in abundance in the sixth
day? How, when confined to a limited region, could he increase and
multiply and replenish the earth? These questions, which have caused
no little perplexity, are easily solved when brought into the light of
our modern knowledge of nature. 1. Every large region of the earth is
inhabited by a group of animals differing in the proportions of
identical species, and in the presence of distinct species, from the
groups inhabiting other districts. There is also sufficient reason to
conclude that all animals and plants have spread from certain local
centres of creation, in which certain groups of species have been
produced and allowed to extend themselves, until they met and became
intermingled with species extending from other centres. Now the
district of Asia, in the vicinity of the Euphrates and Tigris, to
which the Scripture assigns the origin of the human race, is the
centre to which we can with the greatest probability trace several of
the species of animals and plants most useful to man, and it lies near
the confines of warmer and colder regions of distribution in the Old
World, and also near the boundary of the Asiatic and European regions.
At the period under consideration it may have been peopled with a
group of animals specially suited to association with the progenitors
of mankind. 2. To remove all zoological difficulties from the position
of primeval man in his state of innocence, we have but to suppose, in
accordance with all the probabilities of the case, that man was
created along with a group of creatures adapted to contribute to his
happiness, and having no tendency to injure or annoy; and that it is
the formation of these creatures--the group of his own centre of
creation--that is especially noticed in Genesis ii., 19, _et seq._,
where God is represented as forming them out of the ground and
exhibiting them to Adam; a passage otherwise superfluous, and indeed
tending to confuse the meaning of the document. 3. The difficulty
attending the early extension of the human race is at once obviated by
the geological doctrine of the extinction of species. We know that in
past geological periods large and important groups of species have
become extinct, and have been replaced by new groups extending from
new centres; and we know that this process has removed, in early
geological periods, many creatures that would have been highly
injurious to human interests had they remained. Now the group of
species created with man being the latest introduced, we may infer, on
geological grounds, that it would have extended itself within the
spheres of older zoological and botanical districts, and would have
replaced their species, which, in the ordinary operation of natural
laws, may have been verging toward extinction. Thus not only man, but
the Eden in which he dwelt, with all its animals and plants, would
have gradually encroached on the surrounding wilderness, until man's
happy and peaceful reign had replaced that of the ferocious beasts
that preceded him in dominion, and had extended at least over all the
temperate region of the earth. 4. The cursing of the ground for man's
sake, on his fall from innocence, would thus consist in the
permission given to the predaceous animals and the thorns and the
briers of other centres of creation to invade his Eden; or, in his own
expulsion, to contend with the animals and plants which were intended
to have given way and become extinct before him. Thus the fall of man
would produce an arrestment in the progress of the earth in that last
great revolution which would have converted it into an Eden; and the
anomalies of its present state consist, according to Scripture, in a
mixture of the conditions of the tertiary with those of the human
period. 5. Though there is good ground for believing that man was to
have been exempted from the general law of mortality, we can not infer
that any such exemption would have been enjoyed by his companion
animals; we only know that he himself would have been free from all
annoyance and injury and decay from external causes. We may also
conclude that, while Eden was sufficient for his habitation, the
remainder of the earth would continue, just as in the earlier tertiary
periods, under the dominion of the predaceous mammals, reptiles, and
birds. 6. The above views enable us on the one hand to avoid the
difficulties that attend the admission of predaceous animals into
Eden, and on the other the still more formidable difficulties that
attend the attempt to exclude them altogether from the Adamic world.
They also illustrate the geological fact that many animals,
contemporaneous with man, extend far back into the Tertiary period.
These are creatures not belonging to the Edenic centre of creation,
but introduced in an earlier part of the sixth day, and now permitted
to exist along with man in his fallen state. I have stated these
supposed conditions of the Adamic creation briefly, and with as little
illustration as possible, that they may connectedly strike the mind of
the reader. Each of these statements is in harmony with the
Scriptural narrative on the one hand, and with geology on the other;
and, taken together, they afford an intelligible history of the
introduction of man. If a geologist were to state, _à priori_, the
conditions proper to the creation of any important species, he could
only say--the preparation or selection of some region of the earth for
it, and its production along with a group of plants and animals suited
to it. These are precisely the conditions implied in the Scriptural
account of the creation of Adam.[99] The difficulties of the subject
have arisen from supposing, contrary to the narrative itself, that the
conditions necessary for Eden must in the first instance have extended
over the whole earth, and that the creatures with which man is in his
present dispersion brought into contact must necessarily have been his
companions there. One would think that many persons derive their idea
of the first man in Eden from nursery picture-books; for the Bible
gives no countenance to the idea that all the animals in the world
were in Eden. On the contrary, it asserts that a selection was made
both in the case of animals and plants, and that this Edenic
assemblage of creatures constituted man's associates in his state of
primeval innocence.

The food of animals is specified at the close of the work of this day.
The grant to man is every herb bearing seed, and every fruit-tree.
That to the lower animals is more extensive--every green herb. This
can not mean that every animal in the earth was herbivorous. It may
refer to the group of animals associated with man in Eden, and this is
most likely the intention of the writer; but if it includes the
animals of the whole earth, we may be certain, from the express
mention of carnivorous creatures in the work of the fifth and sixth
days, that it indicates merely the general fact that the support of
the whole animal kingdom is based on vegetation.

A most important circumstance in connection with the work of the sixth
day is that it witnessed the creation both of man and the mammalia. A
fictitious writer would probably have exalted man by assigning to him
a separate day, and by placing the whole animal kingdom together in
respect to time. He would be all the more likely to do this, if
unacquainted, as most ignorant persons as well as literary men are,
with the importance and teeming multitudes of the lower tribes of
animals, and with the typical identity of the human frame with that of
the higher animals. Moses has not done so, we are at liberty to
suppose, because the vision of creation had it otherwise; and modern
geology has amply vindicated him in this by its disclosure of the
intimate connection of the human with the tertiary period; and has
shown in this as in other instances that truth and not "accommodation"
was the object of the sacred writer. While, as already stated, many
existing species extend far back into the tertiary period, showing
that the earth has been visited by no universal catastrophe since the
first creation of mammals; on the other hand, we can not with
certainty trace any existing species back beyond the commencement of
the tertiary era. Geology and revelation, therefore, coincide in
referring the creation of man to the close of the period in which
mammals were introduced and became predominant, and in establishing a
marked separation between that period and the preceding one in which
the lower animals held undisputed sway. This coincidence, while it
strengthens the probability that the creative days were long periods,
opposes an almost insurmountable obstacle to every other hypothesis
of reconciliation with geological science.

At the close of this day the Creator again reviews his work, and
pronounces it good. Step by step the world had been evolved from a
primeval chaos, through many successive physical changes and long
series of organized beings. It had now reached its acme of perfection,
and had received its most illustrious tenant, possessing an organism
excelling all others in majesty and beauty, and an immaterial soul the
shadow of the glorious Creator himself. Well might the angels sing,
when the long-protracted work was thus grandly completed:

                      "Thrice happy man,
  And sons of men, whom God hath thus advanced,
  Created in his image, there to dwell
  And worship him, and in reward to rule
  Over his works in earth, or sea, or air,
  And multiply a race of worshippers
  Holy and just; thrice happy, if they know
  Their happiness and persevere upright."

The Hebrew idea of the golden age of Eden is pure and exalted. It
consists in the enjoyment of the favor of God, and of all that is
beautiful and excellent in his works. God and nature are the whole.
Nor is it merely a rude, unintelligent, sensuous enjoyment. Man
primeval is not a lazy savage gathering acorns. He is made in the
image of the Creator; he is to keep and dress his garden, and it is
furnished with every plant good for food and pleasant to the sight. In
the midst of our material civilization we need to disabuse ourselves
of some prejudices before we can realize the fact that man, without
the arts of life or any need of them, is not necessarily a barbarian
or a savage. Yet even Adam must have been an agriculturist with strong
and willing hands, and must have had some need of agricultural
implements such as those with which the least civilized of his
descendants have been wont to till the soil. Still, without art or
with very little of it, he could enjoy all that is beautiful and grand
in nature, and could rise from the observation of nature to communion
with God. We need the more to realize this, inasmuch as there seems so
strong a tendency to confound material civilization with higher
culture, and to hold that man primeval must have been low and debased
simply because he may have had no temples and no machinery. We must
remember that he had nature, which is higher than fine art, and that
when in harmony with his surroundings he may have had no need either
of exhausting labor or of mechanical contrivances. Farther, in the
contemplation of nature and in seeking after God, he had higher
teachers than our boasted civilization can claim.

Alas for fallen man, with his poor civilization gathered little by
little from the dust of earth, and his paltry art that halts
immeasurably behind nature. How little is he able even to appreciate
the high estate of his great ancestor. The world of fallen men has
worshipped art too much, reverenced and studied God and nature too
little. The savage displays the lowest taste when he admires the rude
figures which he paints on his face or his garments more than the
glorious painting that adorns nature; yet even he acknowledges the
pre-eminent excellence of nature by imitating her forms and colors,
and by adapting her painted plumes and flowers to his own use. There
is a wide interval, including many gradations, between this low
position and that of the cultivated amateur or artist. The art of the
latter makes a nearer approach to the truly beautiful, inasmuch as it
more accurately represents the geometric and organic forms and the
coloring of nature; and inasmuch as it devises ideal combinations not
found in the actual world; which ideal combinations, however, are
beautiful or monstrous just as they realize or violate the harmonies
of nature. It is only the highest culture that brings man back to his
primitive refinement.

Art takes her true place when she sits at the feet of nature, and
brings her students to drink in its beauties, that they may endeavor,
however imperfectly, to reproduce them. On the other hand, the student
of nature must not content himself with "writing Latin names on white
paper," wherewith to label nature's productions, but must rise to the
contemplation of the order and beauty of the Cosmos as a revelation of
Divinity. Both will thus rise to that highest taste which will enable
them to appreciate not only the elegance of individual forms, but
their structure, their harmonies, their grouping and their relations,
their special adaptation, and their places as parts of a great system.
Thus art will attain that highest point in which it displays original
genius, without violating natural truth and unity, and nature will be
regarded as the highest art.

Much is said and done in our time with reference to the cultivation of
popular taste for fine art as a means of civilization; and this, so
far as it goes, is well; but the only sure path to the highest
taste-education is the cultivation of the study of nature. This is
also an easier branch of education, provided the instructors have
sufficient knowledge. Good works of art are rare and costly; but good
works of nature are everywhere around us, waiting to be examined. Such
education, popularly diffused, would react on the efforts of art. It
would enable a widely extended public to appreciate real excellence,
and would cause works of art to be valued just in proportion to the
extent to which they realize or deviate from natural truth and unity.
I do not profess to speak authoritatively on such subjects, but I
confess that the strong impression on my mind is that neither the
revered antique models, nor the practice and principles of the
generality of modern art reformers, would endure such criticism; and
that if we could combine popular enthusiasm for art with scientific
appreciation of nature, a new and better art might arise from the
union.

I may appear to dwell too long upon this topic; but my excuse must be
that it leads to a true estimate both of natural history and of the
sacred Scriptures. The study of nature guides to those large views of
the unity and order of creation which alone are worthy of a being of
the rank of man, and which lead him to adequate conceptions of the
Creator; but the truly wise recognize three grades of beauty. First,
that of art, which, in its higher efforts, can raise ordinary minds
far above themselves. Secondly, that of nature, which, in its most
common objects, must transcend the former, since its artist is that
God of whose infinite mind the genius of the artist is only a faint
reflection. Thirdly, that pre-eminent beauty of moral goodness
revealed only in the spiritual nature of the Supreme. The first is one
of the natural resources of fallen man in his search for happiness.
The second was man's joy in his primeval innocence. The third is the
inheritance of man redeemed. It is folly to place these on the same
level. It is greater folly to worship either or both of the first
without regard to the last. It is true wisdom to aspire to the last,
and to regard nature as the handmaid of piety, art as but the handmaid
of nature.

Nature to the unobservant is merely a mass of things more or less
beautiful or interesting, but without any definite order or
significance. An observer soon arrives at the conclusion that it is a
series of circling changes, ever returning to the same points, ever
renewing their courses, under the action of invariable laws. But if he
rests here, he falls infinitely short of the idea of the Cosmos, and
stands on the brink of the profound error of eternal succession. A
little further progress conducts him to the inviting field of special
adaptation and mutual relation of things. He finds that nothing is
without its use; that every structure is most nicely adjusted to
special ends; that the supposed ceaseless circling of nature is merely
the continuous action of great powers, by which an infinity of
utilities are worked out--the great fly-wheel which, in its unceasing
and at first sight apparently aimless round, is giving motion to
thousands of reels and spindles and shuttles, that are spinning and
weaving, in all its varied patterns, the great web of life.

But the observer, as he looks on this web, is surprised to find that
it has in its whole extent a wondrous pattern. He rises to the
contemplation of type in nature, a great truth to which science has
only lately opened its eyes. He begins dimly to perceive that the
Creator has from the beginning had a plan before his mind, that this
plan embraced various types or patterns of existence; that on these
patterns he has been working out the whole system of nature, adapting
each to all the variety of uses by an infinity of minor modifications.
That, in short, whether he study the eye of a gnat or the structure of
a mountain chain, he sees not only objects of beauty and utility, but
parts of far-reaching plans of infinite wisdom, by which all objects,
however separated in time or space, are linked together.

How much of positive pleasure does that man lose who passes through
life absorbed with its wants and its artificialities, and regarding
with a "brute, unconscious gaze" the grand revelation of a higher
intelligence in the outer world. It is only in an approximation
through our Divine Redeemer to the moral likeness of God that we can
be truly happy; but of the subsidiary pleasures which we are here
permitted to enjoy, the contemplation of nature is one of the best and
purest. It was the pleasure, the show, the spectacle prepared for man
in Eden, and how much true philosophy and taste shine in the simple
words that in paradise God planted trees "pleasant to the sight," as
well as "good for food." Other things being equal, the nearer we can
return to this primitive taste, the greater will be our sensuous
enjoyment, the better the influence of our pleasures on our moral
nature, because they will then depend on the cultivation of tastes at
once natural and harmless, and will not lead us to communion with and
reverence for merely human genius, but will conduct us into the
presence of the infinite perfection of the Creator.

The Bible knows but one species of man. It is not said that men were
created after their species, as we read of the groups of animals. Man
was made, "male and female;" and in the fuller details afterwards
given in the second chapter--where the writer, having finished his
general narrative, commences his special history of man--but one
primitive pair is introduced to our notice. We scarcely need the
detailed tables of affiliation afterward given, or the declaration of
the apostle who preached to the supposed autochthones of Athens, that
"God has made of one blood all nations," to assure us of the
Scriptural unity of man. If, therefore, there were any good reason to
believe that man is not of one but several origins, we must admit
Moses to have been very imperfectly informed. Nor, on the other hand,
does the Bible any more than geology allow us to assign a very high
antiquity to the origin of man relatively to that of the earth on
which he dwells. The genealogical tables of the Bible may admit of
some limits of difference of opinion as to the age of the human world
or æon, and also of that of the deluge, from which man took his second
point of departure; but they do not allow us to put the origin of man
farther back than that of the present or modern condition of our
continents and the present races of animals. They therefore limit us
to the modern or quaternary period of geology. The question of man's
antiquity, so much agitated now, demands, however, a separate and
careful consideration; but we must first devote a few pages to the
simple statements of the Bible respecting the Sabbath of creation and
its relation to human history.



CHAPTER XII.

THE REST OF THE CREATOR.


     "And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the
     host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work
     which he had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all
     his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day
     and sanctified it, because that in it God rested from all
     his work which he had created to make."--Genesis ii., 1-3.


The end of the sixth day closed the work of creation properly so
called, as well as that of forming and arranging the things created.
The beginning of the seventh introduced a period which, according to
the views already stated, was to be occupied by the continued increase
and diffusion of man and the creatures under his dominion, and by the
gradual disappearance of tribes of creatures unconnected with his
well-being.

Science in this well accords with Scripture. No proof exists of the
production of a new species since the creation of man; and all
geological and archæological evidence points to him and a few of the
higher mammals as the newest of the creatures. There is, on the other
hand, good evidence that several species have become extinct since his
creation. Those who believe in the continuous evolution of animals and
men, it is true, can see no actual termination of the process with the
introduction of man; but even they see that the appearance of a
rational and moral being at least changes the nature and order of the
development. Nor can they doubt that man is the last born of nature,
and that the whole animal creation is crowned by him as its capital or
topmost pinnacle. The later speculators on this subject have never
reached any truth beyond that long ago stated by the lamented Edward
Forbes--a most careful observer and accurate reasoner on the more
recent changes of the earth's surface. He infers, from the
distribution of species from their centres of creation, that man is
the latest product of creative power; or, in other words, that none of
those species or groups of species which he had been able to trace to
their centres, or the spots at which they probably originated, appear
to be of later or as late origin as man. "This consideration," he
says, "induces me to believe that the last province in time was
completed by the coming of man, and to maintain an hypothesis that man
stands unique in space and time, himself equal to the sum of any
pre-existing centre of creation or of all--an hypothesis consistent
with man's moral and social position in the world."

The seventh day, then, was to have been that in which all the
happiness, beauty, and perfection of the others were to have been
concentrated. But an element of instability was present in the being
who occupied the summit of the animal scale. Not regulated by blind
and unerring instincts, but a free agent, with a high intellectual and
moral nature, and liable to be acted on by temptation from without;
under such influence he lost his moral balance in stretching out his
hand to grasp the peculiar powers of Deity, and fell beyond the hope
of self-redemption--perpetuating, by one of those laws which regulate
the transmission of mixed corporeal and spiritual natures, his
degradation to every generation of his species. And so God's great
work was marred, and all his plans seemed to be foiled, when they had
just reached their completion. Thus far science might carry us
unaided; for there is not a true naturalist, however skeptical as to
revealed religion, who does not feel in his inmost heart the
disjointed state of the present relations of man to nature; the
natural wreck that results from his artificial modes of life, the long
trains of violations of the symmetry of nature that follow in the wake
of his most boasted achievements. But here natural science stops; and
just as we have found that, in tracing back the world's history, the
Bible carries us much farther than geology, so science, having led us
to suspect the fallen state of man, leaves us henceforth to the
teaching of revelation. And how glorious that teaching! God did not
find himself baffled--his resources are infinite--he had foreseen and
prepared for all this apparent evil; and out of the moral wreck he
proceeds to work out the grand process of _redemption_, which is the
especial object of the seventh day, and which will result in the
production of a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth
righteousness. In the seventh, as in the former days, the evening
precedes the morning. For four thousand years the world groped in its
darkness--a darkness tenanted by moral monsters as powerful and
destructive as the old pre-Adamite reptiles. The Sun of Righteousness
at length arose, and the darkness began to pass away; but eighteen
centuries have elapsed, and we still see but the gray dawn of morning,
which we yet firmly believe will brighten into a glorious day that
shall know no succeeding night.[100]

The seventh day is the modern or human era in geology; and, though it
can not yet boast of any physical changes so great as those of past
periods, it is still of much interest, as affording the facts on which
we must depend for explanations of past changes; and as immediately
connected in time with those later tertiary periods which afford so
many curious problems to the geological student. The actual connection
of the human with preceding periods is still involved in some
obscurity; and, as we shall see, there has recently been a strong
tendency to throw back the origin of man into prehistoric ages of
enormous length, on grounds which are, however, much less certain than
is commonly imagined. This question we have to examine; but before
entering upon it may shortly sketch the actual import of the
statements of the Hebrew Scriptures respecting what may be called the
prehistoric duration of the human species. This is the more necessary,
as the most crude notions seem very widely to prevail on the subject.
I shall, therefore, in this place notice some general facts deducible
from the Bible, and which may be useful in appreciating the true
relation of the human era to those which preceded it. It will be
understood that I shall endeavor merely to present a picture of what
the Bible actually teaches, and which any one can verify by reading
the book of Genesis.

1. The local centre of creation of the human species, and probably of
a group of creatures coeval with it, was Eden; a country of which the
Scriptures give a somewhat minute geographical description. It was
evidently a district of Western Asia; and, from its possession of
several important rivers, rather a region or large territory than a
limited spot, such as many, who have discussed the question of the
site of Eden, seem to suppose. In this view it is a matter of no
moment to fix its site more nearly than the indication of the Bible
that it included the sources and probably large portions of the
valleys of the Tigris, the Euphrates, and perhaps the Oxus and
Jaxartes. Into the minor difficulties respecting the site of Eden it
would be unprofitable to enter, and it will matter little if we accept
that view, which, however, I think less probable, that it was placed
in the lower part of the valley of the Euphrates. I may merely mention
one particular of the Biblical description, because it throws light on
the great antiquity of this geographical delineation, and has been
strangely misconceived by expositors--the relation of those rivers to
Cush or Ethiopia and Havilah, a tribal name derived from that of a
grandson of Cush. On consulting the tenth chapter of Genesis, it will
be found that the Cushites under Nimrod, very soon after the deluge,
are stated to have pushed their migrations and conquests along the
Tigris to the northward, and established there the first empire. It is
probably this primitive Cushite empire, called Ethiopia in our
translation, which in the epoch of the description of Eden occupied
the Euphratean valley, and being bounded on one side by the river
called Gihon, was thus believed to extend over the old site of Eden.
Thus the Cush or Ethiopia of the description has no direct connection
with the African Ethiopia, and speculations based on such a supposed
connection are groundless. On the other hand this feature furnishes an
interesting coincidence with other parts of Genesis, and throws light
on many obscure points in the early history of man; and since this
Cushite empire had perished even before the time of Moses, it
indicates a still more ancient tradition respecting the primeval abode
of our species.

2. Before the deluge this region must have been the seat of a dense
population, which, according to the Biblical account, must have made
considerable advances in the arts, and at the same time sunk very low
in moral debasement.[101] Whether any remains of the central portions
of this ancient population or its works exist will probably not be
determined with absolute certainty till we have accurate geological
investigations of the whole country in the neighborhood of the Caspian
Sea and along the great rivers of Western Asia, though there is
nothing unreasonable in the belief that some of the old prehistoric
men whose remains are discovered in caves and river gravels in Europe
may belong to the antediluvian race. Should such remains be found, we
might infer, from the extreme longevity and other characteristics
assigned to the antediluvians, that their skeletons would present
peculiarities entitling them to be considered a well-marked variety of
the human species, and this not of a low type of physical
organization. We may also infer that the family of man very early
divided into two races--one retaining in greater purity the moral
endowments of the species, the other excelling in the mechanical and
fine arts; and that there were rude and savage outlying communities of
men then as at present. If the so-called palæolithic men of Europe are
antediluvian, they were probably of such outlying tribes, and possibly
of the mixed race which sprung up in the later antediluvian age, and
who are described as mighty men physically, and men of violence. It
would be quite natural that this intermixture of the Sethite and
Cainite races should produce a race excelling both in energy and
physical endowments--the "giants" that were in those days.[102] If any
remains of the two central nations of the antediluvian period are ever
discovered, we may confidently anticipate that the distinctive
characteristics of these races may be detected in their osseous
structures as well as in their works of art. Farther, it is to be
inferred from notices in the fourth chapter of Genesis, that before
the deluge there was both a nomadic and a settled population, and that
the principal seat of the Cainite, or more debased yet energetic
branch of the human family, was to the eastward of the site of Eden.
No intimations are given by which the works of art of antediluvian
times could be distinguished from those of later periods; but that
curious summary of the treasures of antediluvian man contained in the
notice that the land of Havilah produced gold and agate and pearl
(Gen. ii., 12) would lead us to believe that the early antediluvian
age was on the whole an age of stone, in which flint for weapons, and
gold and shell wampum for ornaments, were the leading kinds of wealth.
On the other hand, the notices of antediluvian metallurgy, and the
building and construction of the ark, would lead us to infer that the
later antediluvians had attained to much perfection in some
constructive arts--a conclusion which harmonizes with the otherwise
inexplicable perfection of such art soon after the deluge, as
evidenced not only by the story of Babel, but also by the early works
of the Assyrians and Egyptians.

3. When the antediluvian population had fully proved itself unfit to
enter into the divine scheme of moral renovation, it was swept away by
a fearful physical catastrophe. The deluge might, in all its
relations, furnish material for an entire treatise. I may remark here,
as its most important geological peculiarity, that it was evidently a
_local_ convulsion. The object, that of destroying the human race and
the animal population of its peculiar centre of creation, the
preservation of specimens of these creatures in the ark, and the
physical requirements of the case, necessitate this conclusion, which
is now accepted by the best Biblical expositors,[103] and which
inflicts no violence on the terms of the record. Viewed in this light,
the phenomena recorded in the Bible, in connection with geological
probabilities, lead us to infer that the physical agencies evoked by
the divine power to destroy this ungodly race were a subsidence of the
region they inhabited, so as to admit the oceanic waters, and
extensive atmospherical disturbances connected with that subsidence,
and perhaps with the elevation of neighboring regions. In this case it
is possible that the Caspian Sea, which is now more than eighty feet
below the level of the ocean,[104] and which was probably much more
extensive then than at present, received much of the drainage of the
flood, and that the mud and sand deposits of this sea and the
adjoining desert plains, once manifestly a part of its bottom, conceal
any remains that exist of the antediluvian population. In connection
with this, it may be remarked that, in the book of Job, Eliphaz speaks
as if the locality of those wicked nations which existed before the
deluge was known and accessible in his time:

  "Hast thou marked the ancient way
  Which wicked men have trodden,
  Who were seized [by the waters] in a moment,
  And whose foundations a flood swept away?"

  --Job xxii., 15.

On comparing this statement with the answer of Job in the 26th
chapter, verse 5th, it would seem that the ungodly antediluvians were
supposed to be still under the waters; a belief quite intelligible if
the Caspian, which, on the latest and most probable views of the
locality of the events of this book, was not very remote from the
residence of Job,[105] was supposed to mark the position of the
pre-Noachic population, as the Dead Sea afterward did that of the
cities of the plain. Some of the dates assigned to the book of Job
would, however, render it possible that this last catastrophe is that
to which _he_ refers:

  "The _Rephaim_ tremble from beneath
  The waters and their inhabitants.
  Sheol is naked before him,
  And destruction hath no covering."

The word _Rephaim_ here has been variously rendered "shades of the
dead" and "giants." It is properly the family or national name of
certain tribes of gigantic Hamite men (the Anakim, Emim, etc.)
inhabiting Western Asia at a very remote period; and it must here
refer either to them or to the still earlier antediluvian
giants.[106]

It is also an important point to be noticed here that the narrative of
the deluge in Genesis is given as the testimony or record of an
eye-witness, and is to be so understood; and that the terms of the
record imply, not as usually held that all sorts of animals were taken
into Noah's ark, but only a selection, the character of which is
clearly indicated by a comparison of the five lists of animals given
in the narrative. Bearing this in mind, and noticing that the writer
tells of his own experience as to the rise of the water, the drifting
of the ark, the disappearance of all visible shore, and the sounding
fifteen cubits where a hill had before been, all the difficulties of
the narrative of the deluge will at once disappear. These difficulties
have in fact arisen from regarding the story as the composition of a
historian, not as what it manifestly is, the log or journal of a
contemporary, introduced with probably little change by the compiler
of the book.

After the deluge, we find the human race settled in the plains of the
Euphrates and Tigris, attracted thither by the fertility of their
alluvial soils. There we find them engaging in a great political
scheme, no doubt founded on recollections of the old antediluvian
nationalities, and on a dread of the evils which able and aspiring men
would anticipate from that wide dispersion of the human race that
appears to have been intended by the Creator in the new circumstances
of the earth. They commenced accordingly the erection of a city or
tower at Babel, in the plain of Shinar, to form a common bond of
union, a great public work that should be a rallying-point for the
race, and around which its patriotism might concentrate itself. The
attempt was counteracted by an interposition of divine Providence; and
thenceforth the diffusion of the human race proceeded unchecked,
carrying with it everywhere the memory of the celebrated tower, which
perpetuated itself not only in the mounds of Assyria and Babylon and
the pyramids of Egypt, but in the teocallis and temple mounds of the
New World. The Babel enterprise is in fact the first recorded
development of that mound-building instinct which the earlier races
everywhere evince, and which has been a distinguishing characteristic
more especially of the Cushite or Turanian race, and has apparently
made them the teachers of constructive arts to all other peoples.
Perhaps a dread of the total decay and loss of the surviving
antediluvian arts in construction and other matters may have been one
impelling motive to the building of Babel. Perhaps it was connected
with the communistic ideas of the Turanian race, and their conflict
with the patriarchal habits of the Semites. Out of the enterprise at
Babel, however, arose a new type of evil, which, in the forms of
military despotism, the spirit of conquest, hero-worship, and the
alliance of these influences with literature and the arts, has been
handed down through every succeeding age to our own time. The name of
Nimrod, the son of Cush, has been preserved to us in the Bible, and
also apparently in the tablets and inscriptions of Assyria, as the
founder of the first despotism. This bold and ambitious man,
subsequently deified under different names, established a Hamite or
Turanian empire, which appears to have extended its sway over the
tribes occupying Southwestern Asia and Northeastern Africa, everywhere
supporting its power by force of arms, and introducing a debasing
polytheistic hero-worship, and certain forms of art probably derived
from antediluvian times. The centre of this Cushite empire, however,
gave way to the rising power of Assyria or the Ashurite branch of the
sons of Shem, at a period antecedent to the dawn of profane history,
except in its mythical form; and when the light of secular history
first breaks upon us, we find Egypt standing forth as the only stable
representative of the arts, the systems, and the superstitions of the
old Cushite empire, of which it had been the southern branch; while
other remnants of the Hamite races, included in the empire of Nimrod,
were scattered over Western Asia, and, migrating into Europe, with or
after the ruder but less demoralized sons of Japheth, carried with
them their characteristic civilization and mythology, to take root in
new forms in Greece and Italy.[107] Meanwhile the Assyrian and Persian
(Elamite) races were growing in Middle Asia, and probably driving the
more eastern remnants of the Nimrodic empire into India, borrowing at
the same time their superstitions and their claims to universal
dominion. These views, which I believe to correspond with the few
notices in the Bible and in ancient history, and to be daily receiving
new confirmations from the investigations of the ancient Assyrian
monuments, enable us to understand many mysterious problems in the
early history of man. They give us reason to suspect that the
_principle_ of the first empire was an imitation of the antediluvian
world, and that its arts and customs were mainly derived from that
source. They show how it happens that Egypt, a country so far removed
from the starting-point of man after the deluge, should appear to be
the cradle of the arts, and they account for the Hamite and perhaps
antediluvian elements, mixed with primeval Biblical ideas, as the
cherubim, etc., in the old heathenism of India, Assyria, and Southern
Europe, and which they share with Egypt, having derived them from the
same source. They also show how it is that in the most remote
antiquity we find two well-developed and opposite religious systems;
the pure theism of Noah, and those who retained his faith, and the
idolatry of those tribes which regarded with adoring veneration the
objects and stages of the creative work, the grander powers and
objects of nature, the mighty Cainites of the world before the flood,
and the postdiluvian leaders who followed them in their violence,
their cultivation of the arts, and their rebellion against God. These
heroes were identified with imaginative conceptions of the heavenly
bodies, animals, and other natural objects, associated with the
fortunes of cities and nations, with particular territories, and with
war and the useful arts, transmitted under different names to one
country after another, and localized in each; and it is only in
comparatively modern times that we have been able to recognize the
full certainty of the view held long since by many ingenious writers,
that among the greater gods of Egypt and Assyria, and of consequence
among those also of Greece and Rome, were Nimrod, Ham, Ashur, Noah,
Mizraim, and other worthies and tyrants of the old world; and to
suspect that Tubalcain and Naamah, and other antediluvian names, were
similarly honored, though subsequently overshadowed by more recent
divinities. The later Assyrian readings of Rawlinson, Hincks, and the
lamented George Smith, and the more recent works on Egyptian
antiquities, are full of pregnant hints on these subjects. It would,
however, lead us too far from our immediate subject to enter more
fully into these questions. I have referred to them merely to point
out connecting-links between the secular and sacred history of the
earlier part of the human period, as a useful sequel to our comparison
of the latter with the conclusions of science, and as furnishing hints
which may guide the geologist in connecting the human with the
tertiary period, and in distinguishing between the antediluvian and
postdiluvian portions of the former.

It may be said, however, that all this Biblical history, however it
may accord with the little that remains to us of the written annals of
early Oriental nations, is entirely at variance with those modern
archæological discussions which point to an immense antiquity of the
human race, and to a primitive barbarism out of which all human
culture was little by little evolved; and which results of
archæological investigation, while contradictory to the Hebrew
Scriptures, are entirely in accord with the evolutionist philosophy.
The prominence now given to such views as these renders it necessary
that we should denote a special chapter to their discussion.



CHAPTER XIII.

UNITY AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN.


     "These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their
     generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations
     divided in the earth after the flood."--Genesis x., 32.


The theologians and evangelical Christians of our time, and with them
the credibility of the Holy Scriptures, are supposed by many to have
been impaled on a zoological and archæological dilemma, in a manner
which renders nugatory all attempts to reconcile the Mosaic cosmogony
with science. The Bible, as we have seen, knows but one Adam, and that
Adam not a myth or an ethnic name, but a veritable man; but some
naturalists and ethnologists think that they have found decisive
evidence that man is not of one but of several origins. The religious
tendency of this doctrine no Christian can fail to perceive. In
whatever way put, or under whatever disguise, it renders the Bible
history worthless, reduces us to that isolation of race from race
cultivated in ancient times by the various local idolatries, and
destroys the brotherhood of man and the universality of that Christian
atonement which proclaims that "as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall
all be made alive."

Fortunately, however, the greater weight of biological and
archæological evidence is here on the side of the Bible, and philology
comes in with strong corroborative proof. But just as the orthodox
theologian is beginning to congratulate himself on the aid he has
thus received, some of his new friends gravely tell him that, in order
to maintain their view, it is necessary to believe that man has
resided on earth for countless ages, and that it is quite a mistake to
suppose that his starting-point is so recent as the Mosaic deluge.
Nay, some very rampant theorists of some ethnological schools try to
pierce Moses and his abettors with both horns of the dilemma at once,
maintaining that men may be of different species, and yet may have
existed for an enormous length of time as well. The recent prevalence
of theories of evolution has, however, thrown quite into the
background the discussions formerly active respecting the unity of
man, but has, along with geological and archæological discovery, given
increased prominence to those relating to the date of the origin of
our species and the manner of its introduction.

The Bible gives us a definite epoch, that of the deluge, about 2000 to
3000 B.C., for all existing races of men; but this, according to it,
was only the second starting-point of humanity, and though no family
but that of Noah survived the terrible catastrophe, it would be a
great error to suppose that nothing antediluvian appears in the
subsequent history of man. Before the deluge there were arts and an
old civilization, extending over at least two thousand years, and
after the deluge men carried with them these heirlooms of the old
world to commence with them new nations. This has been tacitly ignored
by many of the writers who underrate the value of the Hebrew history.
It may be as well for this reason to place, in a series of
propositions, the principal points in Genesis which relate to the
questions now before us.

1. Adam and Isha, the woman, afterward called Eve (Life-giver), in
consequence of the promise of a Redeemer, commenced a life of
husbandry on their expulsion from Eden, which, on the ordinary views
of the Bible chronology, may be supposed to have occurred from 4000 to
5000 years before the Christian era; and during the lifetime of the
primal pair, the sheep, at least, was domesticated. The Bible, of
course, knows nothing of the imaginary continent of Lemuria, in which,
according to some hypotheses, men are supposed to have had their birth
from apes. A few generations after, in the time of Lamech, cattle were
domesticated; and the metals copper and iron were applied to use--the
latter probably meteoric iron; and hence, it may be, the Hindoo and
Hellenic myths of Twachtrei and Hephæstos in connection with the
thunderbolt. We learn, however, incidentally, as already mentioned, in
the description of Eden in Genesis, chapter 2d, that there was a
previous stone age, in which "flint, pearls or shell beads, and
stream-gold" were the chief treasures of man, for this is implied in
the "gold, bedolach, and onyx" of the land of Havilah. It is certain
also, from the discoveries made in Assyria, on the site of Troy, and
elsewhere, that the use of stone implements continued in Western Asia
long after the deluge. In the time of Noah the distinction of clean
and unclean beasts, and the taking of seven pairs of certain beasts
and birds into the ark, imply that certain mammals and birds were
domesticated.[108]

2. Before the flood, as already remarked, there was a division of man
into two nationalities or races; and there was a citizen, an
agricultural, a pastoral, and a nomadic population. Farther, the
remarkable progress in the arts implied in the building of such
structures as the Tower of Babel, and other temple and palace mounds
in Assyria, and of the pyramids of Egypt, within a few generations
after the deluge, proves that a very advanced material civilization
and great skill in constructive arts had been reached in antediluvian
times.[109]

3. After the deluge, the arts of the antediluvians and their citizen
life were almost immediately revived in the plain of Shinar; but the
plans of the Babel leaders, like those of many others who have
attempted to force distinct tribes into one nationality, failed. The
guilt attributed to them probably relates to the attempt to break up
the patriarchal and tribal organization, which in these early times
was the outward form of true religion, in favor of some sort of
national organization, not compatible with the extension of man
immediately over the world, and tending to consolidation into dense
communities. It may be a question here whether the tribal communism
which has prevailed among the American Indians and other rude races
was the primitive form of society which the Babel-builders essayed to
change, or whether the Semitic patriarchal system had at first
prevailed, and the Babel difficulties were connected with a conflict
between this and communism or despotism, both new Turanian or Aryan
introductions. In any case, Babel, and Babylon its successor, remain
in the subsequent Biblical literature as types of the God-defying and
antichristian systems that have succeeded each other from the time of
Nimrod to this day.

4. The human race was scattered over the earth in family groups or
tribes, each headed by a leading patriarch, who gave it its name.
First, the three sons of Noah formed three main stems, and from these
diverged several family branches. The ethnological chart in the 10th
chapter of Genesis gives the principal branches under patriarchal and
ethnic names; but these, of course, continued to subdivide beyond the
space and time referred to by the sacred writer. It is simply absurd
to object, as some writers have done, to the universality of the
statements in Genesis, that they do not mention in detail the whole
earth. They refer to a few generations only, and beyond this restrict
themselves to the one branch of the human family to which the Bible
principally relates. We should be thankful for so much of the leading
lines of ethnological divergence, without complaining that it is not
followed out into its minute ramifications and into all history.

5. The tripartite division in Genesis x. indicates a somewhat strict
geographical separation of the three main trunks. The regions marked
out for Japheth include Europe and Northwestern Asia. The name
Japheth, as well as the statements in the table, indicate a versatile,
nomadic, and colonizing disposition as characteristic of these
tribes.[110] The Median population, the same with a portion of that
now often called Aryan,[111] was the only branch remaining near the
original seats of the species, and in a settled condition. The
outlying portions of the posterity of Japheth, on account of their
wide dispersion, must at a very early period have fallen into
comparative barbarism, such as we find in historic periods all over
Western and Northern Europe and Northern Asia. Owing to their habitat,
the Japhetites of the Bible include none of the black races, unless
certain Indian and Australian nations are outlying portions of this
family. The Shemite nations showed little tendency to migrate, being
grouped about the Euphrates and Tigris valleys and neighboring
regions. For this reason, with the exception of certain Arab tribes,
they present no instances of barbarism, and generally retained a high
cerebral organization, and respectable though stationary civilization,
and they possess the oldest alphabet and literature. The posterity of
Ham differs remarkably from the others. It spread itself over
Southern, Central, and Eastern Asia, Southern Europe, and Northern
Africa, and constitutes the stock alike of the Turanian and African
races, as well as probably of the American tribes. It has all along
displayed a great capacity for certain forms of art and
semi-civilization, but has rarely risen to the level of the Shemite
and Japhetite races. It established the earliest military and
monarchical institutions, and presents at the dawn of history--in
Assyria, in Egypt, and India--settled and arbitrary forms in politics
and religion, of a character so much resembling that of an old and
corrupt civilization that we can scarcely avoid supposing that Ham and
his family had preserved more than any of the other Noachian races the
arts and institutions of the old world before the flood. It certainly
presents itself in early postdiluvian times as the first
representative and teacher of art and material civilization. The
Hamite race is remarkable for the early development of pantheism and
hero-worship, and for the artificial character of its culture. It
presents us with the darkest colors, and in the vast solitudes of
Africa and Central Asia its outlying tribes must have fallen into
comparative barbarism a few centuries after the deluge. It is farther
to be observed that, according to the Bible, the Canaanites and other
Hamite nations spoke languages not essentially different from those of
the Shemites, while the Japhetite nations were to them barbarians--"a
nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand." There was, too, at the
date of the dispersion of Babel, already a distinction of tongues
within each of the great races of men.

6. All the divisions of the family of Noah had from the first the
domesticated animals and the principal arts of life, and enjoyed these
in a national capacity so soon as sufficiently numerous. The more
scattered tribes, wandering into fresh regions, and adopting the life
of hunters, lost the characteristics of civilization, and diverged
widely from the primitive languages. We should thus have, according to
the Hebrew ethnology, a central area presenting the principal stems of
all the three races in a permanently civilized state. All around this
area should lie aberrant and often barbarous tribes, differing most
widely from the original type in the more distant regions, and in
those least favorable to human health and subsistence. In these
outlying regions, secondary centres of civilization might grow up,
differing from that of the primitive centre, except in so far as the
common principles of human nature and intercommunication might prevent
this. All these conclusions, fairly deducible at once from the Mosaic
ethnology and the theory of dispersion from a centre, are perfectly in
accordance with observed facts, though in absolute contradiction to
prevalent ethnological conclusions, based on these facts in connection
with theories of development.

A multitude of Bible notices might easily be quoted illustrative of
these points, and also of the consistency of the Mosaic narrative with
itself. One of them may suffice here. Abraham, who is said by the
Jews to have been contemporary with Shem, as Menes by the Egyptians
with Ham, at least lived sufficiently near to the time of the rise of
the earliest nations to be taken as an illustration of this primitive
condition of society. He was not a patriarch of the first or second
rank, like Ham or Mizraim or Canaan, but a subordinate family leader
several removes from the survivors of the deluge. Yet his tribe
increases in comparatively few years to a considerable number. He is
treated as an equal by the monarchs of Egypt and Philistia. He
defeats, with a band of three or four hundred retainers, a confederacy
of four Euphratean kings representing the embryo state of the Persian
and Assyrian empires, and already relatively so strong that they have
overrun much of Western Asia. All this bespeaks in a most consistent
manner the rapid rise of many small nationalities, scattered over the
better parts of wide regions, and still in a feeble condition, though
inheriting from their ancestors an old civilization, and laying the
foundations of powerful states. If we attach any historical value
whatever to the narrative, it obviously implies that at a date of
about two thousand years before Christ the regions afterward occupied
by the oldest historic empires were still thinly peopled, and their
dominant races little more than feeble tribes. This farther
corresponds with the authentic history of all the ancient nations,
however these may have been extended by previous mythical periods.
About or shortly before the time of Abraham, Menes was draining for
the first time the swamps of Egypt, Ninus or Nimrod was founding the
Assyrian empire, the Phoenicians were founding Sidon, agriculture was
being introduced into China, the Vedas were being written in India,
the Persian monarchy was being founded; and, in short, all the
historical nations of the East were originating, and this apparently
by springing into being with an already formed civilization.

Such being the Hebrew account of the date and early history of man, it
may be proper here to compare it with such deductions from
archæological and geological investigation as may seem to conflict
with it, and at the same time to make some comparisons with the
Turanian and Aryan traditions and speculations as to human origins.
The special lines of investigation important here are: 1. Early
historical records other than the Bible; 2. The diversity of human
languages; 3. The geological evidence afforded by remains of
prehistoric men found in caverns and other repositories. The last of
these is at present that which has attained the greatest development.

1. _Early Human History._--Had the human race everywhere preserved
historical records, we should have had some certain evidence as to the
places and times of origination of its tribes and peoples.
Unfortunately this has not been the case. All savage and barbarous
races, and many of those now civilized, have lost all records of their
early history. Most of the so-called ancient nations are comparatively
modern, and their history after a very short course loses itself in
uncertain tradition and mythical fancies. The only really ancient
nations that have given us in detail their own written history are the
Hebrews, the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Hindoos, and the Chinese.
The last people, though professedly very ancient, trace their history
from a period of barbarism--a view confirmed by their physical
characters and the nature of their civilization; and on this account,
if no other, their history can not be considered as of much
archæological value. According to their own records, their earliest
authentic history goes back to about 2800 B.C., and was preceded by a
prehistoric period of uncertain duration. The astronomical deductions
of Schlegel, which would extend their history to 17,000 years, are
evidently altogether unreliable.[112] The early Hindoo history is
palpably fabulous or distorted, and has been variously modified and
changed in comparatively modern times. There is one great and very
ancient people--the Egyptian--evidently civilized from the beginning
of all history, that have succeeded in transmitting to us, though only
in fragments, their primeval history; and of late years constant
additions have been made from inscribed tablets and monuments to our
knowledge of the ancient history of the Assyrians and Chaldeans.

The Egyptian history has been gathered first from sketches by Greek
travellers, and from fragments of the chronicles of Manetho, one of
the later Egyptian priests; and, secondly, from the inscriptions
deciphered on Egyptian monuments and papyri. It is still in a very
fragmentary and uncertain state, but has been used with considerable
effect to prove both the diversity of races of men and the pre-Noachic
antiquity of the species. The Egyptian, in features and physical
conformation, tended to the European form, just as the modern Fellahs
and Berbers do; but he had a dark complexion, a somewhat elongated
head and flattened lips, and certain negroid peculiarities in his
limbs. His language combined many of the peculiarities of the Semitic,
Aryan, and African tongues, indicating thereby great antiquity or else
great intermixture, but not, as some ethnographers demand, both; most
probably the former--the Egyptians being really the oldest civilized
people that we certainly know, and therefore, if languages have one
origin, likely to be near its root-stock.

The actual history of Egypt begins from Menes, the first human king, a
monarch, or rather tribal chief, who took up his abode in the flats
and fens of Lower Egypt, certainly not very long after the deluge. His
name has been translated "one who walks with Khem," or Ham; one,
therefore, who was contemporary with this great patriarch and god of
the Egyptians, which will place his time within a few centuries of the
Biblical flood. The date of Menes has been variously placed. In
correction of the ordinary Hebrew chronology, we have the following
attempts:

  Josephus places his reign                                2350 B.C.
  Dr. Hales' calculation                                   2412
  Manetho and the Monuments, as corrected by Syncellus    {2712
  and calculated by various archæologists                 {to
                                                          {2782
  Herodotus, astronomical reduction by Rennell             2890
  Estimate by Gliddon in "Ancient Egypt"                   2750
  Bunsen, "Egypt's Place," etc.                            4000

The truth may be somewhere near the mean of the shorter chronologies
given in the list.[113] That of Bunsen is liable to very grave
objections; more especially as he adds to it other views, altogether
unsupported by historical evidence, which would carry back the deluge
to 10,000 years B.C. It rests wholly on the chronology of Manetho, who
lived 300 years B.C.; and who, even if the Egyptians then possessed
authentic documents extending 3700 years before his time, may have
erred in his rendering of them; and is farther liable to grave
suspicions of having merely grouped the names on the monuments of his
country arbitrarily in Sothic cycles. Farther, they rest on an
interpretation of Manetho, which supposes his early dynasties to have
been successive, while good reasons have been found to prove that many
of them consist of contemporaneous petty sovereigns of parts of Egypt.
The early parts of Manetho's lists are purely mythical, and it is
impossible to fix the point where his authentic history commences. He
copied from monuments which have no consecutive dates, the precise age
of which could only be vaguely known even in his time, and which are
different in their statements in different localities. It is only by
making due allowance for these uncertainties that any historical value
can be attached to these earlier dynasties of Manetho. Yet Bunsen has
built on an uncertain interpretation of this writer, as handed down in
a very fragmentary and evidently garbled condition, and on the equally
or more uncertain chronology of Eratosthenes, a system differing from
all previous belief on the subject, from the Hebrew history, and from
all former interpretations of the monuments and Manetho.[114]
Discarding, therefore, in the mean time, this date, and the still
older one claimed by Mariette,[115] we may roughly estimate the date
of Menes as 2000 to 2500 years B.C.,[116] and proceed to state some of
the facts developed by Egyptologists.

One of the most striking of these is the proof that Egypt was a new
country in the days of Menes and several generations of his
successors. The monuments of this period show little of the
complicated idolatry, ritual, and caste system of later times, and are
deficient in evidence of the refinement and variety of art afterward
attained. They also show that these early monarchs were principally
engaged in dyking, and otherwise reclaiming the alluvial flats; an
evidence precisely of the same character with that which every
traveller sees in the more recently settled districts of Canada, where
the forest is giving way to the exertions of the farmer. Farther, in
this primitive period, known as the "old monarchy," few domestic
animals appear, and experiments seem to have been in progress to tame
others, natives of the country, as the hyena, the antelope, the stork.
Even the dog in the older dynasties is represented by one or at most
two varieties, and the prevalent one is a wolfish-looking animal akin
to the present wild or half-tamed dogs of the East.[117] The
Egyptians, too, of the earlier dynasties, are more homogeneous in
their appearance than those of the later, after conquest and migration
had introduced new races; and the earliest monumental notice referring
to Negro tribes does not appear until the 12th dynasty, about half-way
between the epoch of Menes and the Christian era, nor does any
representation of the Negro features occur until, at the earliest, the
17th dynasty. This allows ample time--one thousand years at the
least--for the development, under abnormal circumstances and
isolation, of all the most strongly marked varieties of man. Still
Egypt, even under the old monarchy, presents evidence of the
continuation of antediluvian culture.[118]

It is obvious, in short, that the whole aspect of early Egyptian
history presents to us a people already civilized taking possession of
that country at a period corresponding with that of the subsidence of
the Noachian deluge, and not finding there any remains of older
populations. Nor have any remains of such populations been found by
modern investigation.[119]

In Assyria the results of the recent discoveries, so well known
through many learned and popular works, strikingly confirm the Hebrew
chronology. They indicate no slow emergence from barbarism, but show
that in Assyria as in Egypt implements of stone and metal were used
together by a primitive people, already far advanced in civilization;
and the oldest historical names only carry us back to cities and
sovereigns of the Abrahamic age, while the story of the primitive
empire of Nimrod and the traditions of the deluge seem to have
survived in more or less mythical legends. The earliest Assyrian
monuments would seem to belong to a Turanian race, of which
comparatively little is known, but which may correspond with the
primitive Cushites of Biblical story. To these, it is true, Berosus
attaches a fabulous antiquity; but this is not confirmed by the
monuments. These, according to the latest facts disclosed by Smith,
Rawlinson, and others, appear to fix a date of about 1800 B.C. for the
foundation of the Assyrian monarchy proper, and the oldest previous
date given by Assurbampal, who reigned about B.C. 668 to 626, gives
1635 years before his time, or say 2280 B.C., as the date of an
Elamite king Kudarnankundi, who seems to be the leader of a primitive
tribe, one of the oldest in the region, and who has been conjectured
to have been the Chedorlaomer of Genesis, but was probably one of his
predecessors.

We gather from the Assyrian annals that the early Turanian kings,
while mound-builders like their kindred elsewhere, and acquainted with
metals and with the cuneiform writing, yet constituted comparatively
small nations, and were much occupied with hunting and other rude
sports, and with predatory expeditions, so as to answer very nearly to
the Biblical conception of the early Cushite kingdom of the valley of
the Euphrates, which was probably in the same stage of culture with
the nations that in a later period inhabited the valley of the
Mississippi, and are known as the Alleghans.

In connection with the early history of man, much importance has been
attached to the division of the early historic and prehistoric ages
into the periods of Stone, Bronze, and Iron, and of the former into a
Palæolithic or ancient stone age, and a more modern or Neolithic stone
age. It is plain, however, that too great importance has been attached
to these distinctions, and that they express rather differences of
circumstances and of culture than of age, so that they have really no
bearing on the Biblical chronology.

If palæolithic or rudely chipped implements are the oldest known, as
they not improbably were the first tools used by man, yet their use
has extended in the case of rude nations all the way up to the present
time; and in America and Northern Asia we know that their antiquity is
but of yesterday, and that they were used with highly finished
implements of bone, and of those softer stones that admit of being
polished. No certain line can therefore be drawn even locally between
a Neolithic and a Palæolithic period, especially since in localities
where flint implements were extensively quarried and made, as on the
banks of rivers in Northern France and Southern England, and in such
places as "Grimes' Graves" and Cissbury in the latter country, where
mines were sunk in the chalk for the extraction of flints, it
necessarily happened that vast multitudes of unfinished or spoiled
implements and weapons were left on the ground, while the
better-formed specimens were for the most part taken away. This
conclusion is amply supported by similar localities in America, where
people well acquainted with many of the arts of life have left
quantities of strictly palæolithic material. Wilson, Southall, and
other writers have accumulated so many examples of this that I think
the distinction of Palæolithic and Neolithic ages must now be given up
by all investigators who possess ordinary judgment. A remarkable
instauce is the celebrated "Flint ridge" of Ohio, which was a great
quarry of flint for implements used by the ancient mound-builders, a
highly civilized race, as well as by the modern Indians. Here are
found countless multitudes of palæolithic flint implements of all the
ordinary types, but which are merely the unfinished material of
workers capable of producing the most exquisite implements. There can
be scarcely a doubt that the palæolithic implements of the European
gravels, in so far as they are the workmanship of man, are in like
manner merely the relics of old flint quarries.[120]

Possibly a more accurate measurement of time for particular regions of
the world might be deduced from the introduction of bronze and iron.
If the former was, as many antiquarians suppose, a local discovery in
Europe, and not introduced from abroad, it can give no measurement of
time whatever. In America, as the facts detailed by Dr. Wilson show,
while a bronze age existed in Peru, it was the copper age in the
Mississippi Valley, and the stone age elsewhere; and these conditions
might have co-existed for any length of time, and could give no
indication of relative dates. On the other hand, the iron introduced
by European commerce spread at once over the continent, and came into
use in the most remote tribes, and its introduction into America
clearly marks an historical epoch. With regard to bronze in Europe, we
must bear in mind that tin was to be procured only in England and
Spain, and in the latter in very small quantity; the mines of Saxony
do not seem to have been known till the Middle Ages. We must further
consider that tin ore is a substance not metallic in appearance, and
little likely to attract the attention of savages; and that, as we
gather from a hint of Pliny, it was probably first observed, in the
West at least, as stream tin, in the Spanish gold washings. Lastly,
when we place in connection with these considerations the fact that in
the earliest times of which we have certain knowledge, the tin trade
of Spain and England was monopolized by the Phoenicians, there seems
to be a strong probability that the extension of the trade of this
nation to the western Mediterranean really inaugurated the bronze
period. The only valid argument against this is the fact that moulds
and other indications of native bronze casting have been found in
Switzerland, Denmark, and elsewhere; but these show nothing more than
that the natives could recast bronze articles, just as the American
Indians can forge fish-hooks and knives out of nails and iron hoops.
Other considerations might be adduced in proof of this view, but our
limits will not permit us to refer to them. The important questions
still remain: When was this trade commenced, and how rapidly did it
extend itself from the sea-coast across Europe? The British tin trade
must have been in existence in the time of Herodotus, though his
notion of the locality was not more definite than that it was in the
extremity of the earth. The Phoenician settlements in the western
Mediterranean must have existed as early as the time of Solomon, when
"ships of Tarshish" was the general designation of seagoing ships for
long voyages. How long previously these colonies existed we do not
know; but considering the great scarcity and value of tin in those
very ancient times, we may infer that perhaps only the Spanish, and
not the British deposits were known thus early; or that the
Phoenicians had only indirect access to the latter. Perhaps we may fix
the time when these traders were able to supply the nations of Europe
with abundance of bronze in exchange for their products, at, say 1000
to 1200 B.C., as the earliest probable period; and possibly from one
to two centuries would be a sufficient allowance for the complete
penetration of the trade throughout Europe. But of course wars or
migrations might retard or accelerate the process; and there may have
been isolated spots in which a partial stone period extended up to
those comparatively recent times in which first the Greek trade, and
afterward the entire overthrow of the Carthaginian power by the
Romans, terminated forever the age of bronze and substituted the age
of iron. This would leave, according to our ordinary chronologies, at
least ten or fifteen centuries for the postdiluvian stone period in
Europe and Western Asia, a time quite sufficient in our view for all
that part of it represented by such monuments as the Danish
shell-heaps or the platform habitations of the Swiss lakes; leaving
the remains of the prehistoric caverns and river gravels for the
antediluvian period. A few facts in illustration of these points, and
also of the Biblical history, may be mentioned here.

We know perfectly that the early Chaldeans of the Euphratean valley
were acquainted with the use of metals--bronze certainly, and at a
very early date iron; yet flint knives and other implements of stone
are found under circumstances which show that they were used in the
palmy days of the Assyrian empire. The inhabitants of Egypt were
acquainted with bronze and iron long before the date of the Exodus,
yet the Egyptians used stone knives for some purposes up to a
comparatively modern time. Joshua used stone knives for the purpose of
circumcision; and according to Herodotus there were Ethiopians in the
army of Xerxes who used stone-tipped arrows. If any antiquarian were
to stumble on the "hill of the foreskins"--a mound under which were
buried in all probability the multitudinous flint flakes used in the
circumcision of the thousands of Israel--or the grave in which some of
the Ethiopian auxiliaries of Xerxes were buried with their flint
arrow-heads and javelins of antelopes' horn, how absurd would be the
inference that these repositories were of the palæolithic age. Nay, so
late as 1870 a traveller was informed that the Bagos, a people of
Abyssinia, still made and used stone hatchets and flint knives.[121]

In Europe we find reason to believe that the Ligurians of Northwestern
Italy were flint-folk of very rude type until they were conquered by
the Gauls about 400 B.C.[122] Though the Gauls, Britons, and Germans
of the age of Julius Cæsar had iron weapons, yet it is evident that
the metal was very scarce, and that bronze was more common; and in
confirmation of this it is found that in the trenches before Alize,
the Alesia of Cæsar, where the final struggle of the Roman general
with Vercingetorix took place, weapons of stone, bronze, and iron are
intermixed. All over the more northern parts of Europe there is the
best reason to believe that the use of stone and bronze continued to a
much later period, and locally until long after the Christian era. It
is clear that such facts as these must greatly modify our ideas of the
probable age of the Swiss lake villages, and should induce the
greatest caution in claiming any special antiquity for particular
classes of implements.

One of the most remarkable discoveries of modern times is that of the
site of ancient Troy by Dr. Schliemann, and it affords clear and
decisive evidence as to the historic value of the ages to which we
have referred.

Troy was destroyed by the Greeks perhaps about 1300 B.C., and we know
from Homer that this was in what for the Greeks and Trojans may
properly be termed the copper age, weapons and armor of that metal
being in common use, and also the mode of burial by cremation. We may
well suppose that at that early date the stone age was still in full
force in Northern Europe and Asia, and in the mountains of
Switzerland; and as the tin mines of England had not yet been reached,
bronze was scarce and dear even in Eastern Europe and Asia. Now
Schliemann has disinterred the undoubted Trojan Ilium on the hill of
Hissarlik; but he finds it to be only one of several buried cities,
and the succession of strata will be most clearly seen in the section
on the following page, compiled from his clear and circumstantial
descriptions. It is needless to say that this presents a succession of
the stone age to one of comparatively high civilization. It also forms
an epitome of that of the whole East, and of primitive man in general,
in some very important respects. We have first, at a date probably
coeval with that of the earliest monarchies of Assyria and Egypt, a
primitive people whose arts and mode of life remind us strongly of the
American Toltecans and Peruvians.[123] Schliemann supposes them to
have been Aryan, but they were more probably of Turanian race. They
must have occupied the site for a very long time. They were succeeded
by a more cultivated people of fine physical organization, yet
possibly still Turanians or primitive Aryans, who by trade or plunder
had accumulated large stores of metallic wealth, and had made advances
in the arts of life placing them on a level with the early Phoenicians
and Egyptians, with whom they probably had intercourse. These

  =====================================================================
  |Surface.                        |
  |                                |
  |Fifth stratum to 6-1/2 feet.    |The Greek Ilium, with buildings
  |                                |and objects of art characteristic
  |                                |of the Hellenic civilization of
  |                                |historic periods.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  |Fourth stratum to 13 feet.      |A second barbarous people, but
  |                                |probably allied to the first.
  |                                |Very coarse pottery. Implements
  |                                |and weapons of copper or bronze--
  |                                |stone knives and saws.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  |Third stratum to 23 feet.       |Barbarous people occupying the
  |                                |site of Troy. Rude stone
  |                                |implements and rude pottery.
  |                                |Buildings of small stones and clay.
  |                                |Some objects of pottery found here
  |                                |would on American sites be regarded
  |                                |as probably tobacco-pipes.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  |Second stratum to 33 feet.      |Homeric Troy. Implements and
  |                                |weapons of copper, bronze, and
  |                                |stone. Pottery, some of it of
  |                                |Peruvian and ancient Cypriot types.
  |                                |Fine gold jewelry, and gold and
  |                                |silver vessels. Armor similar to
  |                                |that described by Homer. Stone
  |                                |buildings and walls. This city had
  |                                |been sacked and burned.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  | First stratum to 46 or 53 feet.|Primitive or prehistoric Troy.
  |                                |Stone implements, polished and
  |                                |chipped. Millstones, copper nails,
  |                                |pottery--some with patterns
  |                                |curiously resembling those of
  |                                |America--bone implements,
  | Rock.                          |terra-cotta disks. Stone buildings.
  =====================================================================

were the Trojans of the Homeric poems, and the destruction of their
city was probably in the first instance celebrated in their own native
songs, which Homer at a date but little later[124] wove into his
magnificent poem, and idealized and exaggerated. The Trojans
worshipped an owl-headed goddess--the Athena of the Homeric poems;
and from symbols found are believed also to have had the worship of a
sacred tree, and of fire or of the Sun. All of these are widespread
superstitions over both the Old and New World. But while Troy
flourished there were barbarous nations not far off still in the stone
age; and when the city had fallen, these, possibly in successive
hordes, took possession of the fertile plain and used the old city as
their stronghold, perhaps till the foundation of the Greek city about
650 B.C. I have sketched in some detail these interesting discoveries,
as they so clearly illustrate an actual succession of ages, and so
conclusively show the uncertainty of the classification into ages of
stone and metal, except when taken in connection with the precise
circumstances of each locality.

I have referred above only to the question of historic or postdiluvian
man. We have still to consider what remains exist of antediluvian man.
These may be studied in connection with our third head of geological
evidences of man's antiquity; for if the Mosaic narrative be true, the
diluvial catastrophe must have constituted a physical separation
between historic man and prehistoric; since, in so far as antediluvian
ages are concerned, all are prehistoric or mythical everywhere except
in the sacred history itself. Antediluvian men may thus in geology be
Pleistocene as distinguished from modern, or Palæocosmic as
distinguished from Neocosmic.[125]

2. _Language in Relation to the Antiquity of Man._--In many animals
the voice has a distinctive character; but in man it has an importance
altogether peculiar. The gift of speech is one of his sole
prerogatives, and identity in its mode of exercise is not only the
strongest proof of similarity of psychical constitution, but more than
any other character marks identity of origin. The tongues of men are
many and various; and at first sight this diversity may, as indeed it
often does, convey the impression of radical diversity of race. But
modern philological investigations have shown many and unexpected
links of connection in vocabulary or grammatical structure, or both,
between languages apparently the most dissimilar. I do not here refer
to the vague and fanciful parallels with which our ancestors were
often amused, but to the results of sober and scientific inquiry.
"Nothing," says Professor Max Müller, "necessitates the admission of
different independent beginnings for the material elements of the
Turanian, Semitic, and Aryan branches of speech; nay, it is possible
even now to point out radicals which, under various changes and
disguises, have been current in these three branches ever since their
first separation." Of the truth of this I have convinced myself by
some original investigation, and also of the farther truth that of
this radical unity of all human tongues there is more full evidence
than many philologists are disposed to admit, and that the results of
future study must be to connect more and more with each other the
several main stems of language. Whether this results merely from the
psychical unity of the human race, or from the historical derivation
of languages from one root, is not so material as the fact of unity;
but that the latter is implied it would not be difficult to show.[126]
Let us examine for a little these results as they are presented to us
by Latham, Müller, Bunsen, and other modern philologists.

A convenient starting-point is afforded by the great group of
languages known as the Indo-European, Japhetic, or Aryan. From the
Ganges to the west coast of Ireland, through Indian, Persian, Greek,
Italian, German, Celt, runs one great language--the Sanscrit and the
dark Hindoo at one extreme, the Erse and the xanthous Celt at the
other. No one now doubts the affinity of this great belt of languages.
No one can pretend that any one of these nations learned its language
from another. They are all decided branches of a common stock. Lying
in and near this area are other nations--as the Arabs, the Syrians,
the Jews--speaking languages differing in words and structure--the
Semitic tongues. Do these mark a different origin? The philologists
answer in the negative, pointing to the features of resemblance which
still remain, and above all to certain intermediate tongues of so high
antiquity that they are rather to be regarded as root-stocks from
which other languages diverged than as mixtures. The principal of
these is the ancient Egyptian, represented by the inscriptions on the
monuments of that wonderful people, and by the more modern Coptic,
which, according to Bunsen and Latham, presents decided affinities to
both the great classes previously mentioned, and may be regarded as
strictly intermediate in its character. It has accordingly been
designated by the term Sub-Semitic.[127] But it shares this character
with all or nearly all the other African languages, which bear strong
marks of affinity to the Egyptian and Semitic tongues. On this
subject Dr. Latham says, "That the uniformity of languages throughout
Africa is greater than it is either in Asia or in Europe, is a
statement to which I have not the least hesitation in committing
myself."[128] To the north the Indo-European area is bounded by a
great group of semi-barbarous populations, mostly with Mongolian
features, and speaking languages which have been grouped as Turanian.
These Turanian languages, on the one hand, graduate without any break
into those of the Esquimaux and American Indians; on the other,
according to Müller and Latham, they are united, though less
distinctly, with the Semitic and Japhetic tongues. They not improbably
represent in more or less altered forms the most primitive stock of
language from which both the Semitic and Japhetic groups have
branched. Another great area on the coasts and in the islands of the
Pacific is overspread by the Malay, which, through the populations of
Transgangetic India, connects itself with the great Indo-European
line. Mr. Edkins, in his remarkable book on "China's Place in
Philology," has collected a large amount of fact tending to show that
the early Chinese in its monosyllabic radicals presents root-forms
traceable into all the stocks of human speech in the Old World; and
the American languages would have furnished him with similar lines of
affinity. If we regard physical characters, manners, and customs, and
mythologies, as well as mere language, it is much easier thus to link
together nearly all the populations of the globe. In investigations of
this kind, it is true, the links of connection are often delicate and
evanescent; yet they have conveyed to the ablest investigators the
strong impression that the phenomena are rather those of division of a
radical language than of union of several radically distinct.

This impression is farther strengthened when we regard several results
incidental to these researches. Latham has shown that the languages of
men may be regarded as arranged in lines of divergence, the extreme
points of which are Fuego, Tasmania, Easter Island; and that from all
these points they converge to a common centre in Western Asia, where
we find a cluster of the most ancient and perfect languages; and even
Haeckel is obliged to adopt in his map of the affiliation of races of
men a similar scheme, though he, without any good historical or
scientific evidence, extends it back into the imaginary lost continent
of Lemuria. Farther, the languages of the various populations differ
in proceeding from these centres in a manner pointing to degeneracy
such as is likely to occur in small and rude tribes separating from a
parent stock. These lines of radiation follow the most easy and
probable lines of migration of the human race spreading from one
centre. It must also be observed that in the primary migration of men,
there must of necessity have been at its extreme limits outlying and
isolated tribes, placed in circumstances in which language would very
rapidly change; especially as these tribes, migrating or driven
forward, would be continually arriving at new regions presenting new
circumstances and objects. When at length the utmost limit in any
direction was reached, the inroads of new races of population would
press into close contact these various tribes with their different
dialects. Where the distance was greatest before reaching this limit,
we might expect, as in America, to find the greatest mutual variety
and amount of difference from the original stock. After the primary
migration had terminated, the displacements arising from secondary
migrations and conquests, would necessarily complicate the matter by
breaking up the original gradations of difference, and thereby
rendering lines of migration difficult to trace.

Taking all these points into the account, along with the known
tendencies of languages in all circumstances to vary, it is really
wonderful that philology is still able to give so decided indications
of unity.

There is, in the usual manner of speaking of these subjects, a source
of misapprehension, which deserves special mention in this place. The
Hebrew Scriptures derive all the nations of the ancient world from
three patriarchs, and the names of these have often been attached to
particular races of men and their languages; but it should never be
supposed that these classifications are likely to agree with the Bible
affiliation. They may to a certain extent do so, but not necessarily
or even probably. In the nature of the case, those portions of these
families which remained near the original centre, and in a civilized
state, would retain the original language and features comparatively
unchanged. Those which wandered far, fell into barbarism, or became
subjected to extreme climatic influences, would vary more in all
respects. Hence any general classification, whether on physical or
philological characters, will be likely to unite, as in the Caucasian
group of Cuvier, men of all the three primitive families, while it
will separate the outlying and aberrant portions from their main stems
of affiliation. Want of attention to this point has led to much
misconception; and perhaps it would be well to abandon altogether
terms founded on the names of the sons of Noah, except where
historical affiliation is the point in question. It would be well if
it were understood that when the terms Semitic, Japhetic,[129] and
Hametic are used, direct reference is made to the Hebrew ethnology;
and that, where other arrangements are adopted, other terms should be
used. It is obviously unfair to apply the terms of Moses in a
different way from that in which he uses them. A very prevalent error
of this kind has been to apply the term Japhetic to a number of
nations not of such origin according to the Bible; and another of more
modern date is to extend the term Semitic to all the races descended
from Ham, because of resemblance of language. It should be borne in
mind that, assuming the truth of the Scriptural affiliation, there
should be a "central" group of races and languages where the whole of
the three families meet, and "sporadic"[130] groups representing the
changes of the outlying and barbarous tribes.

While, however, all the more eminent philologists adhere to the
original unity of language, they are by no means agreed as to the
antiquity of man; and some, as for instance Latham and Dr. Max Müller,
are disposed to claim an antiquity for our species far beyond that
usually admitted. In so far as this affects the Bible history, it is
important, inasmuch as this would appear to limit the possible
antiquity of all languages to the time of the deluge. The date of this
event has been variously estimated, on Biblical grounds, at from 1650
B.C. (Usher) to 3155 B.C. (Josephus and Hales); but the longest of
these dates does not appear to satisfy the demands of philology. The
reason of this demand is the supposed length of time required to
effect the necessary changes. The subject is one on which definite
data can scarcely be obtained. Languages change now, even when reduced
to a comparatively stable form by writing. They change more rapidly
when men migrate into new climates, and are placed in contact with new
objects. The English, the Dutch, and the German were perhaps all at
the dawn of the mediæval era Mæso-Gothic. At the same rate of change,
allowing for greater barbarism and greater migrations, they may very
well have been something not far from Egyptian or Sanscrit 2000 years
before Christ. The truth is that present rates of variation afford no
criterion for the changes that must occur in the languages of small
and isolated tribes lapsing into or rising from barbarism, possessing
few words, and constantly requiring to name new objects and until some
ratio shall have been established between these conditions and those
of modern languages, fixed by literature and by a comparatively
stationary state of society, it is useless to make any demands for
longer time on this ground.[131]

Even in the present day, Moffat informs us that in South Africa the
separation of parts of a tribe, for even a few months, may produce a
notable difference of dialect. If we take the existing languages of
civilized men whose history is known, we shall find that it is
impossible to trace many of them back as far as the Christian era, and
when we have passed over even half that interval, they become so
different as to be unintelligible to those who now speak them. Where
there are exceptions to this, they arise entirely from the effects of
literature and artificial culture. While, therefore, there is good
ground in philology for the belief in one primitive language, there
seems no absolute necessity to have recourse even to the confusion of
tongues at Babel to explain the diversities of language.[132] Farther,
the Bible carries back the Semitic group of languages at least to the
time of the Deluge, but it does not seem necessary on the mere ground
of antediluvian names, to carry it any farther back, and the Assyrian
inscriptions show the coexistence of Turanian and Semitic tongues at
the dawn of history in the region of the Euphrates and Tigris. One or
other of these--or a monosyllabic language underlying it--was probably
an antediluvian tongue, and the other a very early derivative; and
both history and philology would assign the precedence to the Turanian
language, which was probably most akin to that which had descended
from antediluvian times, and which at that early period of dispersion
indicated in the Bible story of Babel, had begun to throw off its two
great branches of the Aryan and Semitic languages. These, proceeding
in two dissimilar lines of development, continue to exist to this day
along with the surviving portions of the uncultivated Turanian speech.
To this point, however, we may return under another head.



CHAPTER XIV.

UNITY AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN--(_Continued._)


     "By the word of God the heavens were from of old, and the
     earth, formed out of water, and by means of water, by which
     waters the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
     perished."--2 Peter iii., 5, 6.


3. _Geological Evidence as to the Antiquity of Man._--No geological
fact can now be more firmly established than the ascending progression
of animal life, whereby from the early invertebrates of the Eozoic and
Primordial series we pass upward through the dynasties of fishes and
reptiles and brute mammals to the reign of man. In this great series
man is obviously the last term; and when we inquire at what point he
was introduced, the answer must be in the later part of the great
Cainozoic or Tertiary period, which is the latest of the whole. Not
only have we the negative fact of the absence of his remains from all
the earlier Tertiary formations, but the positive fact that all the
mammalia of these earlier ages are now extinct, and that man could not
have survived the changes of condition which destroyed them and
introduced the species now our contemporaries. This fact is altogether
independent of any question as to the introduction of species by
derivation or by creation. The oldest geological period in which any
animals nearly related in structure to man occur is that named the
Miocene, and no traces of man have as yet been found in any deposits
of this age. All human remains known belong either to the Pleistocene
or Modern. Now the Pleistocene was characterized by one of those
periods of glacial cold which have swept over the earth--by one of
those great winters which have so chilled the continents that few
forms of life could survive them--and man comes in at the close of
this cold period, in what is called the Post-glacial age. Some
geologists, it is true, hold to an interglacial warm period, in which
man is supposed to have existed, but the evidence of this is extremely
slender and doubtful, and it carries back in any case human antiquity
but a very little way. I have, in my "Story of the Earth and Man,"
shown reason for the belief, in which I find Professor Hughes, of
Cambridge, coincides with me,[133] that the interglacial periods are
merely an ingenious expedient to get rid of the difficulties attending
the hypothesis of the universal glaciation of the northern hemisphere.

But, though man is thus geologically modern, it is held that
historically his existence on earth may have been very ancient,
extending perhaps ten or twenty, or even a hundred times longer than
the period of six or seven thousand years supposed to be proved by
sacred history. Let us first, as plainly and simply as possible,
present the facts supposed thus to extend the antiquity of man, and
then inquire as to their validity and force as arguments in this
direction.

The arguments from geology in favor of a great antiquity for man may
be summarized thus: (1) Human remains are found in caverns under very
thick stalagmitic crusts, and in deposits of earth which must have
accumulated before these stalagmites began to form, and when the
caverns were differently situated with reference to the local
drainages. (2) Remains of man are found under peat-bogs which have
grown so little in modern times that their antiquity on the whole
must be very great. (3) Implements, presumably made by men, are found
in river-gravels so high above existing riverbeds that great physical
changes must have occurred since they were accumulated. (4) One case
is on record where a human bone is believed to have been found under a
deposit of glacial age. (5) Human remains have been found under
circumstances which indicate that very important changes of level have
taken place since their accumulation. (6) Human remains have been
found under circumstances which indicate great changes of climate as
intervening between their date and that of the modern period. (7) Man
is known to have existed, in Europe at least, at the same time with
some quadrupeds formerly supposed to have been extinct before his
introduction. (8) The implements, weapons, etc., found in the oldest
of these repositories are different from those known to have been used
in historic times.

These several heads include, I think, all the really material evidence
of a geological character. It is evidence of a kind not easily
reducible into definite dates, but there can be no doubt that its
nature, and the rapid accumulation of facts within a small number of
years, have created a deep and widespread conviction among geologists
and archæologists that we must relegate the origin of man to a much
more remote antiquity than that sanctioned by history or by the
Biblical chronology. I shall first review the character of this
evidence, and then state a number of geological facts which bear in
the other direction, and have been somewhat lost sight of in recent
discussions. Of the facts above referred to, the most important are
those which relate to caverns, peat-bogs, and river-gravels. We may,
therefore, first consider the nature and amount of this evidence.

That the reader may more distinctly understand the geological history
of these more recent periods of the earth's history which are supposed
to have witnessed the advent of man, in Western Europe at least, I
quote the following summary from Sir Charles Lyell of the more modern
changes in that portion of the world. These are:

"First, a continental period, toward the close of which the forest of
Cromer flourished; when the land was at least 500 feet above its
present level, perhaps much higher. * * * The remains of _Hippopotamus
major_ and _Rhinoceros etruscus_, found in beds of this period, seem
to indicate a climate somewhat milder than that now prevailing in
Great Britain. [This was a _Preglacial_ era, and may be regarded as
belonging to the close of the Pliocene tertiary.]

"Secondly, a period of submergence, by which the land north of the
Thames and Bristol Channel, and that of Ireland, was generally reduced
to * * * an archipelago. * * * This was the period of great
submergence and of floating ice, when the Scandinavian flora, which
occupied the lower grounds during the first continental period, may
have obtained exclusive possession of the only lands not covered with
perpetual snow. [This represents the Glacial period; but according to
the more extreme glacialists only a portion of that period.]

"Thirdly, a second continental period, when the bed of the glacial
sea, with its marine shells and erratic blocks, was laid dry, and when
the quantity of land equalled that of the first period. * * * During
this period there were glaciers in the higher mountains of Scotland
and Wales, and the Welsh glaciers * * * pushed before them and cleared
out the marine drift with which some valleys had been filled during
the period of submergence. * * * During this last period the passage
of the Germanic flora into the British area took place, and the
Scandinavian plants, together with northern insects, birds, and
quadrupeds, retreated into the higher grounds. * * *

"Fourthly, the next and last change comprised the breaking up of the
land of the British area once more into numerous islands, ending in
the present geographical condition of things. There were probably many
oscillations of level during this last conversion of continuous land
into islands, and such movements in opposite directions would account
for the occurrence of marine shells at moderate heights above the
level of the sea, notwithstanding a general lowering of the land. * * *
During this period a gradual amelioration of temperature took place,
from the cold of the glacial period to the climate of historical
times."[134]

The second continental period above referred to is that which appears
on the best evidence to have been the time of the introduction of man;
but such facts as that of the Settle Cave, and the implements of the
breccia in Kent's Cave, if rightly interpreted, would make man
preglacial or "interglacial."

The deposits found in caverns in France, Switzerland, Germany,
Belgium, and England have afforded a large proportion of the remains
from which we derive our notions of the most ancient prehistoric men
of Europe. From the Belgian caves, as explored by M. Dupont, we learn
that there were two successive prehistoric races, both rude or
comparatively uncivilized. The first were men of Turanian type, but of
great bodily stature and high cerebral organization, and showing
remarkable skill in the manufacture of implements and ornaments of
bone and ivory. These men are believed to have been contemporary with
the earlier postglacial mammals, as the mammoth and hairy rhinoceros,
and to have lived at a time when the European land was more extensive
than at present, stretching far to the west of Ireland, and connecting
Great Britain with the Continent. The skeletons found at Cro-Magnon,
Mentone, and elsewhere in France fully confirm the deductions of
Dupont as to this earliest race of Palæocosmic, Palæolithic, or
antediluvian man. This grand race seems to have perished or been
driven from Europe by the great depression of the level of the land
which inaugurated the modern era, and which was probably accompanied
by many oscillations of level as well as by considerable changes of
climate. They were succeeded by a second race, equally Turanian in
type, but of small stature, and resembling the modern Lapps. These
were the "allophylian" peoples displaced by the historical Celts, and
up to their time the reindeer seems to have existed abundantly in
France and Germany. These two successive prehistoric populations have
been termed respectively men of the "mammoth" age and men of the
"reindeer" age. The Bible record would lead us to regard the earlier
and gigantic men as antediluvian, and the smaller or Lappish race as
postdiluvian. We may therefore, having already at some length
considered the postdiluvian age, take up the mode of occurrence of the
remains of the earlier of the two races--that of the mammoth age.

The caverns themselves may be divided into those of residence, of
sepulture, and of driftage, though one cavern has often successively
assumed two at least of these characters. In the caverns of residence
large accumulations have been formed of ashes, charcoal, bones, and
other débris of cookery, among which are found flint and bone
implements, the general character of which, as well as that of the
needles, stone hammers, mortars for paint, and other domestic
appliances, are not more dissimilar from those of the Red Indian and
Esquimau races in North America than these are from one another, and
in many things, as in the bone harpoons, the resemblance is very
striking indeed. In tendency to imitative art, and in the skill of
their delineations of animals, the prehistoric men seem to have
surpassed all the American races except the semi-civilized
mound-builders and the more cultivated Mexican and Peruvian nations.
With regard to the residence of these men of the mammoth age in
caverns, several things are indicated by American analogies to which
some attention should be paid.

It is not likely that caverns were the usual places of residence of
the whole population. They may have been winter houses for small
tribes and detached families of fugitives or outlaws, or they may have
been places of resort for hunting parties at certain seasons of the
year. The large quantities of broken and uncooked bones of particular
species, as of the horse and reindeer, in some of the caverns, would
farther indicate a habit of making great battues, like those of the
American hunting tribes, at certain seasons, and of preparing
quantities of pemmican or dried meat preserved with marrow and fat for
future use. The number of bone needles found in some of the caves
would seem to hint that, like the Americans, they sewed up their
pemmican in skin bags. The multitude of flint flakes and of rude stone
implements applicable to breaking bones certainly indicates a
wholesale cutting of flesh and preparation of marrow. In the "Story of
the Earth," I have suggested in connection with this that there may
have been towns or villages of these people unknown to us, and which
would afford higher conceptions of their progress in the arts. This
anticipation appears recently to have been realized in the discovery
of such a town or fortified village of the mammoth age at Soloutre, in
France, and which seems to afford evidence that these ancient people
had already domesticated the horse, using it as food as well as a
beast of burden, in the manner of the Khirgis and certain other Tartar
tribes of Central Asia.[135] This, with the undoubtedly high cerebral
organization indicated by the skulls of the mammoth age, notably
raises our estimate of the position of man at this early date.

With regard to caves of sepulture, the same remark may be made as with
regard to the caves of residence. They do not seem to have been the
burial-places of large populations, but only occasional places of
interment, few bodies being found in them, and these often interred in
the midst of culinary débris, evidencing previous or contemporary
residence. With regard to the latter, it seems to have been no
uncommon practice with some North American tribes to bury the dead
either in the floors of their huts or in their immediate proximity. It
is probable, however, that the few examples known of caves of
sepulture of this period indicate not tribal or national places of
burial, but occasional and accidental cases, happening to hunting or
war parties, perhaps remote from their ordinary places of residence.
In so far as method of burial is concerned, the men of the Palæocosmic
or Mammoth age seem to have buried the dead extended at full length,
and not in the crouching posture usual with some later races. Like the
Americans, they painted the dead man, and buried him with his robes
and ornaments, and probably with his weapons, thus intimating their
belief in happy hunting-grounds beyond the grave.[136] I may remark
here that all the known interments of the mammoth age indicate a race
of men of great cerebral capacity, with long heads and coarsely marked
features, of large stature and muscular vigor, surpassing indeed much
in all these respects the average man of modern Europe. These
characteristics befit men who had to contend with the mammoth and his
contemporaries, and to subdue the then vast wildernesses of the
eastern continent, and they correspond with the Biblical
characteristics of antediluvian man.

Among caves of driftage may be classed some of those near Liège, in
Belgium, and, partially at least, those of Kent's Hole and Brixham, in
England. In these only disarticulated remnants of human skeletons, or
more frequently only flint implements, some of them of doubtful
character, have been found. In my "Story of the Earth," I have taken
the carefully explored Kent's Cavern of Torquay as a typical example,
and have condensed its phenomena as described by Mr. Pengelly. I now
repeat this description, with some important emendations suggested by
that gentleman in more recent reports and in private correspondence.

The somewhat extensive and ramifying cavern of Kent's Hole is an
irregular excavation, evidently due partly to fissures or joints in
limestone rock, and partly to the erosive action of water enlarging
such fissures into chambers and galleries. At what time it was
originally cut we do not know, but it must have existed as a cavern at
the close of the Pliocene or beginning of the Post-pliocene period,
since which time it has been receiving a series of deposits which have
quite filled up some of its smaller branches.

First and lowest, according to Mr. Pengelly, of the deposits as yet
known, is a "breccia," or mass of broken and rounded stones, with
hardened red clay filling the interstices. Some of the stones are of
the rock which forms the roof and walls of the cave, but the greater
number, especially the rounded ones, are from more distant parts of
the surrounding country. Many are fragments of grit from the Devonian
beds of adjacent hills. There are also fragments of stalagmite from an
old crust broken up when the breccia was deposited, and possibly
belonging to Pliocene times. In this mass, the depth of which is
unknown, are numerous bones, nearly all of one kind of animal, the
cave bear or bears, for there may be more than one species--creatures
which seem to have lived in Western Europe from the close of the
Pliocene down to the modern period. They must have been among the
earliest and most permanent tenants of Kent's Hole at a time when its
lower chambers were still filled with water. Teeth of a lion and of
the common fox also occur in this deposit, but rarely. Next above the
breccia is a floor of "stalagmite," or stony carbonate of lime,
deposited from the drippings of the roof, and in some places more than
twelve feet thick. This also contains bones of the cave bear,
deposited when there was less access of water to the cavern. Mr.
Pengelly infers the existence of man at this time from the occurrence
of chipped flints supposed to be artificial; but which, in so far as I
can judge from the specimens described and figured, must still be
regarded as of doubtful origin.

After the old stalagmite floor above mentioned was formed, the cave
again received deposits of muddy water and stones; but now a change
occurs in the remains embedded. This stony clay, or "cave earth," has
yielded an immense quantity of teeth and bones, including those of the
elephant, rhinoceros, horse, hyena, cave bear, reindeer, and Irish
elk. With these were found weapons of chipped flint, and harpoons,
needles, and bodkins of bone, precisely similar to those of the North
American Indians and other rude races. The "cave earth" is four feet
or more in thickness. It is not stratified, and contains many fallen
fragments of rock, rounded stones, and broken pieces of stalagmite. It
also has patches of the excrement of hyenas, which the explorers
suppose to indicate the temporary residence of these animals; and
besides fragments of charcoal scattered in the mass, there is in one
spot, near the top, a limited layer of burned wood, with remains which
indicate the cooking and eating of repasts of animal food by man. It
is clear that when this bed was formed the cavern was liable to be
inundated with muddy water, carrying stones and perhaps some of the
bones and implements, and breaking up in places the old stalagmite
floor.[137] One of the most puzzling features, especially to those who
take an exclusively uniformitarian view, is that the entrance of
water-borne mud and stones implies a level of the bottom of the water
in the neighboring valleys of nearly one hundred feet above its
present height. The cave earth is covered by a second crust of
stalagmite, less dense and thick than that below, and containing only
a few bones, which are of the same general character with those
beneath, but include a fragment of a human jaw with teeth. Evidently
when this stalagmite was formed the influx of water-borne materials
had ceased, or nearly so; and Mr. Pengelly appears to affirm, though
without assigning any reason, that none of these bones could, like
the masses of stalagmite, have been lifted from lower beds, or washed
into the cave from without.

The next bed marks a new change. It is a layer of black mould from
three to ten inches thick. Its microscopic structure does not seem to
have been examined; but it is probably a forest soil, introduced by
growth, by water, by wind, and by ingress of animals, all of them
modern, and contains works of art from the old British times before
the Roman invasion up to the porter bottles and dropped half-pence of
modern visitors. Lastly, in and upon the black mould are many fallen
blocks from the roof of the cave.

There can be no doubt that this cave and the neighboring one of
Brixham have done very much to impress the minds of British geologists
with ideas of the great antiquity of man; and they have, more than any
other postglacial monuments, shown the existence of some animals now
extinct up to the human age. Of precise data for determining time,
they have, however, given nothing. The only measures which seem to
have been applied, namely, the rate of growth of stalagmite and the
rate of erosion of neighboring valleys, are, from the very sequence of
the deposits, obviously worthless; and the only apparently constant
measure, namely, the fall of blocks from the roof, seems not to have
been applied, and Mr. Pengelly declares that it can not be practically
used. We are therefore quite uncertain as to the number of centuries
involved in the filling of this cave, and must remain so until some
surer system of calculation can be devised. We may, however, attempt
to sketch the series of events which it indicates.

The animals found in Kent's Hole are all "postglacial," some of them
of course survivors from "preglacial" times, and some of them still
surviving. They therefore inhabited the country after it rose from the
great glacial submergence. Perhaps the first colonists of the coast of
Devonshire in this period were the cave bears, migrating on floating
ice, and subsisting like the arctic bear and the black bear of
Anti-costi, on fish, and on the garbage cast up by the sea. They may
have found Kent's Hole a sea-side cavern, with perhaps some of its
galleries still full of water and filling with breccia, with which the
bones of dead bears became mixed. In the case of such a deposit as
this breccia, however, the precise time when its materials were
finally laid down in their present form, or the length of time
necessary for its accumulation, can not be definitely settled. It may
be a result of continued torrential action or of some sudden
cataclysm. As the land rose, these creatures for the most part betook
themselves to lower levels, and in process of time the cavern stood
upon a hill-side, perhaps several hundreds of feet above the sea; and
the mountain streams, their beds not yet emptied of glacial detritus,
washed into it stones and mud, and probably bones also, while it
appears that hyenas occupied the cave at intervals, and dragged in
remains of mammals of many species which had now swarmed across the
plains elevated out of the sea, and multiplied in the land. This was
the time of the cave earth; and before its deposit was completed,
though how long before an unstratified and therefore probably
often-disturbed bed of this kind can not tell, man himself seems to
have been added to the inhabitants of the British land. In pursuit of
game he sometimes ascended the valleys beyond the cavern, or even
penetrated into its outer chambers; or perhaps there were even in
those days rude and savage hill-men, inhabiting the forests and
warring with the more cultivated denizens of plains below, which are
now deep under the waters. Their weapons, and other implements dropped
in the cavern or lost in hunting, or buried in the flesh of wounded
animals which crept to the streams to assuage their thirst, are those
found in the cave earth. The absence of the human bones may merely
show that the mighty hunters of those days were too hardy, athletic,
and intelligent often to perish from accidental causes, and that they
did not use this cavern for a place of burial. The fragments of
charcoal show that they were acquainted with fire, and possibly that
they sometimes took shelter in the cave. But the land again subsided.
The valley of that now nameless river, of which the Rhine and the
Thames may have alike been tributaries, disappeared under the sea; and
perhaps some tribe, driven from the lower lands, took up its abode in
this cave, now again near the encroaching waves, and left there the
remains of their last repasts ere they were driven farther inland or
engulfed in the waters. For a time the cavern may have been wholly
submerged, and the charcoal of the extinguished fires became covered
with its thin coating of clay. But ere long it re-emerged to form part
of an island, long barren and desolate; and the valleys having been
cut deeper by the receding waters, it no longer received muddy
deposits, and the crust formed by drippings from its roof contained
only bones and pebbles washed by rains and occasional land floods from
its own clay deposits. Finally, the modern forests overspread the
land, and were tenanted by the modern animals. Man returned to use the
cavern again as a place of refuge or habitation, and to leave there
the relics contained in the black earth. This seems at present the
only intelligible history of this curious cave and others resembling
it; though, when we consider the imperfection of the results obtained
even by a large amount of labor, and the difficult and confused
character of the deposits in this and similar caves, too much value
should not be attached to such histories, which may at any time be
contradicted or modified by new facts or different explanations of
those already known. The time involved depends very much on the answer
to the question whether we should regard the postglacial subsidence
and re-elevation as somewhat sudden, or as occupying long ages at the
slow rate at which some parts of our continents are now rising or
sinking.

Mr. Pengelly thinks it possible, but not proved, that the lower
breccia of Kent's Cavern may be interglacial or preglacial in age. One
case only is known where a human bone has been found in a cavern under
deposits supposed to be of the nature of the glacial drift. It is that
of the Victoria Cave, at Settle, in Yorkshire. At this place a human
fibula was found under a layer of boulder clay. But there are too many
chances of this bone having come into this position by some purely
local accident to allow us to attach much importance to it until
future discoveries shall have supplied other instances of the
kind.[138]

I may close this survey of the cave deposits with a summary of the
results of M. Dupont, as obtained from two of the caves explored by
him, that of Margite and that of Frontal. In the first of these
caverns, resting on rolled pebbles which covered the floor, were four
distinct layers of river mud deposited by inundations, and amounting
to two yards and a half in thickness. In all of these layers were
bones. The lowest contained rude flint implements, and bones of the
mammoth, rhinoceros, bear, horse, chamois, reindeer, stag, and hyena.
In the overlying deposits are some flint implements of more artistic
form and a greater prevalence of the bones of the reindeer. In the
second cave, that of Frontal, over a similar deposit of alluvial mud
of the mammoth age, was found a sepulchre containing the remains of
sixteen individuals, of the second or diminutive Lappish race before
referred to. The door of the cave had been closed by these people with
a slab of stone, and in front was a hearth for funeral feasts, built
on the deposits of the mammoth age, and containing bones of animals
all recent or now living in Belgium, and without any traces of the
bones of the extinct quadrupeds. This burial-place belonged to the
Neocosmic yet prehistoric race which replaced the Palæocosmic men of
the mammoth age.

What is the absolute antiquity of the Palæocosmic age in Europe? We
have no monumental or historical chronology to answer this question,
but only the measures of time furnished by the accumulation of
deposits, by the deposition of stalagmite, by the gradual extinction
of animals, and by the erosion of valleys and other physical changes.
These somewhat loose measures have been applied in various ways, but
the tendency of geologists, from the prevalence of uniformitarian
views, and the prejudice created by familiarity with the long times of
previous geologic periods, has been to assign to them too great rather
than too little value, both as measures of time and as indicating a
remote antiquity.

With reference to the accumulation of deposits, whether derived from
disintegration of the roof and walls of the cave, introduced by land
floods or river inundations or by the residence of man, their rate is
of very difficult estimation. Loose stones fallen from the roof, as in
the case of Kent's Cave, would give a fair measure of time if we could
be sure that the climate had continued uniform, and that there had
been no violent earthquakes. Mr. Pengelly has, however, hopelessly
given up this kind of evidence. Where, as in the case of many of these
caves, land floods and river inundations have entered, these may have
been frequent or separated by long intervals of time, and they may
have been of great or small amount. Where, for instance, as in one of
the Belgian caves, there are six beds of ossiferous mud, but for the
fact that five layers of stalagmite separate them we might not have
known whether they represent six annual inundations, or floods
separated by many centuries from each other.

In the case of the Victoria Cave at Settle, Dawkins, reasoning from
the accumulation of two feet of detritus over British remains that may
be supposed to be 1200 years old, gives a basis which would at the
same rate of deposit allow about 5000 years for the date of
palæolithic men; but Prestwich and others, on the basis of stalagmite
deposits, claim a vastly higher antiquity for the men who made the
implements found in Kent's Hole and Brixham.

If we now turn to these stalagmite floors, when we consider that they
have been formed by the slow solution of limestone by rain-water
charged with carbonic acid, and the dropping of this water on the
floor, and when we are told that in Kent's Cavern a marked date shows
that the stalagmite has grown at the rate of only one twentieth of an
inch since 1688, and that there are two beds of stalagmite, one of
which is in some places twelve feet thick, we are impressed with the
conviction of a vast antiquity. But when we are told by Dawkins that
the rate of deposit in Ingleborough Cave may be estimated at a quarter
of an inch per annum, and when we consider that the present rate of
deposit in Kent's Hole is probably very different from what it was in
the former condition of the country, stalagmite becomes a very unsafe
measure of time. With respect again to the accumulation of
kitchen-midden stuff in the course of the occupancy of caverns, this
proceeds with great rapidity, when caves are steadily occupied and it
is not the practice to cleanse out the débris of fires, food, and
bedding. Even when the occupation is temporary, a tribe of savages
engaged with the preparation of dried meat and pemmican in a very
short time produce a considerable heap of bones and other
rejectamenta.

Looking next to the extinction of animals, we find that the species
found in the oldest deposits containing human remains are in part
still extant. Others which are locally extinct we know existed in
Europe until historical times, that is, within the last two thousand
years. How long previously to this the others became extinct we have
no certain means of knowing, though it seems probable that they
disappeared gradually and successively. We have, however, farther to
bear in mind the possibility of cataclysms or climatal changes which
may have proved speedily fatal to many species over large areas. In
any case we have this certain fact that, though the time elapsed has
been sufficient for the extinction of many species, it does not seem
to have sufficed to effect any noteworthy change on those that
survived. Farther, we may consider that time is only one factor in
this matter, and not the one which is the efficient cause of change,
since we know no reason why one species of animal should not continue
to be reproduced as long as another, but for the occurrence of
physical changes of a prejudicial character.

We have still remaining the changes which have taken place in the
erosion of valleys since the caverns were occupied. Dupont informs us
that the openings of some of the caverns once flooded by rivers are
now in limestone cliffs two hundred feet above the water, while no
appreciable lowering of the bottoms of the ravines is taking place
now. This would in some contingencies put back the period of filling
of the caves to an indefinite antiquity. But then the questions
occur--Was there once more water in the rivers or more obstruction at
their outlets, or was the erosive power greater at one time than now,
or were the river valleys excavated in still more ancient time, and
partly filled with mud when the water entered the caves, and may this
mud have been since swept away? So, in like manner, the waters flowing
in the channels near Brixham Cave and Kent's Hole were apparently
about seventy feet higher in times of flood than at present, but the
time involved is subject to the same doubts as in the case of the
Belgian caves. Hughes has well remarked that elevations of the land,
by causing rivers to form waterfalls and cascades, which they cut
back, may greatly accelerate the rate of erosion. Farther, there is
the best reason to believe that in the glacial period many old valleys
were filled with clay, and that the modern cutting consisted merely in
the removal of this clay. Belt has shown in a recent paper[139] good
reason to believe that this is the case with the Falls of Niagara, and
that the cutting actually effected through rock within the later
Pleistocene and modern period has been that only of the new gorge from
the whirlpool to Queenstown, the main part of the ravine being of
older date and merely re-excavated. This would greatly reduce the
ordinary estimate of time based on the cutting of the Niagara gorge.

This leads us next to consider the occurrence of human remains and
objects of art in the river-gravels themselves, and the amount of
excavation and deposit involved in the deposition of these gravels.
In the river-gravels of the Somme, and of many other rivers in France
and Southern England, chipped flints and rude flint implements are
found in so great quantity as to imply that the beds and banks of
these streams were resorted to for flint material, and that the
unfinished and rejected implements left in the holes and trenches, or
on the heaps where the work was carried on, were afterward sorted by
running water, perhaps in abnormal floods and debacles, such as occur
in all river valleys occasionally, perhaps in that great diluvial
catastrophe which seems to have terminated the residence of
Palæocosmic man in Europe. Wilson has well shown how the heaps left by
American tribes in and near their flint quarries would furnish the
material for such accumulations. The time required for the erosion of
the valleys and the deposit of the gravels has been very variously
estimated. In the case of the Somme, which river is not appreciably
deepening its bed, if we suppose it to have cut its wide valley to the
depth of one hundred and fifty feet out of solid chalk since the
so-called "high level" gravels of France and the South of England were
deposited, the time required shades off into infinity. So Evans, in
his work on "The Ancient Stone Implements of Great Britain," looking
upon the amount of excavation of wide and deep valleys since the stone
implements of Bournemouth are supposed to have been deposited in
gravel, says, "Who can fully comprehend how immensely remote was the
epoch when that vast bay was high and dry land?" and he becomes
poetical in delineating the view that must have met the eyes of
"palæolithic" man. And undoubtedly, if one is to be limited to the
precise nature and amount of causes now at work in the district, the
time must not only be "immensely remote," but illimitably so. The
difficulty lies with the exaggerated uniformitarianism of the
supposition that such causes could have produced the results. But,
for reasons to be immediately stated, the time required is liable to
numerous deductions; and recently Tylor, Pattison, Collard, and others
have insisted ably on these deductions, as has also Professor Hughes,
of Cambridge. I have myself urged them strongly in the work already
referred to.

In the first place, when we see a deep river valley in which the
present stream is doing an almost infinitesimal amount of deepening,
we are not to infer that this represents all its work past and
present. In times of unusual flood it may do in one week more than in
many previous years. Farther, if there have been elevations or
depressions of the land, when the land has been raised the cutting
power has at once been enormously increased, and when depressed it has
been diminished, or filling has taken the place of cutting. Again, if
the climate in time past has been more extreme, or the amount of
rainfall greater, the cutting action has then been proportionally
rapid. Perhaps no influence is greater in this respect than that which
is known to the colonists in Northeastern America as "ice-freshets,"
when in spring, before the ice has had time to disappear from the
rivers, sudden thaws and rains produce great floods, which rushing
down over the icy crust, or breaking and hurling its masses before
them, work terrible havoc on the banks and alluvial flats, depositing
great beds of gravel, and sweeping away immense masses that had lain
undisturbed for centuries. Now we know that in Europe the human period
was preceded by what has been termed the glacial age, and as it was
passing away there must have been unexampled floods and ice-freshets,
and a temporary "pluvial period," as it has been called, in which the
volume of the rivers was immensely increased. Farther, it is an
established fact that the period of the appearance of man was a time
when the continents in the northern hemisphere were more elevated
than at present, and when consequently the cutting action of rivers
was at a maximum. This was again followed by a period of depression,
accompanied probably by many local cataclysms, if not by a general
deluge; and there are strong geological reasons to believe that this
convulsion was connected with the disappearance from Europe of
Palæocosmic man, and many of the animals his contemporaries. This view
I advocated some time ago in my "Story of the Earth;" and more
recently Mr. Pattison, in an able paper read before the Victoria
Institute, has developed it in greater detail, and supported it by a
great mass of geological authority. If the Palæocosmic period was one
of continental elevation, when the greater seats of population were in
the valleys of great rivers now covered by the German Ocean and the
English Channel, and when the valleys of the Thames and the Somme were
those of upland streams frequented by straggling parties and small
tribes, and the seats of extensive flint factories for the supply of
the plains below, and if this state of things was terminated by a
diluvial debacle, we can account for all the phenomena of the drift
implements without any extravagant estimate of time.

I quote with much pleasure on this subject the following from the
report of a lecture on "Geological Measures of Time," by Professor
Hughes, before the Royal Institution of London. Hughes was, like
myself, a companion of Sir Charles Lyell in some of his journeys,
though belonging to a younger generation of geologists, and is an
accurate observer and reasoner.

"Another method of estimating the lapse of time is founded upon the
supposed rate at which rivers scoop out their channels. Although no
very exact estimates have been attempted, still the immense quantity
of work that has been done, as compared with the slow rate at which a
river is now excavating that same part of the valley, is often
appealed to as a proof of a great lapse of time.

"The fact of such an enormous lapse of time is not questioned, but
this part of the evidence is challenged.

"The previous considerations of the rate of accumulation of silt on
the low lands prepares us to inquire whether there is any waste at all
along the alluvial plains. Several examples were given to show that
the lowering of valleys was brought about by receding rapids and
waterfalls; for instance, following up the Rhine, its terraces could
often be traced back to where the waterfall was seen to produce at
once almost all the difference of level between the river reaches
above and below it. At Schaffhausen the river terrace below the hotel
could be traced back and found to be continuous with the river margin
above the fall. The wide plains occurring here and there, such as the
Mayence basin, were due to the river being arrested by the hard rocks
of the gorges below Bingen so long that it had time to wind from side
to side through the soft rocks above the gorges. When waterfalls cut
back to such basins or to lakes they would recede rapidly, tapping the
waters of the lake, eating back the soft beds of the alluvial plains,
and probably in both cases leaving terraces as evidence, not of
upheavals or of convulsions, but of the arrival of a waterfall which
had been gradually travelling up the valley. So when the Rhone cuts
back from the falls at Belgarde we shall have terraces where now is
the shore of Geneva; so also when the Falls of Schaffhausen, and ages
afterward when the Falls of Laufenburg have tapped the Lake of
Constance, there will be terraces marking its previous levels. And so
we may explain the former greater extent of the Lake of Zurich, which
stood higher and spread wider by Utznach and Wetzikon before it was
tapped by the arrival of waterfalls, which cut back into it and let
its waters run off until they fell to their present level.

"A small upheaval near the mouth of a river would have a similar
effect. The Thames below London and the Somme below St. Acheul can now
only just hand on the mud brought down from higher ground; but suppose
an elevation of a hundred feet over those parts of England and France
(quite imperceptible if extended over 10,000, 1000, or even 100
years), and the rivers would tumble over soft mud and clay and chalk,
and soon eat their way back from Sheppey to London, and from St.
Valery to Amiens.

"So when we want to estimate the age of the gravels on the top of the
cliff at the Reculvers, or on the edge of the plateau of St. Acheul,
we have to ask, not how long would it take the rivers to cut down to
their present level from the height of those gravels at the rate at
which that part of their channel is being lowered now, but how long
would it take the Somme or Thames, which once ran at the level of
those gravels, to cut back from where its mouth or next waterfall was
then to where it runs over rapids now. We ought to know what movements
of upheaval and depression there have been; what long alluvial flats
or lakes which may have checked floods, but also arrested the
rock-protecting gravel; how much the wash of the estuarine waves has
helped. In fact, it is clear that observations made on the action of
the rivers at those points now have nothing to do with the calculation
of the age of the terraces above, and that the circumstances upon
which the rate of recession of the waterfalls and rapids depends are
so numerous and changeable that it is at present unsafe to attempt any
estimate of the time required to produce the results observed."

I may close this discussion by quoting from the paper of my friend Mr.
Pattison, already referred to, the following summing up of his
conclusions, in which I fully concur:

     "We may assume it as established that there was a time when
     England was connected with the Continent, when big animals
     roamed in summer up the watercourses and across the uplands,
     and man, armed only with rude stones, followed them into the
     marshes and woods, hunted them for sustenance, and consumed
     them in shelter of caves, then accessible from the river
     levels. This state of things was continued until disturbed
     by oscillations of surface, accompanied by excessive
     rainfalls and rushes of water from the water-sheds of the
     rivers, until the great animals were driven out or
     destroyed, and man ceased to visit these parts. The
     disturbances continued, the Strait of Dover was formed, the
     configuration of the soft parts of the islands and
     continents was fixed, action subsided, and the present state
     of things obtained. Man resumed his residence, but with loss
     of the mammoth and its companions. The reindeer now
     constituted the type of a state of things which lasted down
     to the historic period, without any other from that time to
     this. * * *

     "Chronologists are agreed that about 2000 years B.C. Abraham
     migrated from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and that at this time
     Egypt at least was old in civilization. Beyond this we have
     no positive scale of time in Scripture; for it is evident,
     from the narrative itself, that the latter does not cover
     the whole time. * * *

     "Ussher estimates from Scripture the creation of man as
     about 2000 years before this. During the latter portion of
     this time civilization was proceeding under settled
     governments in the East, interrupted, says the record and
     tradition, by a flood. * * *

     "So Lucretius:

        'Thus, too, the insurgent waters once o'erpowered,
        As fables tell, and deluged many a state;
        Till, in its turn, the congregated waves
        By cause more potent conquered, heaven restrain'd
        Its ceaseless torrents, and the flood decreased.'

     Barbarism covered the whole Western world; neither in the
     2000 years before Abraham, nor in the 2000 years afterward,
     have we any light reflected from these regions to the East.
     In this 4000 years, or in the somewhat longer period which
     probably will be ultimately settled as warranted by the
     record, we place hypothetically all the phenomena of the
     later mammalian age, including the introduction of man as a
     hunter, the first occupation of the caves by him also, the
     diluvial phenomena of the wide valleys, the oscillations and
     disturbances of the earth's crust, alterations in the
     coast-line, and physical settlement of the country; after
     this comes the second occupation of the caves. In short, if
     we say that, hypothetically, the whole first known human age
     occurred within 4000 years of the Christian era, no one can
     say that it is geologically impossible. Who can say that
     1643 years is insufficient to comprise all the phenomena
     that occurred during a period confessedly characterized by
     more rapid and extensive action than at present--a period
     during which ruptures in the earth's crust, oscillations,
     and permanent uprising took place, and the intermittent
     action of violent floods caused the deposit and disturbance
     and resettlement of the gravels and brick-earth? There is
     nothing to interfere with the prevalent opinion that man was
     introduced here while the glacial period was dying out, and
     while it was still furnishing flood-waters sufficient to
     scour and re-sort the gravels of the valleys down which they
     flowed. This supposition may be extended to both the great
     continents."

To conclude: Our mode of reconciling the Mosaic history of
antediluvian man with the disclosures of the gravels and caves would
be to identify Palæocosmic man, or man of the mammoth age, with
antediluvian man; to suppose that the changes which closed his
existence in Europe as well as Western Asia were those recorded in the
Noachian deluge; and that the second colonization of the diminished
and shrunken Europe of the modern period was effected by the
descendants of Noah. It may be asked--Must we suppose that the Adam of
the Bible was of the type of the coarsely featured and gigantic men of
the European caverns? I would answer--Not precisely so; but it is
quite possible that Adam may have been Turanian in feature. We should
certainly suppose him to have been a man well developed in brain and
muscle. Such men as those found in the caves would rather represent
the ruder "Nephelim," the "giants that were in those days," than Adam
in Eden. Farther, the new colonists of Europe after the deluge would
no doubt be a very rude and somewhat degenerate branch of Noachidæ,
probably driven before more powerful tribes in the course of the
dispersion. The higher races of both periods are probably to be looked
for in Western Asia; but even there we must expect to find cave men
like those whose remains were found by Tristram in the caves near
Tyre, and like the Horim of Moses; and we must also expect to find the
antediluvian age in the main an age of stone everywhere, and its arts,
except in certain great centres of population, perhaps not more
advanced than those of the Polynesians, or those of the agricultural
American tribes before the discovery of America by Columbus.

As a geologist, and as one who has been in the main of the school of
Lyell, and after having observed with much care the deposits of the
more modern periods on both sides of the Atlantic, I have from the
first dissented from those of my scientific brethren who have
unhesitatingly given their adhesion to the long periods claimed for
human history, and have maintained that their hasty conclusions on
this subject must bring geological reasoning into disrepute, and react
injuriously on our noble science. We require to make great demands on
time for the prehuman periods of the earth's history, but not more
than sacred history is willing to allow for the modern or human age.



CHAPTER XV.

COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS.


     "Lo, these are but the outlines of his ways, and how faint
     the whisper which we hear of him--the thunder of his power
     who could understand?"--Job xxvi., 14.


In the preceding pages I have, as far as possible, avoided that mode
of treating my subject which was wont to be expressed as the
"reconciliation" of Scripture and Natural Science, and have followed
the direct guidance of the Mosaic record, only turning aside where
some apt illustration or coincidence could be perceived. In the
present chapter I propose to inquire what the science of the earth
teaches on these same subjects, and to point out certain manifest and
remarkable correspondences between these teachings and those of
revelation. Here I know that I enter on dangerous ground, and that if
I have been so fortunate as to carry the intelligent reader with me
thus far, I may chance to lose him now. The Hebrew Scriptures are
common property; no one can fairly deny me the right to study them,
even though I do so in no clerical or theological capacity; and even
if I should appear extreme in some of my views, or venture to be
almost as enthusiastic as the commentators of Homer, Shakespeare, or
Dante, I can not be very severely blamed. But the direct comparison of
these ancient records with results of modern science is obnoxious to
many minds on different grounds; and all the more so that so few men
are at once students both of nature and revelation. There are, as
yet, but few even of educated men whose range of study has included
any thing that is practical or useful either in Hebrew literature or
geological science. That slipshod Christianity which contents itself
with supposing that conclusions which are false in nature may be true
in theology is mere superstition or professional priestcraft, and has
nothing in common with the Bible; but there are still multitudes of
good men, trained in the verbal and abstract learning which at one
time constituted nearly the whole of education, who regard geology as
a mass of crude hypotheses destitute of coherence, a perpetual
battle-ground of conflicting opinions, all destined in time to be
swept away. It must be admitted, too, that from the nature of
geological evidence, and from the liability to error in details, the
solidity of its conclusions is not likely soon to be appreciated as
fully as is desirable by the common mind; while it is unfortunately
true that the outskirts of science are infested with hosts of
half-informed and superficial writers, who state these conclusions
incorrectly, or apply them in an unreasonable manner to matters on
which they have no bearing. On the other hand, the geologist, fully
aware of the substantial nature of the foundations of the science of
the earth, regards it as little less than absurd to find parallels to
its principles in an ancient theological work. Still there are
possible meeting-points of things so dissimilar as Bible lore and
geological exploration. If man is a being connected on the one hand
with material nature, and on the other with the spiritual essence of
the Creator; if that Creator has given to man powers of exploring and
comprehending his plans in the universe, and at the same time has
condescended to reveal to him directly his will on certain points,
there is nothing unphilosophical or improbable in the supposition that
the same truths may be struck out on the one hand by the action of
the human mind on nature, and on the other by the action of the Divine
mind on that of man. The highest and most nobly constituted minds have
ever been striving to scale heaven above and dive into the earth
below, that they may extort from them the secret of their origin, and
may find what are the privileges and destinies of man himself. They
have learned much; and if through other gifted minds, and through his
heaven-descended Word and Spirit, God has condescended to reveal
himself, there must surely be much in common in that which God's works
teach to earnest inquirers and that which he directly makes known. But
few of our greatest thinkers, whether on nature or theology, have
reached the firm ground of this higher probability; or if they have
reached it, have dreaded the scorn of the half-learned too much to
utter their convictions. Still this is a position which the
enlightened Christian and student of nature must be prepared to
occupy, humbly and with admission of much ignorance and incapacity,
but with bold assertion of the truth that there are meeting-points of
nature and revelation which afford legitimate subjects of study.

In entering on these subjects, we may receive certain great truths in
reference to the history of the earth as established by geological
evidence. In the present rapidly progressive state of the science,
however, it is by no means easy to separate its assured and settled
results from those that have been founded on too hasty generalization,
or are yet immature; and at the same time to avoid overlooking new and
important truths, sufficiently established, yet not known in all their
dimensions. In the following summary I shall endeavor to present to
the reader only well-ascertained general truths, without indulging in
those deviations from accuracy for effect too often met with in
popular books. On the other hand, we have already found that the
Scriptures enunciate distinct doctrines on many points relating to the
earth's early history, to which it will here be necessary merely to
refer in general terms. Let us in the first place shortly consider the
conclusions of geology as to the origin and progress of creation.

1. The widest and most important generalization of modern geology is
that all the materials of the earth's crust, to the greatest depth
that man can reach, either by actual excavation or inference from
superficial arrangements, are of such a nature as to prove that they
are not, in their present state, original portions of the earth's
structure; but that they are the results of the operation, during long
periods, of the causes of change--whether mechanical, chemical, or
vital--now in operation, on the land, in the seas, and in the interior
of the earth. For example, the most common rocks of our continents are
conglomerates, sandstones, shales, and slates; all of which are made
up of the débris of older rocks broken down into gravel, sand, or mud,
and then re-cemented. To these we may add limestones, which have been
made up by the accumulation of corals and shells, or by deposits from
calcareous springs; coal, composed of vegetable matter; and granite,
syenite, greenstone, and trap, which are molten rocks formed in the
manner of modern lavas. So general has been this sorting, altering,
and disturbance of the substance of the earth's crust, that, though we
know its structure over large portions of our continents to the depth
of several miles, the geologist can point to no instance of a truly
primitive rock which can be affirmed to have remained unchanged and
_in situ_ since the beginning.

"All are aware that the solid parts of the earth consist of distinct
substances, such as clay, chalk, sand, limestone, coal, slate,
granite, and the like; but, previously to observation, it is commonly
imagined that all had remained from the first in the state in which we
now see them--that they were created in their present forms and in
their present position. The geologist now comes to a different
conclusion; discovering proofs that the external parts of the earth
were not all produced in the beginning of things in the state in which
we now behold them, nor in an instant of time. On the contrary, he can
show that they have acquired their actual condition and configuration
gradually and at successive periods, during each of which distinct
races of living beings have flourished on the land and in the waters;
the remains of these creatures lying buried in the crust of the
earth."[140]

2. Having ascertained that the rocks of the earth have thus been
produced by secondary causes, we next affirm, on the evidence of
geology, that a distinct order of succession of these deposits can be
ascertained; and though there are innumerable local variations in the
nature of the rocks formed at the same period, yet there is, on the
great scale, a regular sequence of formations over the whole earth.
This succession is of the greatest importance in the case of aqueous
rocks, or those formed in water; and it is evident that in the case of
beds of sand, clay, etc., deposited in this way, the upper must be the
more recent of any two layers. This simple principle, complicated in
various ways by the fractures and disturbances to which the beds have
been subjected, forms the basis of the succession of "formations" in
geology as deduced from stratigraphical evidence.

3. This regular series of formations would be of little value as a
history of the earth were it not that nearly all the aqueous rocks
contain remains of the contemporary animals and plants. Ever since
the earth began to be tenanted by organized beings, the various
accumulations formed in the bottoms of seas and at the mouths of
rivers have entombed remains of marine animals, more especially their
harder parts, as shells, corals, and bones, and also fragments or
entire specimens of land animals and plants. Hence, in any rock of
aqueous formation, we may find fossil remains of the living creatures
that existed in the waters in which that rock was accumulated or on
the neighboring land. If in the process of building up the continents,
the same locality constituted in succession a part of the bottom of
the ocean, of an inland sea, of an estuary, and a lake, we should find
in the fossil remains entombed in the deposits of that place evidences
of these various conditions; and thus a somewhat curious history of
local changes might be obtained. Geology affords more extensive
disclosures of this nature. It shows that as we descend into the older
formations we gradually lose sight of the existing animals and plants,
and find the remains of others not now existing; and these, in turn,
themselves disappear, and were preceded by others; so that the whole
living population of the earth appears to have been several times
renewed prior to the beginning of the present order of things. This
seems farther to have occurred in a slow and gradual manner, not by
successive great cataclysms or clearances of the surface of the earth,
followed by wholesale renewal. This doctrine of geological uniformity
is, however, to be understood as limited by the equally certain fact
that there has been progress and advance, both in the inorganic
arrangements of the earth's surface and in its organized inhabitants,
and that there have, in geological as in historical times, been local
cataclysms and convulsions, as those of earthquakes and volcanoes,
often on a very extensive scale. Farther, there are good reasons to
believe that there have been alternations of cold or glacial periods
and of warm periods, of periods of subsidence and re-elevation, and of
periods of greater and less activity of certain of the leading agents
of geological change. But as to the extent of these differences and
their bearing on the geological history, there is still much
uncertainty and difference of opinion.[141]

In the sediment _now_ accumulating in the bottom of the waters are
being buried remains of the existing animals and plants. A geological
formation is being produced, and it contains the skeletons and other
solid parts of a vast variety of creatures belonging to all climates,
and which have lived on land as well as in fresh and salt water. Let
us now suppose that by a series of changes, sudden or gradual, all the
present organized beings were swept away, and that, when the earth was
renewed by the power of the Creator, a new race of intelligent beings
could explore those parts of the former sea basins that had been
elevated into land. They would find the remains of multitudes of
creatures not existing in their time; and by the presence of these
they could distinguish the deposits of the former period from those
that belonged to their own. They could also compare these remains with
the corresponding parts of creatures which were their own
contemporaries, and could thus infer the circumstances in which they
had lived, the modes of subsistence for which they had been adapted,
and the changes in the distribution of land and water and other
physical conditions which had occurred. This, then, is precisely the
place which fossil organic remains occupy in modern geology, except
that our present system of nature rests on the ruins, not of one
previous system, but of several.

4. By the aid of the superposition of deposits and their organic
remains, geology can divide the history of the earth into distinct
periods. These periods are not separated by merely arbitrary
boundaries, but to some extent mark important eras in the progress of
our earth; though they usually pass into each other at their confines,
and the nature of the evidence prevents us from ascertaining the
precise length of the periods themselves, or the intervals in time
which may separate the several monuments by which they are
distinguished. The following table will serve to give an idea of the
arrangement at present generally received, with some of the more
important facts in the succession of animal and vegetable life, as
connected with our present subject. It commences with the oldest
periods known to geology, and gives in the animal and vegetable
kingdoms the _first appearance_ of each class, with a few notes of the
subsequent history of the principal forms. It must, however, be borne
in mind that farther discoveries may extend some classes farther back
than we at present know them, and that a more detailed table,
descending to orders and families, would give a more precise view of
the succession of life. Farther, the several geological formations
would admit of much subdivision, and are represented locally by
various kinds and different thicknesses of sediment.[142]

TABULAR VIEW OF THE SUCCESSION OF GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS AND
ORGANIC REMAINS.

  ====================================================================
  PERIODS. |    SYSTEMS OF      |   CLASSES OF ANIMALS.   |  PLANTS.
           |    FORMATIONS.     |                         |
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
  I.       |Ancient Metamorphic |Eozoon and probably other|Graphite and
  EOZOIC   |rocks of            | Protozoa.               |Iron Ores
  PERIOD.  |Scandinavia,        |                         |representing
           |Canada, etc.        |                         |Vegetable
           |                    |                         |Matter.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
  II.      |Cambrian.           |_Radiata_--Hydrozoa,     |Algæ.
  PRIMARY  |                    | Echinodermata           |
  OR       |                    | (Cystideans).           |
  PALÆOZOIC|                    |_Mollusca_--Brachiopoda, |
  PERIOD.  |                    | Lamellibranchiata,      |
           |                    | Gasteropoda, Cephalopoda|
           |                    | (Bivalve and Univalve   |
           |                    | Shell-fishes).          |
           |                    |_Articulata_--Annelida,  |
           |                    | Crustacea (Worms and    |
           |                    | Soft Shell-fishes of the|
           |                    | lower grades).          |
           |                    |                         |
           |Lower Silurian.     |_Radiata_--Anthozoa      |Algæ.
           |                    | (coral animals),        |
           |                    | Echinodermata           |
           |                    | (sea stars, etc.).      |
           |                    |_Mollusca_--Polyzoa,     |
           |                    | Tunicata.               |
           |                    |Other Mollusks and       |
           |                    | Articulates as before.  |
           |                    |                         |
           |Upper Silurian.     |Radiates, Mollusks, and  |Acrogenous
           |                    | Articulates as before.  |Land plants.
           |                    |_Vertebrata_--First      |
           |                    | Ganoid and Placoid      |
           |                    | Fishes.                 |
           |                    |                         |
           |Erian or Devonian.  |_Articulata_--Insects    |Acrogens
           |                    | and higher Crustaceans. |and
           |                    |_Vertebrata_--Fishes,    |Gymnosperms.
           |                    | Ganoid and Placoid.     |
           |                    |                         |
           |Carboniferous.      |_Mollusca_--Pulmonata    |Acrogens,
           |                    | (Land Snails).          |Gymnosperms,
           |                    |_Articulata_--Myriapods, |Endogens?
           |                    | Arachnidans (Gallyworms,|
           |                    | Spiders and Scorpions). |
           |                    |_Vertebrata_--Batrachians|
           |                    | or Amphibians prevalent.|
           |                    |                         |
           |Permian.            |_Vertebrata_--Lacertian  |
           |                    | or Lizard-like          |
           |                    | Reptiles.               |
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
  III.     |Triassic.           |_Vertebrata_--Higher     |
  SECONDARY|                    |  Reptiles prevalent;    |
  OR       |                    |  Marsupial Mammals.     |
  MESOZOIC |                    |                         |
  PERIOD.  |Jurassic.           |_Vertebrata_--Great      |Endogenous
           |                    |  prevalence of higher   |trees.
           |                    |  Reptiles; Fishes,      |
           |                    |  homocerque; Earliest   |
           |                    |  Birds.                 |
           |                    |                         |
           |Cretaceous.         |_Vertebrata_--Decadence  |Angiospermous
           |                    | of reign of Reptiles;   |Exogens.
           |                    | Ordinary  Bony Fishes.  |
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
  IV.      |Eocene.             |_Vertebrata_--Mammals    |Exogens
  TERTIARY |                    |  prevalent, especially  |prevalent.
  OR       |                    |  Pachyderms; Cycloid    |
  CAINOZOIC|                    |  and Ctenoid Fishes     |
  PERIOD.  |                    |  prevalent.             |
           |                    |First _living_           |Some Modern
           |                    |  Invertebrates.         |Species
           |                    |                         |appear.
           |Miocene.            |Living Invertebrates more|
           |                    |  numerous.              |
           |                    |                         |
           |Pliocene.           |Living Invertebrates     |
           |                    |  still  more numerous.  |
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
  V.       |Post-Pliocene.      |First living Mammals.    |Existing
  POST-    |                    |Living Invertebrates     |vegetation.
  TERTIARY |                    |  prevalent.             |
  OR       |                    |                         |
  MODERN   |Post-Glacial        |Man and living Mammals.  |
  PERIOD.  |and Recent.         |                         |
  ====================================================================


The oldest fossil remains known are the Protozoa of the Laurentian
rocks. In the succeeding Cambrian or Primordial rocks we find many
extinct species of zoophytes, shell-fish, and crustaceans, and the
algæ or sea-weeds. In the Palæozoic period as a whole, though numerous
Batrachian or Amphibian reptiles existed toward its close, the higher
orders of fishes seem to have been the dominant tribe of animals; and
vegetation was nearly limited to cryptogams and gymnosperms. In the
Mesozoic period, though small mammalia had been created, large
terrestrial and marine reptiles were the ruling race, and fishes
occupied a subordinate position; while, at the close, the higher
orders of plants took a prominent place. In the Tertiary and Modern
eras, the mammalia, with man, have assumed the highest or dominant
position in nature.

On this series of groups, and the succession of living beings, Sir. C.
Lyell remarks "It is not pretended that the principal sections called
Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary are of equivalent importance, or that
the subordinate groups comprise monuments relating to equal portions
of time or of the earth's history. But we can assert that they each
relate to successive periods, during which certain animals and plants,
for the most part peculiar to their respective eras, flourished, and
during which different kinds of sediment were deposited."

We have already, in previous chapters, noticed the parallelism of the
succession of life in the earth as revealed in Genesis with that
disclosed by geology; but this subject must be farther referred to in
the sequel, and in the mean time the reader may compare for himself
the succession of life in the table with that in the later creative
days.

5. The lapse of time embraced in the geological history of the earth
is enormous. Fully to appreciate this it is necessary to study the
science in detail, and to explore its phenomena as disclosed in actual
nature. A few facts, however, out of hundreds which might have been
selected, will suffice to indicate the state of the case. The delta
and alluvial plain of the Mississippi have an area of more than 12,000
square miles, and must have an average depth of about 800 feet. At the
present rate of conveyance of sediment by the river, it has been
calculated that a period of about 33,000 years is implied in the
deposition of this comparatively modern formation.[143] To be quite
safe, let us take 30,000 years, and add 50,000 more for the remainder
of the Post-pliocene or Quaternary. We may then safely multiply this
number by forty, for the length of the Tertiary period. We may add
three times as much for the Mesozoic period, and this will be far
under the truth. It will then be quite safe to assume that the
Palæozoic period was three times as long as the Mesozoic and Tertiary
together. This would give altogether, say, 51,280,000 years for the
whole of geological time from the beginning of the Palæozoic, leaving
the duration of the Eozoic and previous periods undetermined, but
requiring perhaps nearly as much time. Great though these demands may
seem, they would be probably far below the rigid requirements of the
case were it not for the probability that the present rate of
transference of material by the great river is less than it was in
Post-pliocene and early modern times. This might enable us to reduce
our estimate considerably within the scope of a hundred millions of
years.[144] Take another illustration from an older formation. An
excellent coast section at the Joggins, in Nova Scotia, exhibits in
the coal formation proper a series of beds with erect trunks and roots
of trees _in situ_, amounting to nearly 100. About 100 forests have
successively grown, partially decayed, and been entombed in muddy and
sandy sediment. In the same section, including in all about 14,000
feet of beds, there are 76 seams of coal, each of which can be proved
to have taken more time for its accumulation than that required for
the growth of a forest. Supposing all these separate fossil soils and
coals to have been formed with the greatest possible rapidity, forty
thousand years would be a very moderate calculation for this portion
of the Carboniferous system; and for aught that we know thousands of
years may be represented by a single fossil soil. But this is the age
of only one member of the Carboniferous system, itself only a member
of the great Palæozoic group, and we have made no allowance for the
abrasion from previous rocks and deposition of the immense mass of
sandy and muddy sediment in which the coals and forests are imbedded,
and which is vastly greater than the deltas of the largest modern
rivers.

Considerations of a physical rather than of a geological nature also
give us long periods for the probable existence of the earth, though
they serve to correct somewhat the extravagant estimates of some
theorists. Croll has based an interesting calculation on the amount of
erosion of the land by rivers. That of the Mississippi amounts to one
foot in 6000 years. That of the Ganges gives one foot in 2358 years,
the average being, say, one foot in 4179 years. Some smaller rivers
give a much shorter time; but the average of two great rivers, one
draining a very large area of the western and another of the eastern
hemisphere, and in very different climates and geographical
conditions, will probably be the most reliable datum. Croll, however,
prefers the Mississippi rate.[145] If we estimate the proportion of
land to water as 576 to 1390, this will give for the entire area of
the ocean a rate of deposition of one foot in 14,400 years. Now the
entire thickness of all the stratified rocks is estimated at 72,000
feet; and at this rate the enormous time of 1,036,800,000 years would
be necessary. But we have no right to assume that deposition has been
going on uniformly over the entire sea-bottom. On the contrary, the
greater part of it takes place within a belt of about one hundred
miles from the coasts, and the deposit of calcareous and other matters
over the remainder will scarcely make up for the portions of this belt
on which no deposit is taking place. This will give an area of deposit
of about 11,650,000 square miles, consequently only one twelfth of the
above time, or about 86,400,000 years, would be required. This can be
but a very rough calculation; but it has the merit of squaring very
nearly with the calculations derived from physical considerations,
more especially by Sir William Thomson, which limit the possible
existence of the earth's solid crust to one hundred millions of years.
Similar conclusions have also been deduced from what is known of the
physical constitution of the sun. Croll's own ingenious theory of
glacial periods produced by the varying eccentricity of the earth's
orbit, along with the precession of the equinoxes, would give,
according to him, about 80,000 years ago for the date of the Glacial
period, and for the beginning of the Tertiary period about 3,000,000
years ago.

It would thus appear that physical and geological science conspire in
assigning a great antiquity to the earth, but not an unlimited
antiquity. They agree in restricting the ages that have elapsed since
the introduction of life within one hundred millions of years. I
confess, however, that a consideration of the fact that all our
geological measures of erosion and deposition seem to be based on
cases which refer to what may be termed minimum action leads me to
believe that the actual time will fall very far within this limit. For
example, if we were to suppose an elevation of the land drained by the
Mississippi even to a small amount, its cutting power would be vastly
increased for a long time. The same effect would result from a
subsidence and re-elevation, or from any cause increasing the amount
of rainfall or deposition of snows in winter. Now we know that such
things have occurred in the past, while we have no reason to believe
that the amount of action was ever much less than at present. Similar
considerations apply to nearly all our geological measures of time;
and there has been a tendency to exaggerate these, as if geologists
were entitled to demand unlimited time, and to stretch the doctrine of
uniformity to the utmost.

6. During the whole time referred to by geology, the great laws both
of inorganic and organic nature have been the same as at present. The
evidence of light and darkness, of sunshine and shower, of summer and
winter, and of all the known igneous and aqueous causes of change,
extends back almost, and in some of these cases altogether, to the
beginning of the Palæozoic period. In like manner the animals and
plants of the oldest rocks are constructed on the same physiological
and anatomical principles with existing tribes, and they can be
arranged in the same genera, orders, or classes, though specifically
distinct. The revolutions of the globe have involved no change of the
general laws of matter; and though it is possible that geology has
carried us back to the time when the laws that regulate life began to
operate, it does not show that they were less perfect than now, and it
indicates no trace of the beginning of the inorganic laws. Geological
changes have resulted not from the institution of new laws, but from
new _dispositions_, under existing laws and general arrangements.
There is every reason to believe that in the inorganic world these
dispositions have required no new creative interpositions during the
time to which geology refers, but merely the continued action of the
properties bestowed on matter when first produced. In the organic
world the case is different.

7. In the succession of animal and vegetable life we find a constant
improvement and advance by the introduction of new types of being. We
have already given a general outline of this advancement of organized
nature. It has consisted in the introduction, from time to time, of
new and more highly organized beings, so as at once to increase the
variety of nature, and to provide for the elevation of the summit of
the graduated scale of life to higher and higher points. At the same
time, in each successive period, it has been the law of creation that
the forms of life then dominant should attain their highest
development, and should then be succeeded by more advanced types. For
instance, in the earlier Palæozoic period we have molluscous animals
and fishes, then apparently the highest forms of life, appearing with
a very advanced organization, not surpassed, if even equalled, in
modern times. In the latter part of the same period, some lower forms
of vegetable life, now restricted to a comparatively humble place,
were employed to constitute magnificent forests. In the Mesozoic
period, again, reptiles attained to their highest point in
organization and variety of form and employment, while mammalia had as
yet scarcely appeared.[146]

8. If now we ask in what manner the succession of life on the earth
has been produced, two apparently opposite hypotheses rise before us.
The one is that of introduction of new species by creative acts, the
other that of development of new species by changes of those
previously existing. In one respect the difference of these views is
little more than one of expression, for the meaning of the statements
depends on what we understand by a species and what by a mere varietal
form, and also on what we understand by creation and what we mean by
development. Twenty years ago nearly all geologists were believers in
creation, though it must be admitted without precisely understanding
what they meant by the term. Now, the great impression produced by
Darwin's speculations and the prevalence of the evolutionist
philosophy have produced a leaning in the other direction. More
recently, however, the absurdities into which the extreme
evolutionists find themselves driven have produced a reaction; and we
hope that views consistent with revelation, or at least with Theism,
will again be in the ascendant, and that present controversies will
serve to give more precise and definite views than heretofore of the
relation of nature to God. As illustrations of the opinions prevalent
before the rise of the development theory, I may quote from Pictet and
Bronn, two of the most eminent palæontologists.

Pictet says, in the introduction to his "Traité de Paléontologie:" "It
seems to me impossible that we should admit, as an explanation of the
phenomena of successive faunas, the passage of species into one
another; the limits of such transitions of species, even supposing
that the lapse of a vast period of time may have given them a
character of reality much greater than that which the study of
existing nature leads us to suppose, are still infinitely within those
differences which distinguish two successive faunas. Lastly, we can
least of all account by this theory for the appearance of new _types_,
to explain the introduction of which we must necessarily, in the
present state of science, recur to the idea of distinct creations
posterior to the first."

The following are the general conclusions of Bronn, in his elaborate
and most valuable essay, presented to the French Academy in 1856, as
summarized in a notice of the work in the Journal of the Geological
Society:

"1. The first productions of this power in the oldest Neptunian strata
of the earth consisted of Plants, Zoophytes, Mollusks, Crustaceans,
and perhaps even Fish; the simultaneous appearance of which,
therefore, contradicts the assumption that the more perfect organic
forms arose out of the gradual transformation in time of the more
imperfect forms.

"2. The same power which produced the first organic forms has
continued to operate in intensively as well as extensively increasing
activity during the whole subsequent geological period, up to the
final appearance of man; but here also can no traces be found of a
gradual transformation of old species and genera into new; but the new
have everywhere appeared as new without the co-operation of the
former.

"3. In the succession of the different forms of plants and animals, a
certain regular course and plan is perceptible, which is quite
independent of chance. While all species possess only a limited
duration, and must sooner or later disappear, they make way for
subsequent new ones, which not only almost always offer an equivalent,
in number, organization, and duties to be performed, for those which
have disappeared, but which are also generally more varied, and
therefore more perfect, and always maintain an equilibrium with each
other in their stage of organization, their mode of life, and
functions. There always exists, therefore, a certain fixed relation
between the newly arising and the disappearing forms of organic life.

"4. A similar relation necessarily exists between the newly arising
organic forms and the outward conditions of life which prevailed at
their first appearance on the earth's surface, or at the place of
their appearance.

"5. A fixed plan appears to be the basis of the whole series of
development of organic forms, in so far as man makes his first
appearance at its close, when he finds every thing prepared that is
necessary to his own existence and to his progressive development and
improvement--which would not have been possible had he appeared at a
former period.

"6. Such a regular progress in carrying out the same plan from the
beginning to the end of a period of millions of years can only be
accounted for in one of two ways. Either this course of successive
development during millions of years has been the regular immediate
result of the systematic action of a conscious Creator, who on every
occasion settled and carried out not only the order of appearance,
formation, organization, and terrestrial object of each of the
countless numbers of species of plants and animals, but also the
number of the first individuals, the place of their settlement in
every instance, although it was in his power to create every thing at
once--or there existed some natural power hitherto entirely unknown to
us, which by means of its own laws formed the species of plants and
animals, and arranged and regulated all those countless individual
conditions; which power, however, must in this case have stood in the
most immediate connection with, and in perfect subordination to, those
powers which caused the gradually progressing perfection of the crust
of the earth, and the gradual development of the outward conditions of
life for the constantly increasing numbers and higher classes of
organic forms in consequence of this perfection. Only in this way can
we explain how the development of the organic world could have
regularly kept pace with that of the inorganic. Such a power, although
we know it not, would not only be in perfect accordance with all the
other functions of nature, but the Creator, who regulated the
development of organic nature by means of such a force so implanted in
it, as he guides that of the inorganic world by the mere co-operation
of attraction and affinity, must appear to us more exalted and
imposing than if we assumed that he must always be giving the same
care to the introduction and change of the vegetable and animal world
on the surface of the earth as a gardener daily bestows on each
individual plant in the arrangement of his garden.

"7. We therefore believe that all species of plants and animals were
originally produced by some natural power unknown to us, and not by
transformation from a few original forms, and that that power was in
the closest and most necessary connection with those powers and
circumstances which effected the perfection of the earth's surface."

Barrande also, probably the greatest living palæontologist of Europe,
adheres substantially to these views; as Agassiz did, and I believe
Hall and Dana still do, in America.

I have, for my own part, seen no reason to dissent from these views,
though in the sequel I shall endeavor to present some considerations
which may tend to reconcile with them some of the hypotheses of a
contrary nature now held. It must be admitted, however, that the
majority of geologists and biologists have abandoned these views of
Pictet and Bronn, and have gone over to the evolutionist philosophy,
with how little reason I have endeavored to show elsewhere,[147] and
shall farther illustrate in the Appendix. Let it be observed, however,
that even evolution does not affect the grand idea of the unity of
nature, or the fact that the plan of the Creator in the organic world
was so vast that it required the whole duration of our planet, in all
its stages of physical existence, to embrace the whole. There is but
one system of organic nature; but, to exhibit the whole of it, not
only all the climates and conditions now existing are required, but
those also of all past geological periods. Further, the progress of
nature being mainly in the direction of differentiation of functions
once combined, it has a limit backward in the most general forms and
conditions, and forward in the most specialized. This is the history
of the individual and probably also of the type, of the world itself
and of the universe; and for this reason material nature necessarily
lacks the eternity of its author.

It appears, from the above facts and reasonings, that geology informs
us--1. That the materials of our existing continents are of secondary
origin, as distinguished from primitive or coeval with the beginning.
2. That a chronological order of formation of these rocks can be made
out. 3. That the fossil remains contained in the rocks constitute a
chronology of animal and vegetable existence. 4. That the history of
the earth may be divided in this way into distinct periods, all
pre-Adamite. 5. That the pre-Adamite periods were of enormous
duration. 6. That during these periods the existing general laws of
nature were in force, though the dispositions of inorganic nature were
different in different periods, and the animals and plants of
successive periods were also different from each other. 7. The
introduction of new species of animals and of plants, while indicating
advance in the perfection of nature, does not prove spontaneous
development, but rather a definite plan and law of creation.

The parallelism of these conclusions of careful inductive inquiry into
the structure of the earth's crust, with the results which we have
already obtained from revelation, may be summed up under the following
heads:

1. Scripture and Science both testify to the great fact that there was
a beginning--a time when none of all the parts of the fabric of the
universe existed; when the Self-Existent was the sole occupant of
space. The Scriptures announce in plain terms this great truth, and
thereby rise at once high above atheism, pantheism, and materialism,
and lay a broad and sure foundation for a pure and spiritual theology.
Had the pen of inspiration written but the words, "In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth," and added no more, these words
alone would have borne the impress of their heavenly birth, and would,
if received in faith, have done much for the progress of the human
mind. These words contain a negation of hero-worship, star-worship,
animal-worship, and every other form of idolatry. They still more
emphatically deny atheism and materialism, and point upward from
nature to its spiritual Creator--the One, the Triune, the Eternal, the
Self-Existent, the All-Pervading, the Almighty. They call upon us, as
with a voice of thunder, to bow down before that Awful Being of whom
it can be said that he created the heavens and the earth. They thus
embody the whole essence of natural theology, and most appropriately
stand at the entrance of Holy Scripture, referring us to the works
which men behold, as the visible manifestation of the attributes of
the Being whose spiritual nature is unveiled in revelation. Scripture
thus begins with the announcement of a great ultimate fact, to which
science conducts us with but slow and timid steps. Yet science, and
especially geological science, can bear witness to this great truth.
The materialist, reasoning on the fancied stability of natural things,
and their inscription within invariable laws, concludes that matter
must be eternal. No, replies the geologist, certainly not in its
present form. This is but of recent origin, and was preceded by other
arrangements. Every existing species can be traced back to a time when
it was not; so can the existing continents, mountains, and seas. Under
our processes of investigation the present melts away like a dream,
and we are landed on the shores of past and unknown worlds. But I
read, says the objector, that you can see "no evidence of a beginning,
no prospect of an end." It is true, answers geology; but, in so
saying, it is not intended that the present state of things had not an
ascertained beginning, but that there has been a great and, so far as
we know, unlimited series of changes carried on under the guidance of
intelligence. These changes we have traced back very far, without
being able to say that we have reached the first. We can trace back
man and his contemporaries to their origin, and we can reach the
points at which still older dynasties of life began to exist. Knowing,
then, that all these had a beginning, we infer that if others preceded
them they also had a beginning. But, says another objector, is not the
present the child of the past? Are not all the creatures that inhabit
the earth the lineal descendants of creatures of past periods, or may
not the whole be parts of one continual succession, under the
operation of an eternal law of development? No, answers geology,
species are immutable, except within narrow limits, and do not pass
into each other, in tracing them toward their origin. On the contrary,
they appear at once in their most perfect state, and continue
unchanged till they are forced off the stage of existence to give
place to other creatures. The origin of species is a mystery, and
belongs to no natural law that has yet been established. Thus, then,
stands the case at present. Scripture asserts a beginning and a
creation. Science admits these, as far as the objects with which it is
conversant extend, and the notions of eternal succession and
spontaneous development, discountenanced both by theology and science,
are obliged to take refuge in those misty regions where modern
philosophical skepticism consorts with the shades of departed
heathenism.[148]

2. Both records exhibit the progressive character of creation, and in
much the same aspect. The Almighty might have called into existence,
by one single momentary act, a world complete in all its parts. From
both Scripture and geology we know that he has not done so--why we
need not inquire, though we can see that the process employed was
that best adapted to show forth the variety of his resources and the
infinitely varied elements that enter into the perfect whole.

The Scripture history may be viewed as dividing the progress of the
creation into two great periods, the later of which only is embraced
in the geological record. The first commences with the original chaos,
and reaches to the completion of inorganic nature on the fourth day.
Had we any geological records of the first of these periods, we should
perceive the evidences of slow mutations, tending to the sorting and
arrangement of the materials of the earth, and to produce distinct
light and darkness, sea and land, atmosphere and cloud, out of what
was originally a mixture of the whole. We should also, according to
the Scriptural record, find this period interlocking with the next, by
the intervention of a great vegetable creation, before the final
adjustment of the earth's relations to the other bodies of our system.
The second period is that of the creative development of animal life.
From both records we learn that various ranks or gradations existed
from the first introduction of animals; but that on the earlier stages
only certain of the lower forms of animals were present; that these
soon attained their highest point, and then gradually, on each
succeeding platform, the variety of nature in its higher--the
vertebrate--form increased, and the upper margin of animal life
attained a more and more elevated point, culminating at length in man;
while certain of the older forms were dropped, as no longer required.

In the oldest fossiliferous rocks next to the Eozoic, which so far
have afforded only Protozoa--e. g., the Cambrian and Lower
Silurian--we find the mollusca represented mainly by their highest
and lowest classes, by allies of the cuttle-fish and nautilus, and by
the lowest bivalve shell-fishes. The Articulata are represented by the
highest marine class--the crustaceans--and by the lowest--the worms,
which have left their marks on some of the lowest fossiliferous beds.
The Radiata, in like manner, are represented by species of their
highest class--the starfishes, etc.--and by some of their simpler
polyp forms. At the very beginning, then, of the fossiliferous series,
the three lower sub-kingdoms exhibit species of their most elevated
aquatic classes, though not of the very highest orders in those
classes. The vertebrated sub-kingdom has, as far as yet known, no
representative in these lowest beds. In the Upper Silurian series,
however, we find remains of fishes; and in the succeeding Devonian and
carboniferous rocks the fishes rise to the highest structures of their
class; and we find several species of reptiles, representing the next
of the vertebrated classes in ascending order. Here a very remarkable
fact meets us. Before the close of the Palæozoic period the three
lower sub-kingdoms and the fishes had already attained the highest
perfection of which their types are capable. Multitudes of new species
and genera were added subsequently, but none of them rising higher in
the scale of organization than those which occur in the Palæozoic
rocks. Thenceforth the progressive improvement of the animal kingdom
consisted in the addition, first of the reptile, which attained its
highest perfection and importance in the Mesozoic period, and then of
the bird and mammal, which did not attain their highest forms till the
Modern period. This geological order of animal life, it is scarcely
necessary to add, agrees perfectly with that sketched by Moses, in
which the lower types are completed at once, and the progress is
wholly in the higher.

In the inspired narrative we have already noticed some peculiarities,
as, for instance, the early appearance of a highly developed flora,
and the special mention of great reptiles in the work of the fifth
day, which correspond with the significant fact that high types of
structure appeared at the very introduction of each new group of
organized beings--a fact which, more than any other in geology, shows
that, in the organic department, elevation has always been a strictly
_creative_ work, and that there is in the constitution of animal
species no innate tendency to elevation, but that on the contrary we
should rather suspect a tendency to degeneracy and ultimate
disappearance, requiring that the fiat of the Creator should after a
time go out again to "renew the face of the earth." In the natural as
in the moral world, the only law of progress is the will and the power
of God. In one sense, however, progress in the organic world has been
dependent on, though not caused by, progress in the inorganic. We see
in geology many grounds for believing that each new tribe of animals
or plants was introduced just as the earth became fitted for it; and
even in the present world we see that regions composed of the more
ancient rocks, and not modified by subsequent disturbances, present
few of the means of support for man and the higher animals; while
those districts in which various revolutions of the earth have
accumulated fertile soils or deposited useful minerals are the chief
seats of civilization and population. In like manner we know that
those regions which the Bible informs us were the cradle of the human
race and the seats of the oldest nations are geologically among the
most recent parts of the existing continents, and were no doubt
selected by the Creator partly on that account for the birthplace of
man. We thus find that the Bible and the geologists are agreed not
only as to the fact and order of progress, but also as to its manner
and use.

3. Both records agree in affirming that since the beginning there has
been but one great system of nature. We can imagine it to have been
otherwise. Our existing nature might have been preceded by a state of
things having no connection with it. The arrangements of the earth's
surface might have been altogether different; races of creatures might
have existed having no affinity with or resemblance to those of the
present world, and we might have been able to trace no present
beneficial consequences as flowing from these past states of our
planet. Had geology made such revelations as these, the consequences
in relation to natural theology and the credibility of Scripture would
have been momentous. The Mosaic narrative could scarcely, in that
case, have been interpreted in such a manner as to accord with
geological conclusions. The questions would have arisen--Are there
more creative Powers than one? If one, is He an imperfect or
capricious being who changes his plans of operation? The divine
authority of the Scriptures, as well as the unity and perfections of
God, might thus have been involved in serious doubts. Happily for us,
there is nothing of this kind in the geological history of the earth;
as there is manifestly nothing of it in that which is revealed in
Scripture.

In the Scripture narrative each act of creation prepares for the
others, and in its consequences extends to them all. The inspired
writer announces the introduction of each new part of creation, and
then leaves it without any reference to the various phases which it
assumed as the work advanced. In the grand general view which he
takes, the land and seas first made represent those of all the
following periods. So do the first plants, the first invertebrate
animals, the first fishes, reptiles, birds, and mammals. He thus
assures us that, however long the periods represented by days of
creation, the system of nature was one from the beginning. In like
manner in the geological record each of the successive conditions of
the earth is related to those which precede and those which follow, as
part of a series. So also a uniform plan of construction pervades
organic nature, and uniform laws the inorganic world in all periods.
We can thus include in one system of natural history all animals and
plants, fossil as well as recent, and can resolve all inorganic
changes into the operation of existing laws. The former of these facts
is in its nature so remarkable as almost to warrant the belief of
special design. Naturalists had arranged the existing animals and
plants, without any reference to fossil species, in kingdoms,
sub-kingdoms, classes, orders, families, and genera. Geological
research has added a vast number of species not now existing in a
living state; yet all these fossils can be inserted within the limits
of recognized groups. We do not require to add a new kingdom,
sub-kingdom, or class; but, on the contrary, all the fossil genera and
species go into the existing divisions, in such a manner as to fill
them up precisely where they are most deficient, thus occupying what
would otherwise be gaps in the existing system of nature. The
principal difficulty which they occasion to the zoologist and botanist
is that, by filling the intervals between genera previously widely
separated, they give to the whole a degree of continuity which renders
it more difficult to decide where the boundaries separating the groups
should be placed.

We also find that the animals and plants of the earlier periods often
combined in one form powers and properties afterward separated in
distinct groups; thus in the earlier formations the sauroid fishes
unite peculiarities afterward divided between the fish and reptiles,
constituting what Agassiz has called a synthetic type. Again, the
series of creatures in time accords with the ranks which a study of
their types of structure induces the naturalist to assign them in his
system; and also within each of the great sub-kingdoms presents many
points of accordance with the progress of the embryonic development of
the individual animal. Nor is this contradictory to the statement that
the earlier representatives of types are often of high and perfect
organization, for the progress both in geological time and in the life
of the individual is so much one of specialization that an immature
animal often presents points of affinity to higher forms that
disappear in the adult. In connection with this, earlier organic forms
often appear to foreshadow and predict others that are to succeed them
in time, as the winged and marine reptiles of the Mesozoic foreshadow
the birds and cetaceans. Agassiz has admirably illustrated these links
of connection between the past and the present in the essay on
classification prefixed to his "Contributions to the Natural History
of America." In reference to "prophetic" types, he says: "They appear
now like a prophecy in those earlier times of an order of things not
possible with the earlier combinations then prevailing in the animal
kingdom, but exhibiting in a later period in a striking manner the
antecedent consideration of every step in the gradation of animals."

4. The periods into which geology divides the history of the earth are
different from those of Scripture, yet when properly understood there
is a marked correspondence. Geology refers only to the fifth and sixth
days of creation, or, at most, to these with parts of the fourth and
seventh, and it divides this portion of the work into several eras,
founded on alternations of rock formations and changes in organic
remains. The nature of geological evidence renders it probable that
many apparently well-marked breaks in the chain may result merely from
deficiency in the preserved remains; and consequently that what appear
to the geologist to be very distinct periods may in reality run
together. The only natural divisions that Scripture teaches us to look
for are those between the fifth and sixth days, and those which within
these days mark the introduction of new animal forms, as, for
instance, the great reptiles of the fifth day. We have already seen
that the beginning of the fifth day can be referred almost with
certainty to the Palæozoic period. The beginning of the sixth day may
with nearly equal certainty be referred to that of the Tertiary era.
The introduction of great reptiles and birds in the fifth day
synchronizes and corresponds with the beginning of the Mesozoic
period; and that of man at the close of the sixth day with the
commencement of the Modern era in geology. These four great
coincidences are so much more than we could have expected, in records
so very different in their nature and origin, that we need not pause
to search for others of a more obscure character. It may be well to
introduce here a tabular view of this correspondence between the
geological and Biblical periods, extending it as far as either record
can carry us, and thus giving a complete general view of the origin
and history of the world as deduced from revelation and science. In
comparing this table with that on page 330, it will be observed that
the latter refers to the last half of the creative week only, the
earlier half being occupied with physical changes which, however
probable inferentially, are not within the scope of geological
observation.

PARALLELISM OF THE SCRIPTURAL COSMOGONY WITH THE ASTRONOMICAL AND
GEOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE EARTH.

  ====================================================================
                                    |
            BIBLICAL ÆONS.          |  PERIODS DEDUCED FROM SCIENTIFIC
                                    |        CONSIDERATIONS.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
  The Beginning.                    |Creation of Matter.
                                    |
  _First Day._--Earth mantled by    |Condensation of Planetary Bodies
   the Vaporous Deep--Production    |  from a nebulous mass--Hypothesis
   of Light.                        |  of original incandescence.
                                    |
  _Second Day._--Earth covered by   |Primitive Universal Ocean, and
   the Waters--Formation of the     |  establishment of Atmospheric
   Atmosphere.                      |  equilibrium.
                                    |
  _Third Day._--Emergence of Dry    |Elevation of the land which
   Land--Introduction of            |  furnished the materials of the
   Vegetation.                      |  oldest rocks--Eozoic Period of
                                    |  Geology?
                                    |
  _Fourth Day._--Completion of the  |Metamorphism of Eozoic rocks and
   arrangements of the Solar System.|  disturbances preceding the
                                    |  Cambrian epoch--Present
                                    |  arrangement of Seasons--Dominion
                                    |  of "Existing Causes" begins.
                                    |
  _Fifth Day._--Invertebrates and   |Palæozoic Period--Reign of
   Fishes, and afterward great      |  Invertebrates and Fishes.
   Reptiles and Birds created.      |Mesozoic Period--Reign of
                                    |  Reptiles.
                                    |
  _Sixth Day._--Introduction of     |Tertiary Period--Reign of Mammals.
   Mammals--Creation of Man and     |Post-Tertiary--Existing Mammals
   Edenic Group of Animals.         |  and Man.
                                    |
  _Seventh Day._--Cessation of Work |Period of Human History.
   of Creation--Fall and Redemption |
   of Man.                          |
                                    |
  _Eighth Day._--New Heavens and    |
   Earth to succeed the Human Epoch |
   --"The Rest (Sabbath) that       |
   remains to the People of God."   |
   [149]                            |
======================================================================

_Note._--The above table is identical with that published in "Archaia"
in 1860, and which the author sees no reason now to change.


5. In both records the ocean gives birth to the first dry land, and it
is the sea that is first inhabited, yet both lead at least to the
suspicion that a state of igneous fluidity preceded the primitive
universal ocean. In Scripture the original prevalence of the ocean is
distinctly stated, and all geologists are agreed that in the early
fossiliferous periods the sea must have prevailed much more
extensively than at present. Scripture also expressly states that the
waters were the birthplace of the earliest animals, and geology has as
yet discovered in the whole Silurian series no terrestrial animal,
though marine creatures are extremely abundant; and though
air-breathing creatures are found in the later Palæozoic, they are,
with the exception of insects, of that semi-amphibious character which
is proper to alluvial flats and the deltas of rivers. It is true that
the negative evidence collected by geology does not render it
altogether impossible that terrestrial animals, even mammals, may have
existed in the earliest periods; yet there are, as already pointed
out, some positive indications opposed to this. The Scripture,
however, commits itself to the statement that the higher land animals
did not exist so early, though it must be observed that there is
nothing in the Mosaic narrative adverse to the existence of birds,
insects, and reptiles in the earlier Palæozoic periods. I have said
that the Bible, which informs us of a universal ocean preceding the
existence of land, also gives indications of a still earlier period of
igneous fluidity or gaseous expansion. Geology also and astronomy have
their reasonings and speculations as to the prevalence of such
conditions. Here, however, both records become dim and obscure, though
it is evident that both point in the same direction, and combine those
aqueous and igneous origins which in the last century afforded so
fertile ground of one-sided dispute.

6. Both records concur in maintaining what is usually termed the
doctrine of existing causes in geology. Scripture and geology alike
show that since the beginning of the fifth day, or Palæozoic period,
the inorganic world has continued under the dominion of the same
causes that now regulate its changes and processes. The sacred
narrative gives no hint of any creative interposition in this
department after the fourth day; and geology assures us that all the
rocks with which it is acquainted have been produced by the same
causes that are now throwing down detritus in the bottom of the
waters, or bringing up volcanic products from the interior of the
earth. This grand generalization, therefore, first worked out in
modern times by Sir Charles Lyell, from a laborious collection of the
changes occurring in the present state of the world, was, as a
doctrine of divine revelation, announced more than three thousand
years ago by the Hebrew lawgiver; not for scientific purposes, but as
a part of the theology of the Hebrew monotheism.

7. Both records agree in assuring us that death prevailed in the world
ever since animals were introduced. The punishment threatened to Adam,
and considerations connected with man's state of innocence, have led
to the belief that the Bible teaches that the lower animals, as well
as man, were exempt from death before the fall. When, however, we find
the great _tanninim_, or crocodilian reptiles, created in the fifth
day, and beasts of prey on the sixth, we need entertain no doubt on
the subject, in so far as Scripture is concerned. The geological
record is equally explicit. Carnivorous creatures, with the most
formidable powers of destruction, have left their remains in all parts
of the geological series; and indeed, up to the introduction of man,
the carnivorous fishes, reptiles, and quadrupeds were the lords and
tyrants of the earth. There can be little doubt, however, that the
introduction of man was the beginning of a change in this respect. A
creature destitute of offensive weapons, and subsisting on fruits, was
to rule by the power of intellect. As already hinted, it is probable
that in Eden he was surrounded by a group of inoffensive animals, and
that those creatures which he had cause to dread would have
disappeared as he extended his dominion. In this way the law of
violent death and destruction which prevailed under the dynasties of
the fish, the reptile, and the carnivorous mammifer would ultimately
have been abrogated; and under the milder sway of man life and peace
would have reigned in a manner to which our knowledge of pre-Adamite
and present nature may afford no adequate key. Be this as it may, on
the important point of the original prevalence of death among the
lower animals both records are at one.

8. In the department of "final causes," as they have been termed,
Scripture and geology unite in affording large and interesting views.
They illustrate the procedure of the All-wise Creator during a long
succession of ages, and thus enable us to see the effects of any of
his laws, not only at one time, but in far distant periods. To reject
the consideration of this peculiarity of geological science would be
the extremest folly, and would involve at once a misinterpretation of
the geologic record and a denial of the agency of an intelligent
Designer as revealed in Scripture, and indicated by the succession of
beings. Many of the past changes of the earth acquire their full
significance only when taken in connection with the present wants of
the earth's inhabitants; and along the whole course of the geological
history the creatures that we meet with are equally rich in the
evidences of nice adaptation to circumstances and wonderful
contrivances for special ends, with their modern representatives. As
an example of the former, how wonderful is the connection of the
great vegetable accumulations of the ancient coal swamps, and the
bands and nodules of iron-stone which were separated from the
ferruginous sands or clays in their vicinity by the action of this
very vegetable matter, with the whole fabric of modern civilization,
and especially with the prosperity of that race which, in our time,
stands in the front of the world's progress. In a very ancient period,
wide swamps and deltas, teeming with vegetable life, and which, if
they now existed, would be but pestilent breeders of miasmata, spread
over large tracts of the northern hemisphere, on which marine animals
had previously accumulated thick sheets of limestone. Vast beds of
vegetable matter were collected by growth in these swamps, and the
waste particles that passed off in the form of organic acids were
employed in concentrating the oxide of iron in underlying clays and
sands. In the lapse of ages the whole of these accumulations were
buried deep in the crust of the earth; and long periods succeeded,
when the earth was tenanted by reptilian and other creatures,
unconscious of the treasures beneath them. The modern period arrived.
The equable climate of the coal era had passed away. Continents were
prepared for the residence of man, and the edges of the old
carboniferous beds were exposed by subterranean movements, and laid
bare by denudation. Man was introduced, fell from his state of
innocence, and was condemned to earn his subsistence by the sweat of
his brow; and now for the first time appears the use of these buried
coal swamps. They now afford at once the materials of improvement in
the arts and of comfortable subsistence in extreme climates, and
subjects of surpassing interest to the naturalist. Similar instances
may be gleaned by the natural theologian from nearly every part of the
geological history.

Lastly. Both records represent man as the last of God's works, and the
culminating-point of the whole creation. We have already had occasion
to refer to this as a result of zoology, geology, and Scriptural
exegesis, and may here confine ourselves to the moral consequences of
this great truth. Man is the capital of the column; and, if marred and
defaced by moral evil, the symmetry of the whole is to be restored,
not by rejecting him altogether, like the extinct species of the
ancient world, and replacing him by another, but by re-casting him in
the image of his Divine Redeemer. Man, though recently introduced, is
to exist eternally. He is, in one or another state of being, to be
witness of all future changes of the earth. He has before him the
option of being one with his Maker, and sharing in a future glorious
and finally renovated condition of our planet, or of sinking into
endless degradation. Such is the great spiritual drama of man's fate
to be acted out on the theatre of the world. Every human being must
play his part in it, and the present must decide what that part shall
be. The Bible bases these great foreshadowings of the future on its
own peculiar evidence; yet I may venture humbly to maintain that its
harmony with natural science, as far as the latter can ascend, gives
to the Word of God a pre-eminent claim on the attention of the
naturalist. The Bible, unlike every other system of religious
doctrine, fears no investigation or discussion. It courts these.
"While science," says a modern divine,[150] "is fatal to superstition,
it is fortification to a Scriptural faith. The Bible is the bravest of
books. Coming from God, and conscious of nothing but God's truth, it
awaits the progress of knowledge with calm security. It watches the
antiquary ransacking among classic ruins, and rejoices in every medal
he discovers and every inscription he deciphers; for from that rusty
coin or corroded marble it expects nothing but confirmations of its
own veracity. In the unlocking of an Egyptian hieroglyphic or the
unearthing of some implement it hails the resurrection of so many
witnesses; and with sparkling elation it follows the botanist as he
scales Mount Lebanon, or the zoologist as he makes acquaintance with
the beasts of the Syrian desert; or the traveller as he stumbles on a
long-lost Petra or Nineveh or Babylon. And from the march of time it
fears no evil, but calmly abides the fulfilment of those prophecies
and the forthcoming of those events with whose predicted story
inspiration has already inscribed its page. It is not light but
darkness which the Bible deprecates; and if men of piety were also men
of science, and if men of science were to search the Scriptures, there
would be more faith in the earth, and also more philosophy."

The reader has, I trust, found in the preceding pages sufficient
evidence that the Bible has nothing to dread from the revelations of
geology, but much to hope in the way of elucidation of its meaning and
confirmation of its truth. If convinced of this, I trust that he will
allow me now to ask for the warnings, promises, and predictions of the
Book of God his entire confidence; and, in conclusion, to direct his
attention to the glorious prospects which it holds forth to the human
race, and to every individual of it who, in humility and
self-renunciation, casts himself in faith on that Divine Redeemer who
is at once the creator of the heavens and the earth, and the brother
and the friend of the penitent and the contrite. That same old book,
which carries back our view to those ancient conditions of our planet
which preceded not only the creation of man, but the earliest periods
of which science has cognizance, likewise carries our minds forward
into the farthest depths of futurity, and shows that all present
things must pass away. It reveals to us a new heaven and a new earth,
which are to replace those now existing; when the Eternal Son of God,
the manifestation of the Father equally in creation and redemption,
shall come forth conquering and to conquer, and shall sweep away into
utter extinction all the blood-stained tyrannies of the present earth,
even as he has swept away the brute dynasties of the pre-Adamite
world, and shall establish a reign of peace, of love, and of holiness
that shall never pass away: when the purified sons of Adam, rejoicing
in immortal youth and happiness, shall be able to look back with
enlarged understandings and grateful hearts on the whole history of
creation and redemption, and shall join their angelic brethren in the
final and more ecstatic repetition of that hymn of praise with which
the heavenly hosts greeted the birth of our planet. May God in his
mercy grant that he who writes and they who read may "stand in their
lot at the end of the days" and enjoy the full fruition of these
glorious prospects.



APPENDIX.


A.--TRUE AND FALSE EVOLUTION.

The term "evolution" need not in itself be a bugbear on theological
grounds. The Bible writers would, I presume, have no objection to it
if understood to mean the development of the plans of the Creator in
nature. That kind of evolution to which they would object, and to
which enlightened reason also objects, is the spontaneous evolution of
nothing into atoms and force, and of these into all the wonderful and
complicated plan of nature, without any guiding mind. Farther,
biological and palæontological science, as well as the Bible, object
to the derivation of living things from dead matter by merely natural
means, because this can not be proved to be possible, and to the
production of the series of organic forms found as fossils in the
rocks of the earth by the process of struggle for existence and
survival of the fittest, because this does not suffice to account for
the complex phenomena presented by this succession. With reference to
the testimony of palæontology, I have in other publications developed
this very fully; and would here merely quote the summing up of the
argument, as given in my Address of 1875 before the American
Association for the Advancement of Science:

"I have thus far said nothing of the bearing of the prevalent ideas of
descent with modification on this wonderful procession of life. None
of these of course can be expected to take us back to the origin of
living beings; but they also fail to explain why so vast numbers of
highly organized species struggle into existence simultaneously in one
age and disappear in another; why no continuous chain of succession in
time can be found gradually blending species into each other; and why
in the natural succession of things degradation under the influence of
external conditions and final extinction seem to be laws of organic
existence. It is useless here to appeal to the imperfection of the
record or to the movements or migrations of species. The record is now
in many important parts too complete, and the simultaneousness of the
entrance of the faunas and floras too certainly established, and
moving species from place to place only evades the difficulty. The
truth is that such hypotheses are at present premature, and that we
require to have larger collections of facts. Independently of this,
however, it appears to me that from a philosophical point of view it
is extremely probable that all theories of evolution as at present
applied to life are fundamentally defective in being too partial in
their character; and perhaps I can not better group the remainder of
the facts to which I wish to refer than by using them to illustrate
this feature of most of the later attempts at generalization on this
subject.

"First, then, these hypotheses are too partial in their tendency to
refer numerous and complex phenomena to one cause, or to a few causes
only, when all trustworthy analogy would indicate that they must
result from many concurrent forces and determinations of force. We
have all no doubt read those ingenious, not to say amusing,
speculations in which some entomologists and botanists have indulged
with reference to the mutual relations of flowers and haustellate
insects. Geologically the facts oblige us to begin with cryptogamous
plants and mandibulate insects, and out of the desire of insects for
non-existent honey, and the adaptations of plants to the requirements
of non-existent suctorial apparatus, we have to evolve the marvellous
complexity of floral form and coloring, and the exquisitely delicate
apparatus of the mouths of haustellate insects. Now when it is borne
in mind that this theory implies a mental confusion on our part
precisely similar to that which in the department of mechanics
actuates the seekers for perpetual motion, that we have not the
smallest tittle of evidence that the changes required have actually
occurred in any one case, and that the thousands of other structures
and relations of the plant and the insect have to be worked out by a
series of concurrent evolutions so complex and absolutely incalculable
in the aggregate that the cycles and epicycles of the Ptolemaic
astronomy were child's play in comparison, we need not wonder that the
common-sense of mankind revolts against such fancies, and that we are
accused of attempting to construct the universe by methods that would
baffle Omnipotence itself, because they are simply absurd. In this
aspect of them indeed such speculations are necessarily futile,
because no mind can grasp all the complexities of even any one case,
and it is useless to follow out an imaginary line of development which
unexplained facts must contradict at every step. This is also no doubt
the reason why all recent attempts at constructing 'Phylogenies' are
so changeable, and why no two experts can agree about the details of
any of them.

"A second aspect in which such speculations are too partial is in the
unwarranted use which they make of analogy. It is not unusual to find
such analogies as that between the embryonic development of the
individual animal and the succession of animals in geological time
placed on a level with that reasoning from analogy by which geologists
apply modern causes to explain geological formations. No claim could
be more unfounded. When the geologist studies ancient limestones built
up of the remains of corals, and then applies the phenomena of modern
coral reefs to explain their origin, he brings the latter to bear on
the former by an analogy which includes not merely the apparent
results, but the causes at work, and the conditions of their action,
and it is on this that the validity of his comparison depends, in so
far as it relates to similarity of mode of formation. But when we
compare the development of an animal from an embryo cell with the
progress of animals in time, though we have a curious analogy as to
the steps of the process, the conditions and causes at work are known
to be altogether dissimilar, and therefore we have no evidence
whatever as to identity of cause, and our reasoning becomes at once
the most transparent of fallacies. Farther, we have no right here to
overlook the fact that the conditions of the embryo are determined by
those of a previous adult, and that no sooner does this hereditary
potentiality produce a new adult animal than the terrible external
agencies of the physical world, in presence of which all life exists,
begin to tell on the organism, and after a struggle of longer or
shorter duration it succumbs to death, and its substance returns into
inorganic nature--a law from which even the longer life of the species
does not seem to exempt it. All this is so plain and manifest that it
is extraordinary that evolutionists will continue to use such partial
and imperfect arguments. Another example may be taken from that
application of the doctrine of natural selection to explain the
introduction of species in geological time, which is so elaborately
discussed by Sir C. Lyell in the last edition of his 'Principles of
Geology.' The great geologist evidently leans strongly to the theory,
and claims for it the 'highest degree of probability;' yet he
perceives that there is a serious gap in it, since no modern fact has
ever proved the origin of a new species by modification. Such a gap,
if it existed in those grand analogies by which we explain geological
formations through modern causes, would be admitted to be fatal.

"A third illustration of the partial character of these hypotheses may
be taken from the use made of the theory deduced from modern physical
discoveries, that life must be merely a product of the continuous
operation of physical laws. The assumption, for it is nothing more,
that the phenomena of life are produced merely by some arrangement of
physical forces, even if it be admitted to be true, gives only a
partial explanation of the possible origin of life. It does not
account for the fact that life as a force or combination of forces is
set in antagonism to all other forces. It does not account for the
marvellous connection of life with organization. It does not account
for the determination and arrangement of forces implied in life. A
very simple illustration may make this plain. If the problem to be
solved were the origin of the mariner's compass, one might assert that
it is wholly a physical arrangement both as to matter and force.
Another might assert that it involves mind and intelligence in
addition. In some sense both would be right. The properties of
magnetic force and of iron or steel are purely physical, and it might
even be within the bounds of possibility that somewhere in the
universe a mass of natural loadstone may have been so balanced as to
swing in harmony with the earth's magnetism. Yet we would surely be
regarded as very credulous if we could be induced to believe that the
mariner's compass has originated in that way. This argument applies
with a thousandfold greater force to the origin of life, which
involves even in its simplest forms so many more adjustments of force
and so much more complex machinery.

"Fourthly, these hypotheses are partial, inasmuch as they fail to
account for the vastly varied and correlated interdependencies of
natural things and forces, and for the unity of plan which pervades
the whole. These can be explained only by taking into the account
another element from without. Even when it professes to admit the
existence of a God, the evolutionist reasoning of our day contents
itself altogether with the physical or visible universe, and leaves
entirely out of sight the power of the unseen and spiritual, as if
this were something with which science has nothing to do, but which
belongs only to imagination or sentiment. So much has this been the
case, that when recently a few physicists and naturalists have turned
to this aspect of the case, they have seemed to be teaching new and
startling truths, though only reviving some of the oldest and most
permanent ideas of our race. From the dawn of human thought it has
been the conclusion alike of philosophers, theologians, and the
common-sense of mankind that the seen can be explained only by
reference to the unseen, and that any merely physical theory of the
world is necessarily partial. This, too, is the position of our sacred
Scriptures, and is broadly stated in their opening verse; and indeed
it lies alike at the basis of all true religion and all sound
philosophy, for it must necessarily be that 'the things that are seen
are temporal, the things that are unseen eternal.' With reference to
the primal aggregation of energy in the visible universe, with
reference to the introduction of life, with reference to the soul of
man, with reference to the heavenly gifts of genius and prophecy, with
reference to the introduction of the Saviour himself into the world,
and with reference to the spiritual gifts and graces of God's
people--all these spring not from sporadic acts of intervention, but
from the continuous action of God and the unseen world, and this we
must never forget is the true ideal of creation in Scripture and in
sound theology. Only in such exceptional and little influential
philosophies as that of Democritus, and in the speculations of a few
men carried off their balance by the brilliant physical discoveries of
our age, has this necessarily partial and imperfect view been adopted.
Never, indeed, was its imperfection more clear than in the light of
modern science.

"Geology, by tracing back all present things to their origin, was the
first science to establish on a basis of observed facts the necessity
of a beginning and end of the world. But even physical science now
teaches us that the visible world is a vast machine for the
dissipation of energy; that the processes going on in it must have had
a beginning in time, and that all things tend to a final and helpless
equilibrium. This necessity implies an unseen power, an invisible
universe, in which the visible universe must have originated, and to
which its energy is ever returning. The hiatus between the seen and
the unseen may be bridged over by the conceptions of atomic vortices
of force, and by the universal and continuous ether; but whether or
not, it has become clear that the conception of the unseen as existing
has become necessary to our belief in the possible existence of the
physical universe itself, even without taking life into the account.

"It is in the domain of life, however, that this necessity becomes
most apparent; and it is in the plant that we first clearly perceive a
visible testimony to that unseen which is the counterpart of the seen.
Life in the plant opposes the outward rush of force in our system,
arrests a part of it on its way, fixes it as potential energy, and
thus, forming a mere eddy, so to speak, in the process of dissipation
of energy, it accumulates that on which animal life and man himself
may subsist, and asserts for a time supremacy over the seen and
temporal on behalf of the unseen and eternal. I say for a time,
because life is, in the visible universe, as at present constituted,
but a temporary exception, introduced from that unseen world where it
is no longer the exception, but the eternal rule. In a still higher
sense, then, than that in which matter and force testify to a Creator,
organization and life, whether in the plant, the animal, or man, bear
the same testimony, and exist as outposts put forth in the succession
of ages from that higher heaven that surrounds the visible universe.
In them, too, Almighty power is no doubt conditioned or limited by
law, yet they bear more distinctly upon them the impress of their
Maker; and, while all explanations of the physical universe which
refuse to recognize its spiritual and unseen origin must necessarily
be partial and in the end incomprehensible, this destiny falls more
quickly and surely on the attempt to account for life and its
succession on merely materialistic principles.

"Here again, however, I must remind you that creation, as maintained
against such materialistic evolution, whether by theology, philosophy,
or Holy Scripture, is necessarily a continuous, nay, an eternal
influence, not an intervention of disconnected acts. It is the true
continuity, which includes and binds together all other continuity.

"It is here that natural science meets with theology, not as an
antagonist, but as a friend and ally in its time of greatest need; and
I must here record my belief that neither men of science nor
theologians have a right to separate what God in Holy Scripture has
joined together, or to build up a wall between nature and religion,
and write upon it 'no thoroughfare.' The science that does this must
be impotent to explain nature, and without hold on the higher
sentiments of man. The theology that does this must sink into mere
superstition.

"In conclusion, can we formulate a few of the general laws, or perhaps
I had better call them general conclusions, respecting life, in which
all palæontologists may agree? Perhaps it is not possible to do this
at present satisfactorily, but the attempt may do no harm. We may,
then, I think, make the following affirmations:

"1. The existence of life and organization on the earth is not
eternal, nor even coeval with the beginning of the physical universe,
but may possibly date from Laurentian or immediately pre-Laurentian
times.

"2. The introduction of new species of animals and plants has been a
continuous process, not necessarily in the sense of derivation of one
species from another, but in the higher sense of the continued
operation of the cause or causes which introduced life at first. This,
as already stated, I take to be the true theological or Scriptural as
well as scientific idea of what we ordinarily and somewhat loosely
term creation.

"3. Though thus continuous, the process has not been uniform; but
periods of rapid production of species have alternated with others in
which many disappeared and few were introduced. This may have been an
effect of physical cycles reacting on the progress of life.

"4. Species, like individuals, have greater energy and vitality in
their younger stages, and rapidly assume all their varietal forms, and
extend themselves as widely as external circumstances will permit.
Like individuals also, they have their periods of old age and decay,
though the life of some species has been of enormous duration in
comparison with that of others; the difference appearing to be
connected with degrees of adaptation to different conditions of life.

"5. Many allied species, constituting groups of animals and plants,
have made their appearance at once in various parts of the earth, and
these groups have obeyed the same laws with the individual and the
species in culminating rapidly, and then slowly diminishing, though a
large group once introduced has rarely disappeared altogether.

"6. Groups of species, as genera and orders, do not usually begin with
their highest or lowest forms, but with intermediate and generalized
types, and they show a capacity for both elevation and degradation in
their subsequent history.

"7. The history of life presents a progress from the lower to the
higher, and from the simpler to the more complex, and from the more
generalized to the more specialized. In this progress new types are
introduced and take the place of the older ones, which sink to a
relatively subordinate place and become thus degraded. But the
physical and organic changes have been so correlated and adjusted that
life has not only always maintained its existence, but has been
enabled to assume more complex forms, and that older forms have been
made to prepare the way for newer, so that there has been on the whole
a steady elevation culminating in man himself. Elevation and
specialization have, however, been secured at the expense of vital
energy and range of adaptation, until the new element of a rational
and inventive nature was introduced in the case of man.

"8. In regard to the larger and more distinct types, we can not find
evidence that they have, in their introduction, been preceded by
similar forms connecting them with previous groups; but there is
reason to believe that many supposed representative species in
successive formations are really only races or varieties.

"9. In so far as we can trace their history, specific types are
permanent in their characters from their introduction to their
extinction, and their earlier varietal forms are similar to their
later ones.

"10. Palæontology furnishes no direct evidence, perhaps never can
furnish any, as to the actual transformation of one species into
another, or as to the actual circumstances of creation of a species,
but the drift of its testimony is to show that species come in _per
saltum_, rather than by any slow and gradual process.

"11. The origin and history of life can not, any more than the origin
and determination of matter and force, be explained on purely material
grounds, but involve the consideration of power referable to the
unseen and spiritual world.

"Different minds may state these principles in different ways, but I
believe that, in so far as palæontology is concerned, in substance
they must hold good, at least as steps to higher truths."


B.--EVOLUTION AND CREATION BY LAW.

Evolutionist writers have a great horror of what they term
"intervention." But they should be informed that the idea of a
planning Creator does not involve intervention in an extraordinary or
miraculous sense, any more than what we call the ordinary operations
of nature. It is a common but childish prejudice that every discovery
of a secondary cause diminishes so much of what is to be referred to
the agency of God. On the contrary, such discoveries merely aid us in
comprehending the manner of his action. But when evolutionists, in
their zeal to get rid of creative intervention, trace all things to
the interaction of insensate causes, they fall into the absurdity of
believing in absolute unmitigated chance as the cause of perfect
order. Evidences of this may be found by the score in Darwin's works
on the origin of species. I quote, however, from another and usually
clear thinker, Wallace, in a review of the Duke of Argyll's "Reign of
Law," which appeared some years ago, but represents very well this
phase of thought:

"'It is curious,' says the Duke of Argyll, 'to observe the language
which this most advanced disciple of pure naturalism [Mr. Darwin]
instinctively uses, when he has to describe the complicated structure
of this curious order of plants [the Orchids]. Caution in ascribing
intentions to nature does not seem to occur to him as possible.
Intention is the one thing which he does see, and which, when he does
not see, he seeks for diligently until he finds it. He exhausts every
form of words and of illustration by which intention or mental purpose
can be described. 'Contrivance'--'curious contrivance'--'beautiful
contrivance'--these are expressions which occur over and over again.
Here is one sentence describing the parts of a particular species:
'the labellum is developed into a long nectary, _in order_ to attract
lepidoptera, and we shall presently give reason for suspecting that
the nectar is _purposely_ so lodged that it can be sucked only slowly,
_in order_ to give time for the curious chemical quality of this
viscid matter setting hard and dry.'" Many other examples of similar
expressions are quoted by the duke, who maintains that no explanation
of these "contrivances" has been or can be given, except on the
supposition of a personal contriver, specially arranging the details
of each case, although causing them to be produced by the ordinary
processes of growth and reproduction.

"Now there is a difficulty in this view of the origin of the structure
of orchids which the duke does not allude to. The majority of
flowering plants are fertilized, either without the agency of insects,
or, when insects are required, without any very important modification
of the structure of the flower. It is evident, therefore, that flowers
might have been formed as varied, fantastic, and beautiful as the
orchids, and yet have been fertilized by insects in the same manner as
violets or clover or primroses, or a thousand other flowers. The
strange springs and traps and pitfalls found in the flowers of orchids
can not be necessary _per se_, since exactly the same end is gained in
ten thousand other flowers which do not possess them. Is it not, then,
an extraordinary idea to imagine the Creator of the universe
_contriving_ the various complicated parts of these flowers as a
mechanic might contrive an ingenious toy or a difficult puzzle? Is it
not a more worthy conception that they are some of the results of
those general laws which were so co-ordinated at the first
introduction of life upon the earth as to result necessarily in the
utmost possible development of varied forms?"

A moment's thought is sufficient to show that there is no essential
difference between the Creator contriving every detail of the
structure of an orchid and his producing it through some intermediate
cause, or his commanding it into existence by his almighty word. The
same mental process, so to speak, of the contriver is implied in
either case. But there is an immeasurable difference between any of
those ideas and that of the orchid producing its parts spontaneously
under the operation of insensate physical law, whatever that may be,
alone. Again, in the same review, Wallace writes:

"The uncertainty of opinion among naturalists as to which are species
and which varieties is one of Mr. Darwin's very strong arguments that
these two names can not belong to things quite distinct in nature and
origin. The reviewer says that this argument is of no weight, because
the works of man present exactly the same phenomena, and he instances
patent inventions, and the excessive difficulty of determining whether
they are new or old. I accept the analogy, and maintain that it is all
in favor of Mr. Darwin's views; for are not all inventions of the same
kind directly affiliated to a common ancestor. Are not improved
steam-engines or clocks the lineal descendants of some existing
steam-engine or clock? Is there ever a new creation in art or science
any more than in nature? Did ever patentee absolutely originate any
complete and entire invention no portion of which was derived from any
thing that had been made or described before? It is, therefore, clear
that the difficulty of distinguishing the various classes of
inventions which claim to be new is of the same nature as the
difficulty of distinguishing varieties and species, because neither
are absolute new creations, but both are alike descendants of
pre-existing forms, from which and from each other they differ by
varying and often imperceptible degrees. It appears, then, that
however plausible this writer's objections may seem, whenever he
descends from generalities to any specific statement his supposed
difficulties turn out to be in reality strongly confirmatory of Mr.
Darwin's view."

Now that improved steam-engines are lineal descendants of other
steam-engines is absolute nonsense, in any other aspect than that the
structure of one suggested the structure of another to a contriving
mind. We need not affirm this of God; but we may affirm that the plans
of the creative mind constitute the true link of connection between
the different states and developments of inorganic and organic
objects. This is the real meaning of creation by law, as distinguished
from mere chance on the one hand, and arbitrary and capricious
intervention on the other. Both of these extremes are equally
illogical; and it can not be too frequently repeated that divine
revelation avoids both by maintaining with equal firmness the agency
of the Creator, and that agency not capricious, but according to plan
and purpose; embracing not merely the action of the divine mind
itself, but under it of all the forces and material things created.


C.--MODES OF CREATION.

A question often asked, but not easily answered, with reference to the
creation of animals and plants, is--What was its precise method, and
to what extent is such intervention conceivable. This is, it is true,
not a properly scientific question, since science can not inform us of
the act of creation. Nor is it properly a theological one, since
revelation appeals to our faith in the facts, without giving us much
information as to the mode. It can, therefore, be answered only
conjecturally, except in so far as the law or plan of creation can be
inferred from what is known, either from science or revelation, as to
the history of life.

We may, in the first place, assume that law or plan must characterize
creation. The Scriptural idea of it is not reconcilable with the
supposition of a series of arbitrary acts any more than the scientific
idea. The nature of these laws, as disclosed by Palæontology, has been
already considered in a preceding part of this Appendix. What we may
conjecture as to the nature of the creative act itself, from a
comparison of nature and revelation, may be summed up as follows:

1. If we reduce organized beings to their ultimate organisms--cells or
plastids--and with Spencer and Haeckel suppose these to be farther
divisible into still smaller particles or plastidules, each composed
of several complex particles of albumen or protoplasm, we may suppose
the primary act of creation to consist in the aggregation of molecules
of albuminous matter into such plastidules bearing the same relations,
as "manufactured articles," to the future cell that inorganic
molecules bear to crystals, and possessing within themselves the
potencies of organic forms. This is the nearest approach that we can
make to the primary creative act, and its scientific basis is merely
hypothetical, while revelation gives us no intimation as to any such
constitution of organized matter.

2. The formulæ in Genesis, "Let the land produce," and "Let the waters
produce," imply some sort of mediate creation through the agency of
the land and the waters, but of what sort we have no means of knowing.
They include, however, the idea of the origin of the lower and humbler
forms of life from material pre-existing in inorganic nature, and also
the idea of the previous preparation of the land and the waters for
the sustenance of the creatures produced.

3. The expression in the case of man--"out of the dust"--would seem to
intimate that the human body was constituted of merely elementary
matter, without any previous preparation in organic forms. It may,
however, be intended merely to inform us that, while the spirit is in
the image of God, the bodily frame is "of the earth earthy," and in no
respect different in general nature from that of the inferior animals.

4. The Bible indicates some ways in which creatures may be modified or
changed into new species, or may give rise to new forms of life. The
human body is, we are told, capable of transformation into a new or
spiritual body, different in many important respects, and the future
general prevalence of this change is an article of religious faith.
The Bible represents the woman as produced from the man by a species
of fission, not known to us as a natural possibility, except in some
of the lower forms of life. The birth of the Saviour is represented as
having been by parthenogenesis, and if it had pleased God that Jesus
was to remain on earth as the progenitor of a new and higher type of
man to replace that now existing, this might be regarded as the
introduction of a new species. To what extent the Creator may have so
acted on the constitution of organized beings as to produce changes of
this kind we have no means of knowing; but if he have done so, we may
be sure that it has been in accordance with some definite plan or law.

5. We have a right to infer from Scripture that there must be some
creative law which provides for the introduction of species, _de
novo_, from unorganized matter, and which has been or is called into
action by conditions as yet altogether unknown to us, and as yet
inimitable, and therefore in some sense miraculous. Whether we shall
ever by scientific investigation discover the law of this kind of
divine intervention it is impossible to say. That all the theories of
spontaneous generation and derivation hitherto promulgated are but
wild guesses at it is but too evident.

6. Since in inorganic nature we meet with such ultimate facts as atoms
of different kinds and with different properties; and ether of
non-atomic constitution, all of which seem to be necessary to the
existence of the world as it is, we may expect in like manner to find
at the basis of organic structures and phenomena varied kinds of
ultimate organisms and forces, probably much more complicated than
those of inorganic nature. The broad simplicity of existing theories
of derivation and evolution is thus in itself a presumption against
their truth, except as very partial explanations.

7. We have no right to consider the species "after their kinds" of
revelation as coincident with the species recognized by science. Many
of these may be merely races, the production of which in the course of
time and in special circumstances may fall within the powers of
created species, and which may merely be the phases of such species in
time and place. Only the accumulation of vast additional stores of
facts can enable us to have any certain opinion on this point, and
till it is settled the doctrine of derivation must remain purely
hypothetical.

8. The inference of evolutionists that because certain forms of life
succeed each other in geological time, they must have been derived
from each other, has an aspect of truth and simplicity; but the idea
of law or plan in creation suggests that the link of connection may be
of a less direct nature than mere descent with modification. This has
been referred to under a previous head.

9. In the scheme of revelation all the successions and changes of
organized beings, just as much as their introduction at first, belong
to the will and plan of God. Revelation opposes no obstacle to any
scientific investigation of the nature and method of this plan, nor
does it contemplate the idea that any discoveries of this kind in any
way isolate the Creator from his works. Farther, inasmuch as God is
always present in all his works, one part of his procedure can
scarcely be considered an "intervention" any more than another.

10. As an illustration of the hypothetical condition of this subject,
and of the views which may be taken as to its details, I quote from a
memoir of my own certain conclusions with reference to the origin of
the species of land plants which are found in the older geological
formations. The conclusions stated are at the end of a detailed
consideration of these plants and the circumstances of their
occurrence:

"(1.) Some of the forms reckoned as specific in the Devonian and
Carboniferous formations may be really derivative races. There are
indications that such races may have originated in one or more of the
following ways: (_a_) By a natural tendency in synthetic types to
become specialized in the direction of one or other of their
constituent elements. In this way such plants as _Arthrostigma_ and
_Psilophyton_ may have assumed new varietal forms. (_b_) By embryonic
retardation or acceleration,[151] whereby certain species may have had
their maturity advanced or postponed, thus giving them various grades
of perfection in reproduction and complexity of structure. The fact
that so many Erian and Carboniferous plants seem to be on the confines
of the groups of Acrogens and Gymnosperms may be supposed favorable
to such exchanges. (_c_) The contraction and breaking up of floras
which occurred in the Middle Erian and Lower Carboniferous may have
been eminently favorable to the production of such varietal forms as
would result from what has been called the 'struggle for existence.'
(_d_) The elevation of a great expanse of new land at the close of the
Middle Erian and the beginning of the Coal period would, by permitting
the extension of series over wide areas and fertile soils, and by
removing the pressure previously existing, be eminently favorable to
the production of new, and especially of improved, varieties.

"(2.) Whatever importance we may attach to the above supposed causes
of change, we still require to account for the origin of our specific
types. This may forever elude our observation, but we may at least
hope to ascertain the external conditions favorable to their
production. In order to attain even to this it will be necessary to
inquire critically, with reference to every acknowledged species, what
its claims to distinctness are, so that we may be enabled to
distinguish specific types from mere varieties. Having attained to
some certainty in this, we may be prepared to inquire whether the
conditions favorable to the appearance of new varieties were also
those favorable to the creation of new types, or the reverse--whether
these conditions were those of compression or expansion, or to what
extent the appearance of new types may be independent of any external
conditions, other than those absolutely necessary for their existence.
I am not without hope that the further study of fossil plants may
enable us thus to approach to a comprehension of the laws of the
creation, as distinguished from those of the continued existence of
species.

"In the present state of our knowledge we have no good ground either
to limit the number of specific types beyond what a fair study of our
material may warrant, or to infer that such primitive types must
necessarily have been of low grade, or that progress in varietal forms
has always been upward. The occurrence of such an advanced and
specialized type as that of _Syringoxylon_ in the Middle Devonian
should guard us against these errors. The creative process may have
been applicable to the highest as well as to the lowest forms, and
subsequent deviations must have included degradation as well as
elevation. I can conceive nothing more unreasonable than the statement
sometimes made that it is illogical or even absurd to suppose that
highly organized beings could have been produced except by derivation
from previously existing organisms. This is begging the whole question
at issue, depriving science of a noble department of inquiry on which
it has as yet barely entered, and anticipating by unwarranted
assertions conclusions which may perhaps suddenly dawn upon us through
the inspiration of some great intellect, or may for generations to
come baffle the united exertions of all the earnest promoters of
natural science. Our present attitude should not be that of
dogmatists, but that of patient workers content to labor for a harvest
of grand generalizations which may not come till we have passed away,
but which, if we are earnest and true to nature and its Creator, may
reward even some of us."[152]


D.--PRESENT CONDITION OF THEORIES OF LIFE.

One of the most learned and ingenious essays on this subject recently
published[153] states on its first page that all the varieties of
opinion may be summed up under two heads:

"1. Those which require the addition to ordinary matter of an
immaterial or spiritual essence, substance, or power, general or
local, whose presence is the efficient cause of life; and,

"2. Those which attribute the phenomena of life solely to the mode of
combination of the ordinary material elements of which the organism is
composed, without the addition of any such immaterial essence, power,
or force."

It is quite true that physiologists have up to this time argued out
these two alternatives, and that at present the second is probably the
more prevalent. It is however also true that neither includes or can
possibly include the whole truth, and that enlightened theism may
enable us to hold both, or all that is true in either. Undoubtedly we
must hold that a higher spiritual power or Creator is necessary to the
existence of life; but then this is necessary also to the existence of
dead matter and force. So that if physiologists think proper to trace
the whole phenomena of life to material causes, they do not on that
account in any way invalidate the evidence for a spiritual Creator,
nor for a spiritual element in the higher nature of man. Yet so
inconceivably shallow is much of the biological reasoning of the day,
that it is quite common to find physiologists referring all life to
spontaneous and uncaused material agencies, because they have
concluded that the arrangements of matter and force are sufficient to
explain it; and, on the other hand, to find theistic writers accusing
physiology of materialism, if it finds the causes of vital phenomena
in material forces, as if God could be present only in those processes
which we can not understand.

What we really know as to the material basis of life may be summed up
in a few words. Chemically, life is based on compounds of the
albuminous group. These are highly complex in a molecular point of
view, and seem to be formed in nature only where certain structures,
those of the vegetable cell, exist under certain conditions. These
albuminous substances do not necessarily possess vital properties.
They may exist in a dead state just as other substances. Under certain
conditions, however, those of forming part of a so-called living
organism, they present phenomena of mechanical movement and molecular
change, and of transformation or transmission of force, which enable
them to transform themselves into various kinds of tissues, to nourish
these when formed, and to establish a consensus of action between
different parts of the organism; and these properties are vastly
varied in detail according to the kind of organism in which they take
place, and the conditions under which the organism exists. The
actually living matter presents no distinct structure recognizable by
the microscope, and can not be distinguished chemically from ordinary
albumen or protoplasm; but when living it must either exist in some
peculiar and complex molecular arrangement unknown as yet to chemistry
and physics, or must be actuated by some force or form of force called
vital, and not as yet isolated or reduced to known laws or
correlation. It does not concern theism or theology which of these may
eventually prove to be the true view, or if it should be found, which
is quite possible, that there is no real difference between them. In
any case it is certain that in the lower animals, and in the merely
physiological properties of man himself, living matter may act
independently of any higher spiritual nature in the individual, though
of course not independently of the higher power of God, which gave
matter its properties and sustains them in their action. It is farther
certain that in man the spiritual nature dominates and controls the
vital, except when under abnormal conditions the latter unduly gains
the mastery, and quenches altogether the spirit. In the language of
the Bible, the merely vital endowments of the man belong to the flesh
([Greek: sarx]), and to the rational mind or soul ([Greek: psychê]).
The higher nature which man derives directly from God is the spirit
([Greek: pneuma]). Either of these parts of the complex humanity is
capable of life ([Greek: zôê]) and of immortality. Either of them is
capable of being in a state of death, though the import of this
differs in its application to each. In Genesis, the body is composed
of the ordinary earth-materials--the "dust of the ground." The higher
nature is seen in the "shadow and likeness of God," and in the
inbreathing of the Divine Spirit whereby man became a "living soul" in
a higher sense than that in which the animals possess the ordinary
"breath of life." With these views agree the later doctrines of the
Bible as to the "trichotomy" of "body, soul, and spirit" in man, and
of the added influence of the Spirit of God as acting on humanity.


E.--RECENT FACTS AS TO THE ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN.

Several recent statements as to new facts supposed to prove a
preglacial antiquity for our species have been promulgated in
scientific journals; but so great doubt rests upon them that they do
not invalidate the statement that the earliest human remains belong to
the postglacial age. I may refer to the following:

A very remarkable discovery was made in 1875 by Professor Rutimeyer,
of Basle. In a brown coal deposit of Tertiary, or at least of
"interglacial" age--whatever that may mean in Switzerland--he found
some fragments of wood so interlaced as to resemble wattle or
basket-work. Steenstrup has, however, re-examined the evidence, and
adduces strong reasons for the conclusion that the alleged human
workmanship is really that of beavers.

The Swedish geologists have shown that there is no properly
Palæolithic age in Scandinavia, and that even the reindeer had
probably disappeared from Denmark and Sweden before their occupation
by man. Some facts, however, seemed to indicate a residence of man in
Sweden before the great post-pliocene subsidence. One of the most
important of these is the celebrated hut of Sodertelge, referred to in
this connection by Lyell. Recent observations have, however, shown
that this hut was really covered by a landslip, and that its age may
not be greater than eight centuries. Torel has recently explained this
in the Proceedings of the Archæological Congress of Stockholm.

The human bone found in the Victoria Cave at Settle, apparently under
a patch of boulder-clay, has been regarded as a good evidence of the
preglacial origin of man. It has, however, always appeared to readers
of the description as a very doubtful case; and Professor Hughes, of
Cambridge, has recently expressed the opinion that the drift covering
the bone may be merely a "pocket" of that material disengaged from a
cavity in the limestone by the wearing of the cliff.

The same geologist has also shown reason to believe that the supposed
case of the occurrence of palæolithic implements under boulder-clay
near Brandon, discovered by Mr. Skertchley, and paraded by Geikie as a
demonstration of the "interglacial" antiquity of man, in accordance
with his system of successive glacial periods, is really an error, and
has no foundation in the facts of the case.

Mr. Pengelly has endeavored to maintain the value of the deposit of
stalagmite as a means of establishing dates, in his "Notes of Recent
Notices of the Geology of Devonshire," Part I., 1874; but, I confess,
with little success. He urges, in opposition to the Ingleborough Cave,
that at Cheddar, where, according to him, no appreciable deposit
whatever is taking place on the existing stalagmite. But this, of
course, is evidence not applicable to the case in hand, as in the
Cheddar case no stalagmite crust whatever would be produced. There
are, no doubt, crevices and caves in which old stalagmite is even
being removed or diminished in thickness. He farther asserts that in
Kent's Cave teeth of the cave bear and other extinct animals are found
covered by not more than an inch and a half of stalagmite, and
consequently that if this were deposited at the rate of a quarter of
an inch per annum--the supposed rate on the "Jockey Cap" at
Ingleborough--these animals must have lived in Devonshire only six
years ago, which is, of course, absurd. But he fails to perceive that
this mode of occurrence is quite intelligible on the supposition of a
rapid decrease in the amount of deposition in the later part of the
stalagmite period. He farther refers to the fact that the thicker
masses of stalagmite, which correspond to the places of more active
drip of water, are in the same position in both crusts of stalagmite.
This shows that the sources of water containing bicarbonate of lime
have been the same from the first; but it proves nothing as to the
rate of deposit.

Mr. Pengelly's own estimate of the rate of deposit gives, however, a
length of time which is sufficient to show that there must be error
somewhere in his calculations. He states the aggregate thickness of
the two crusts at twelve feet, and then, assuming a rate of deposit of
0.05 inch in 250 years, or one inch in 5000 years, he arrives at the
conclusion that the whole deposit required 720,000 years for its
formation. He is "willing to suppose" the mechanical deposits to have
accumulated more rapidly; but allowing one fourth of the time for
them, we have nearly a million of years claimed for the residence of
man in Devonshire, which, independently of other considerations, would
push back the Palæozoic trilobites and corals of that county into the
primitive reign of fire, and which in point of fact amounts to a
_reductio ad absurdum_ of the whole argument.

Professor Hughes[154] refers, as a case of rapid deposition of matter
akin to stalagmite, to the deposit of travertine in the old Roman
aqueduct of the Pont du Gard, near Avignon, where a thickness of
fourteen inches seems to have accumulated in about 800 years. Mr. J.
Carey has given in _Nature_, December 18, 1873, another instance where
a deposit 0.75 inch thick was formed in fifteen years in a lead mine
in Durham. Mr. W. B. Clarke in the same journal gives a case where in
a cave at Brixton, known as Poole's Hole, a deposit one eighth of an
inch in thickness was formed in six months. Such examples show how
unsafe it is to reason as to the rate of deposit in by-gone times, and
when climatal and local conditions may have been very different from
those at present subsisting.

In an able address before the biological section of the British
Association in 1876, Wallace adduces the following considerations as
bearing on these questions; and these are well worthy of attention as
showing that it is the necessities of evolution rather than of
geological facts that demand the assumption of a great antiquity for
man, and induce so many writers to accept any evidence for this,
however doubtful: (1) The great cerebral development of the so-called
Palæolithic men, which shows no indications of graduating into
inferior races. (2) The great variety of the implements of these
ancient men, and the excellence of their carvings on bone and ivory,
point to a similar conclusion. (3) Man is not related to any existing
species of ape, but in various ways to several different species. (4)
There is an accumulation of evidence to show that the earliest
historical races excelled in many processes in the arts and in many
kinds of culture. He instances the wonderful mechanical and
engineering skill evidenced in the pyramids of Egypt in proof of this.
His conclusion is either that the origin of man by development from
apes must be pushed much farther back than any geologists at present
hold, and I may add far beyond any probable date, or that he must have
originated by some "distinct and higher agency"--which last is no
doubt the true conclusion.

Haeckel, in his recent work, the "History of Creation," sketches the
development of man from a monad, in twenty-two stages; but he has to
admit that stage twenty-first, or that of the "Ape-like man," nowhere
exists, either recent or fossil. He has to assume that this missing
link has perished in the submergence of an imaginary continent of
Lemuria, in the Indian Ocean; and it is instructive to observe that,
after deducting this, his affiliation of the races of men, as
indicated in a map of the distribution of the species, is in the main
very similar to that with which we are familiar in ordinary
collections of maps illustrative of the Bible.

The Post-glacial, Palæocosmic, or Palæolithic men of Europe are not
improbably antediluvian; and as to their precise date we know little.
As to postdiluvian man, Canon Rawlinson has recently pointed out[155]
the remarkable convergence of all historic dates toward a time between
2000 to 3000 years B.C., or about the date of the Biblical deluge,
which may reasonably be inferred to have occurred about 3200 B.C. He
gives the following summary of historical origins as ascertained from
the best data, and which accord with the representation of the Bible
that in the time of Abraham the great monarchies of Egypt and the East
were scarcely more powerful than the nomad tribe led by that
patriarch:

  Oldest date of Babylon       2300 B.C.
    "     "      Assyria       1500
    "     "      Iran          1500
    "     "      India         1200
    "     "      China         1154
    "     "      Phoenicia   1700
    "     "      Troad         2000
    "     "      Egypt         2760
  Sept. date of Deluge         3200

He rejects, of course, the fabulous chronologies of Egypt, China, and
India as mythical, or referring to prehuman and antediluvian periods.
It is to be observed that while these dates place the origins of the
oldest civilized nations at periods considerably subsequent to the
deluge, they do not prevent us from supposing that these nations
commenced their existence wills an advanced civilization borrowed from
antediluvian times, which is indeed a fair conclusion from the
Biblical history, independently of the monumental evidence referred to
by Wallace in a previous paragraph.

The Duke of Argyll, in his excellent little work "Primeval Man," in
which he discusses the arguments in favor of primitive savagery
advanced by Sir J. Lubbock in opposition to the views of Archbishop
Whately in his lecture on the "Origin of Civilization," shows that
there is no necessity to suppose a slow progress of mankind in the
arts extending over indefinite ages; and his argument in this respect
connects itself with the facts as to the high cerebral organization of
Palæocosmic men referred to above by Wallace. In summing up one
division of his argument, he truly remarks: "If we assume with the
supporters of the savage-theory that man has himself invented all that
he now knows, then the very earliest inventions of our race must have
been the most wonderful of all, and the richest in the fruits they
bore. The man who first discovered the use of fire, and the use of
those grasses which we now know under the name of corn, were
discoverers compared with whom, as regards the value of their ideas to
the world, Faraday and Wheatstone are but the inventors of ingenious
toys. It may possibly be true, as Whately argues, that man never could
have discovered these things without divine instruction. If so, it is
fatal to the savage theory. But it is equally fatal to that theory if
we assume the opposite position, and suppose that the noblest
discoveries ever made by man were made by him in primeval times."

I may add that this is true, however far into antiquity we may stretch
back these primeval times.

Professor E. S. Morse, in his address to the American Association, in
1876, as vice-president, takes as a theme the contributions of
American zoologists to theories of evolution, and closes with those
which refer to what he modestly terms "man's lowly origin." These
contributions he sums up under three heads, as bearing on the
following points: "1. That in his earlier stages he reveals certain
persistent characters of the ape; 2. That the more ancient men reveal
more ape-like features than the present existing men; and, 3. That
certain characteristics pertaining to early men still persist in the
inferior races of men." Under the first head he gives contributions to
the well-known fact that embryonic stages of the human being, like
those of other high types, approximate to forms permanent in lower
types. This is a fact inseparable from the law of reproduction; and as
has been already shown in the text, absolutely without logical
significance as even an analogical argument in favor of evolution.
Under the second and third heads, he refers to cases of exceptional
skulls and bones belonging to idiots and degraded races of men, as
showing tendencies to lower forms, which as a matter of course they
do, though with essential differences still marking them as human; and
he assumes without any proof that these were relatively more common in
primitive times, and that they are cases of reversion to a previous
simian stage, instead of being results of abnormal conditions in the
individual or variety. He sums up these arguments in the following
paragraph:

"If we take into account the rapidly accumulating data of European
naturalists concerning primitive man, with the mass of evidence
presented in these notes, we find an array of facts which irresistibly
point to a common origin with animals directly below us, and these
evidences are found in the massive skulls with coarse ridges for
muscular attachments, the rounding of the base of the nostrils, the
early ossification of the nasal bones, the small cranial capacity in
certain forms, the prominence of the frontal crest, the posterior
position of the _foramen magnum_, the approximation of the temporal
ridges, the lateral flattening of the tibia, the perforation of the
humerus, the tendency of the pelvis to depart from its usual
proportions; and, associated with all these, a rudeness of culture and
the evidence of the manifestation of the coarsest instincts. He must
be blind, indeed, who can not recognize the bearing of such grave and
suggestive modifications."

Yet Professor Morse knows that there is no true specific or even
generic kinship between man and any species of ape; that the phenomena
of idiocy and degeneracy have no real resemblance to those of distinct
specific types; that the resemblances of man to apes, such as they
are, point not in a direct manner to any stock of apes, but in a
desultory way to several; and consequently that, if derived from any
such animals, it must be from some stock altogether unknown to us as
yet, either among recent or fossil animals. Farther, as Cope, himself
an evolutionist, admits, while we can trace the skeletons of Eocene
mammals through several directions of specialization in succeeding
Tertiary times, man presents the phenomenon of an unspecialized
skeleton which can not fairly be connected with any of these lines.
Lastly, his quotation from Fiske, with reference to the supposed
effect of a protracted infancy to develop the moral characteristics of
man, though accompanied with the usual unfair and unreasonable sneer
(which a naturalist like Morse should have been ashamed to quote)
against men "still capable of believing that the human race was
created by miracle in a single day," is the feeblest possible attempt
to bridge over the gap between the spiritual nature of man and the
merely psychical nature of brutes.

It is plain that if American naturalists have done nothing more in
favor of the lowly origin of man than that which Professor Morse has
been able, evidently with much industry and pains, to gather, we need
not for the present abandon our claims to a higher origin. It is
farther significant in connection with this that Professor Huxley, in
his lectures in New York, while resting his case as to the lower
animals mainly on the supposed genealogy of the horse, which has often
been shown to amount to no certain evidence,[156] avoided altogether
the discussion of the origin of man from apes, now obviously
complicated with so many difficulties that both Wallace and Mivart
are staggered by them. Professor Thomas, in his recent lectures,[157]
admits that there is no lower man known than the Australian, and that
there is no known link of connection with the monkeys; and
Haeckel[158] has to admit that the penultimate link in his phylogeny,
the ape-like man, is absolutely unknown.

In Chapter XIII. I have not touched on the question of the absolute
origin of language--this not being necessary to my argument. On this
interesting subject, however, we have, in the naming of the animals by
the first man, recorded in the second chapter of Genesis, not only the
primary truth of his superiority to them, but a farther indication
that the roots of human speech, other than interjectional, lie in
onomatopoeia, and especially in the voices of animals, and that the
gift of speech was not the slow growth of ages, but an endowment of
man from the first, just as much as any of his other powers or
properties. An interesting discussion of this subject will be found in
the concluding chapters of Wilson's "Prehistoric Man," second edition.
Farther, the so-called "tallies" found with the bones of Palæocosmic
men in European caves, and illustrated in the admirable work of
Christy and Lartet, show that the rudiments even of writing were
already in possession of the oldest race of men known to archæology or
geology. (See Wilson, _op. cit._, vol. ii., p. 54.)

I have not noticed, except incidentally, the alleged discoveries of
very ancient human remains in America, as they all appear very
problematical. There is, however, some evidence of the coexistence of
man with the mastodon and other postglacial animals in Illinois and
elsewhere.


F.--BEARING OF GLACIAL PERIODS UPON THE INTERPRETATION OF
GENESIS.

Whatever views may be taken as to that period of cold which occurs at
the close of the Tertiary and beginning of the Modern period, it can
not be held to have constituted any such break as to be considered, as
it was at one time, an equivalent for the Biblical chaos. This is
proved by the survival through this period of a very large proportion
of the animals and plants still existing in the northern hemisphere.
The chronological system of animals and plants has been continuous, as
the Bible represents it, since their first appearance on earth.

It is further remarkable that while there is geological evidence of
climates colder than the present in the temperate regions, there is
equally good proof of warmer climates even within the arctic circle
than those of the cold temperate regions at present. It is difficult
to account for these vicissitudes of climate, and much controversy
exists on the subject; but it seems certain that in the earlier
Tertiary and Cretaceous periods, for example, the supplies of heat and
light were so diffused over the earth as to permit the growth of a
temperate vegetation in Greenland, and even in Spitzbergen.
Geologists, however unwillingly, have been obliged to admit this as
one of those great possibilities, altogether unexpected beforehand,
which have been developed in the history of our planet. Various modes
of explaining this succession of cold and warm periods have been
adopted, all more or less hypothetical. Lyell has argued that it may
be explained by a different distribution of land and water and of the
ocean currents. Croll accounts for it by the varying eccentricity of
the earth's orbit, in connection with the precession of the equinoxes.
Evans by a shifting of the axis of rotation of the earth. Drayson,
Bell, Warring, and others, by a change in the inclination of the
earth's axis. Others by the secular diminution of the internal heat of
the earth, and of that of the sun. Others by the supposed recurrence
of periods in which the sun gives more or less heat, or in which the
earth is passing through colder or warmer regions of space. As the
subject is of interest with reference to possible correspondences of
these great summers and winters of the earth with the stages of the
creative work, it may be well to notice shortly the relative merits of
these theories.

(1.) The hypothesis of Croll is one of the most ingenious and
elaborate of the whole; but it has two great defects. One is that the
causes alleged are so uncertain and so complicated that it is
difficult to estimate their real value. Another is that it proves too
much, namely, a regular succession of cold and warm periods throughout
geological time, of which we have no good evidence, and which is on
many grounds improbable.

(2.) That the earth's axis of rotation has continued unchanged
throughout the whole of the geological ages seems proved by the fact
that the principal lines of crumpling and upheaval from the Laurentian
period downward are arranged in great circles of the earth tangent to
the polar circle; and that the lines of deposit of sediment in the
Palæozoic age are coincident with the present direction of the arctic
currents.

(3.) Astronomers consider it improbable that the obliquity of the
ecliptic has materially changed, and serious differences of opinion
exist as to the effects which a greater or less obliquity would
produce on climate. It seems certain, however, that a less obliquity
would occasion a more uniform distribution of heat and light
throughout the year; and this, co-operating with other causes leading
to a warm climate, might enable a temperate vegetation to approach the
pole more closely than at present.

(4.) That the energy of the sun's radiation and the internal heat of
the earth have been slowly decreasing seems certain; but it is now
generally admitted that these changes are so gradual that little
effect can have been produced by them, except in the older geological
periods, and that they can have no connection with the great glacial
period of the Post-pliocene.

(5.) It is otherwise with the hypothesis that the sun's heat may, like
that of some variable stars, have increased and diminished. There is,
of course, no direct evidence of this, except the small differences
observed in cycles of eleven and fifty-five years from the greater or
less development of sunspots, and the analogy of observed variable
stars. Still it is a possible cause of variations of climate. It might
also aid in accounting for the extraordinary evidences of desert
conditions and desiccation presented by the salt deposits of different
geological periods in temperate latitudes.

(6.) The theory of the passage of the earth through zones of space of
variable temperature is now generally abandoned, as there seems no
reason to believe that such differences exist.

(7.) The theory of Lyell that changes in the distribution of land and
water may, with the possible co-operation of other causes, have
produced the observed diversities of climate, is that which seems best
to meet the conditions presented. It is based on the known properties
of land and water as to the absorption, radiation, and convection of
heat, and on the remarkable diversities of climate in similar
latitudes arising from this cause at present. Farther, it accords with
the known fact that very great changes of level have occurred in
connection with the glacial period. This theory undoubtedly embraces a
true cause, admitted by all geologists, and it dispenses with the
necessity of believing in the recurrence of glacial periods at regular
intervals. It farther accords best with the evidence afforded by
fossils, and especially by fossil plants. It has also the merit of
directing due attention to the diversities of geographical conditions
at different periods, and of dealing with causes of change operating
within the earth itself. The only doubt with respect to it is its
sufficiency to explain the changes which have occurred, and the view
entertained of this will depend very much on the interpretation of the
facts as to the intensity of the last glacial period. If moderate
views can be taken of this, and if means can be found, by a less
obliquity of the ecliptic or otherwise, to furnish a continuous supply
of light in the arctic regions, the difficulties which have been
alleged against it would disappear.

(8.) In connection with former periods of cold and warmth, and with
the existence of temperate and tropical vegetation in polar latitudes,
we should not forget that view which takes into account the probable
effects of different conditions of the atmosphere, and the greater
quantity of carbonic acid present in it, in early geological periods.
This would, of course, best apply to the palæozoic floras, in so far
as our present knowledge extends; but there may have been similar
conditions in later periods. Dr. Sterry Hunt thus states this
hypothesis:

"The agency of plants in purifying the primitive atmosphere was long
since pointed out by Brongniart, and our great stores of fossil fuel
have been derived from the decomposition, by the ancient vegetation,
of the excess of carbonic acid of the early atmosphere, which through
this agency was exchanged for oxygen gas. In this connection the
vegetation of former periods presents the curious phenomenon of plants
allied to those now growing beneath the tropics flourishing within the
polar circles. Many ingenious hypotheses have been proposed to account
for the warmer climate of earlier times, but are at best
unsatisfactory, and it appears to me that the true solution of the
problem may be found in the constitution of the early atmosphere, when
considered in the light of Dr. Tyndall's beautiful researches on
radiant heat. He has found that the presence of a few hundredths of
carbonic-acid gas in the atmosphere, while offering almost no obstacle
to the passage of the solar rays, would suffice to prevent almost
entirely the loss by radiation of obscure heat, so that the surface of
the land beneath such an atmosphere would become like a vast
orchard-house, in which the conditions of climate necessary to a
luxuriant vegetation would be extended even to the polar regions."

It is obvious that, in the production of complex effects of this kind,
various causes, whether astronomical or connected with the mutations
of the earth's crust, may have co-operated, and probably in all
extreme cases did co-operate.

In any case it is evident that the vicissitudes of climate and the
great pulsations of the crust, which have raised and depressed
portions of the surface and changed the position of its covering of
waters, have been potent agents in the hands of the Creator in
effecting the changes and succession of living beings, which are thus,
as Genesis intimates, children of the waters and of the land, and of
the influences of the heavens. It is also interesting in this
connection to observe that the occurrence of such periods of general
warm climate as that in the Miocene shows that it would have been
possible for man, under certain conditions, to have extended himself
far more widely in his Edenic state than we can conceive of in the
present condition of the earth. The modern world is perhaps even in
this way "cursed" for man's sake.


G.--DR. STERRY HUNT ON THE CHEMISTRY OF THE PRIMEVAL EARTH.

On looking back to the reference to this subject in Chapter V., I
think it may be desirable to present to the reader in some more
definite manner the conditions of a forming world; and I can not do
this in any other way so well as by quoting the words of Dr. Sterry
Hunt, as given in the abstract of his lecture on this subject
delivered before the Royal Institution of London in 1867:

"This hypothesis of the nature of the sun and of the luminous process
going on at its surface is the one lately put forward by Faye, and,
although it has met with opposition, appears to be that which accords
best with our present knowledge of the chemical and physical
conditions of matter, such as we must suppose it to exist in the
condensing gaseous mass which, according to the nebular hypothesis,
should form the centre of our solar system. Taking this, as we have
already done, for granted, it matters little whether we imagine the
different planets to have been successively detached as rings during
the rotation of the primal mass, as is generally conceived, or whether
we admit with Chacornac a process of aggregation or concretion,
operating within the primal nebular mass, resulting in the production
of sun and planets. In either case we come to the conclusion that our
earth must at one time have been in an intensely heated gaseous
condition, such as the sun now presents, self-luminous, and with a
process of condensation going on at first at the surface only, until
by cooling it must have reached the point where the gaseous centre
was exchanged for one of combined and liquefied matter.

"Here commences the chemistry of the earth, to the discussion of which
the foregoing considerations have been only preliminary. So long as
the gaseous condition of the earth lasted, we may suppose the whole
mass to have been homogeneous; but when the temperature became so
reduced that the existence of chemical compounds at the centre became
possible, those which were most stable at the elevated temperature
then prevailing would be first formed. Thus, for example, while
compounds of oxygen with mercury or even with hydrogen could not
exist, oxides of silicon, aluminium, calcium, magnesium, and iron
might be formed and condense in a liquid form at the centre of the
globe. By progressive cooling, still other elements would be removed
from the gaseous mass, which would form the atmosphere of the
non-gaseous nucleus. We may suppose an arrangement of the condensed
matters at the centre according to their respective specific
gravities, and thus the fact that the density of the earth as a whole
is about twice the mean density of the matters which form its solid
surface may be explained. Metallic or metalloidal compounds of
elements, grouped differently from any compounds known to us, and far
more dense, may exist in the centre of the earth.

"The process of combination and cooling having gone on until those
elements which are not volatile in the heat of our ordinary furnaces
were condensed into a liquid form, we may here inquire what would be
the result, upon the mass, of a further reduction of temperature. It
is generally assumed that in the cooling of a liquid globe of mineral
matter, congelation would commence at the surface, as in the case of
water; but water offers an exception to most other liquids, inasmuch
as it is denser in the liquid than in the solid form. Hence ice floats
on water, and freezing water becomes covered with a layer of ice,
which protects the liquid below. With most other matters, however,
and notably with the various mineral and earthy compounds analogous to
those which may be supposed to have formed the fiery-fluid earth,
numerous and careful experiments show that the products of
solidification are much denser than the liquid mass; so that
solidification would have commenced at the centre, whose temperature
would thus be the congealing point of these liquid compounds. The
important researches of Hopkins and Fairbairn on the influence of
pressure in augmenting the melting-point of such compounds as contract
in solidifying are to be considered in this connection.

"It is with the superficial portions of the fused mineral mass of the
globe that we have now to do; since there is no good reason for
supposing that the deeply seated portions have intervened in any
direct manner in the production of the rocks which form the
superficial crust. This, at the time of its first solidification,
presented probably an irregular, diversified surface from the result
of contraction of the congealing mass, which at last formed a liquid
bath of no great depth surrounding the solid nucleus. It is to the
composition of this crust that we must direct our attention, since
therein would be found all the elements (with the exception of such as
were still in the gaseous form) now met with in the known rocks of the
earth. This crust is now everywhere buried beneath its own ruins, and
we can only from chemical considerations attempt to reconstruct it. If
we consider the conditions through which it has passed, and the
chemical affinities which must have come into play, we shall see that
these are just what would now result if the solid land, sea, and air
were made to react upon each other under the influence of intense
heat. To the chemist it is at once evident that from this would result
the conversion of all carbonates, chlorides, and sulphates into
silicates, and the separation of the carbon, chlorine, and sulphur in
the form of acid gases, which, with nitrogen, watery vapor, and a
probable excess of oxygen, would form the dense primeval atmosphere.
The resulting fused mass would contain all the bases as silicates, and
must have much resembled in composition certain furnace-slags or
volcanic glasses. The atmosphere, charged with acid gases, which
surrounded this primitive rock must have been of immense density.
Under the pressure of such a high barometric column, condensation
would take place at a temperature much above the present boiling-point
of water, and the depressed portions of the half-cooled crust would be
flooded with a highly heated solution of hydrochloric acid, whose
action in decomposing the silicates is easily intelligible to the
chemist. The formation of chlorides of the various bases, and the
separation of silica, would go on until the affinities of the acid
were satisfied, and there would be a separation of silica, taking the
form of quartz, and the production of a sea-water holding in solution,
besides the chlorides of sodium, calcium, and magnesium, salts of
aluminium and other metallic bases. The atmosphere, being thus
deprived of its volatile chlorine and sulphur compounds, would
approximate to that of our own time, but differ in its greater amount
of carbonic acid.

"We next enter into the second phase in the action of the atmosphere
upon the earth's crust. This, unlike the first, which was subaqueous,
or operative only on the portion covered with the precipitated water,
is sub-aerial, and consists in the decomposition of the exposed parts
of the primitive crust under the influence of the carbonic acid and
moisture of the air, which convert the complex silicates of the crust
into a silicate of alumina, or clay, while the separated lime,
magnesia, and alkalies, being converted into carbonates, are carried
down into the sea in a state of solution.

"The first effect of these dissolved carbonates would be to
precipitate the dissolved alumina and the heavy metals, after which
would result a decomposition of the chloride of calcium of the
sea-water, resulting in the production of carbonate of lime or
limestone, and chloride of sodium or common salt. This process is one
still going on at the earth's surface, slowly breaking down and
destroying the hardest rocks, and, aided by mechanical processes,
transforming them into clays; although the action, from the
comparative rarity of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, is less
energetic than in earlier times, when the abundance of this gas, and a
higher temperature, favored the chemical decomposition of the rocks.
But now, as then, every clod of clay formed from the decay of a
crystalline rock corresponded to an equivalent of carbonic acid
abstracted from the atmosphere, and equivalents of carbonate of lime
and common salt formed from the chloride of calcium of the
sea-water."[159]


H.--TANNIN AND BHEMAH.

The following synopsis of the instances of the occurrence of the words
_tannin_ and _tan_ will serve to show the propriety of the meaning,
"great reptiles," assigned in the text to the former, as well as to
illustrate the utility in such cases of "comparing Scripture with
Scripture:"

                            1. TANNIN.

  Exod. vii., 9.--Take thy rod and  Probably a serpent, though perhaps
  cast it before Pharaoh, and it a  crocodile.
  shall become a _serpent_.         (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakôn].")

  Deut. xxxii., 33.--Their vine is  Probably a species of serpent.
  the poison of _dragons_.          (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakôn].")

  Job vii., 12.--Am I a sea, or a   Michaelis and others think,
  _whale_, that thou settest a      probably correctly, that the Nile
  watch over me.                    and the crocodile, both objects of
                                    vigilance to the Egyptians, are
                                    intended.
                                    (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakôn].")

  Psa. lxxiv., 14.--Thou didst      Evidently refers to the destruction
  divide the sea by thy strength.   of the Egyptians in the Red
  Thou breakest the heads of the    Sea, under emblem of the crocodile.
  _dragons_ in the waters.          (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakôn].")

  Psa. xci., 13.--The young lion    The association shows that a
  and the _dragon_ thou shalt       powerful carnivorous animal is
  trample under foot.               meant.
                                    (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakôn].")

  Psa. cxlviii., 7.--Praise the     Evidently an aquatic creature.
  Lord, ye _dragons_ and all deeps. (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakôn].")

  Isa. xxvii., 1.--He shall slay    A large predaceous aquatic animal
  the _dragon_ in the midst of the  (the crocodile), used here as
  sea [river].                      an emblem of Egypt.
                                    (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakôn].")

  Isa. li., 9.--Hath cut Rahab and  Same as above.
  wounded the _dragon_.

  Jer. li., 34.--[Nebuchadnezzar]   A large predaceous animal.
  hath swallowed me up as a         (Septuagint, [Greek: "drakôn."])
  _dragon_.

  Ezek. xxix., 3.--Pharaoh, king    In the Hebrew _tanim_ appears by
  of Egypt, the great _dragon_      mistake for _tannin_. This is
  that lieth in the rivers.         clearly the crocodile of the Nile.
                                    Verses 4 and 5 show that it is a
                                    large aquatic animal with _scales_.
                                    (Septuagint, [Greek: "drakôn."])

                            2. TAN.

  Psa. xliv., 19.--Thou hast sore   Some understand this of shipwreck;
  broken us in the place of         but, more probably, the
  _dragons_.                        place of dragons is the desert.
                                    (Septuagint, [Greek: "kakôsis."])

  Isa. xxxiv., 13.--[Bozrah in      An animal inhabiting ruins, and
  Idumea] shall be a habitation of  associated with the ostrich.
  _dragons_ and a court of owls [or (Septuagint, [Greek: "seirên."])
  ostriches].

  Isa. xliii., 20.--The wild        Evidently an animal of the dry
  beasts shall honor me,            deserts.
  the _dragons_ and the ostriches,  (Septuagint, [Greek: "seirên."])
  because I give water in the
  wilderness.

  Isa. xiii., 22.--Dragons in       Represented as inhabiting the
  their pleasant palaces.           ruins of Babylon, and associated
                                    with wild beasts of the desert.
                                    (Septuagint, [Greek: "xchinos."])

  Isa. xxxv., 7.--And the parched   An animal making its lair or nest
  ground shall become a pool, and   in dry, parched places.
  the thirsty land springs of       (Septuagint, [Greek: "hornis."])
  water; in the habitation of
  _dragons_, where each lay, shall
  be grass with reeds and rushes.

  Job xxx., 29.--I am a brother of  The association indicates an animal
  _dragons_ and a companion of      of the desert, and the context
  ostriches.                        that its cry is mournful.
                                    (Septuagint, [Greek: "seirên."])

  Jer. ix., 11; x., 22.--I will     Same as above. See also Jeremiah
  make Jerusalem heaps, a den of    xlix., 33; li., 37; and Mal. i., 3,
  _dragons_.                        where the word is in the female
                                    form (_tanoth_).
                                    (Septuagint, [Greek: "drakôn"] and
                                    [Greek: "strouthos."])

  Lam. iv., 3.--Even the            In the Hebrew text the word is
  _sea-monsters_ draw out the       _tannin_, evidently an error for
  breast, they give suck to their   _tanim_. The suckling of young, and
  young ones. The daughter of my    association of ostriches, agree with
  people is become cruel, like      this. (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakôn].")
  the ostriches in the wilderness.

  Micah i., 8.--I will make a       The wailing cry accords with the
  wailing like the _dragons_, and   view of Gesenius that the jackal is
  mourning like the owls            meant.
  [ostriches].                      (Septuagint, "[Greek: drakôn].")

We learn from the above comparative view that the _tannin_ is an
aquatic animal of large size, and predaceous, clothed with scales, and
a fit emblem of the monarchies of Egypt and Assyria. In two places it
is possible that some species of serpent is denoted by it. We must
suppose, therefore, that in Genesis i. it denotes large crocodilian
and perhaps serpentiform reptiles. The _tan_ is evidently a small
mammal of the desert.

I omitted to notice in the text a criticism of my explanation of the
word _bhemah_ in "Archaia," made in Archdeacon Pratt's "Scripture and
Science not at Variance" (edition of 1872). He opposes to the meaning
of "herbivorous animals" which I have sought to establish, two
exceptional passages. In one of these, Deut. xxviii., 26, the word is
used in its most general sense for all beasts, which the context shows
can not be its meaning in Gen. i. In the other, Prov. xxx., 30, he
says it is applied to the lion. The actual expression used, however,
merely implies that the lion is "mighty among _bhemah_," the
comparison being probably between the strength of the lion and that of
oxen, antelopes, and other strong and active creatures. It does not
affirm that the lion is one of the _bhemah_. While I have every
respect for the erudition of Archdeacon Pratt, and highly value his
book, I must regard this objection as an example of a style of
biblical exposition much to be deprecated, though too often employed.


I.--ANCIENT MYTHOLOGIES.

The current views respecting the relations of ancient mythologies with
each other and with the Bible have been continually shifting and
oscillating between extremes. The latest and at present most popular
of these extreme views is that so well expounded by Dr. Max Müller in
his various essays on these subjects, and which traces at least the
Indo-European theogony to a mere personification of natural objects.
The views given in the text are those which to the author appear alone
compatible with the Bible, and with the relations of Semitic and Aryan
theology; but, as the subject is generally regarded from a quite
different point of view, a little further explanation may be
necessary.

1. According to the Bible, spiritual monotheism is the primitive faith
of man, and with this it ranks the doctrine of a malignant spirit or
being opposed to God, and of a primitive state of perfection and
happiness. It is scarcely necessary to say that these doctrines may be
found as sub-strata in all the ancient theologies.

2. In the Hebrew theology the fall introduces the new doctrine of a
mediator or deliverer, human and divine, and an external symbolism,
that of the cherubic forms, composite figures made up of parts of the
man, the lion, the ox, and the eagle. These forms are referred back to
Eden, where they are manifestly the emblems of the perfections of the
Deity, lost to man by the fall, and now opposed to his entrance into
Eden and access to the tree of life, the symbol of his immortal
happiness. Subsequently the cherubim are the visible indications of
the presence of God in the tabernacle and temple; and in the
Apocalypse they reappear as emblems of the Divine perfections, as
reflected in the character of man redeemed. The cherubim, as guardians
of the sacred tree, and of sacred places in general, appear in the
worship of the Assyrians and Egyptians, as the winged lions and bulls
of the former, and the sphinx of the latter. They can also be
recognized in the sepulchral monuments of Greek Asia and of Etruria.
Farther, it was evidently an easy step to proceed from these cherubic
figures to the adoration of sacred animals. But the cherubic emblems
were connected with the idea of a coming Redeemer, and this was with
equal ease perverted into hero-worship. Every great conqueror,
inventor, or reformer was thus recognized as in some sense the "coming
man," just as Eve supposed she saw him in her first-born. In addition
to this, the sacredness of the first mother as the mother of the
promised seed of the woman, led to the introduction of female deities.

3. The earliest ecclesiastical system was the patriarchal, and this
also admitted of corruption into idolatry. The great patriarch,
venerable by age and wisdom, when he left this earth for the spirit
world, was supposed there, in the presence of God, to be the special
guardian of his children on earth. Some of the gods of Egypt and of
Greece were obviously of this character, and in China and Polynesia we
see at this day this kind of idolatry in a condition of active
vitality.

4. As stated in the text, the mythology of Egypt and Greece bears
evident marks of having personified certain cosmological facts akin to
those of the Hebrew narrative of creation. In this way ancient
idolators disposed of the prehistoric and pre-Adamite world, changing
it into a period of gods and demigods. This is very apparent in the
remarkable Assyrian Genesis recovered by the late George Smith from
the clay tablets found in the ruined palace of Assurbanipal.

5. In all rude and imaginative nations, which have lost the distinct
idea of the one God, the Creator, nature becomes more or less a
source of superstitions. Its grand and more rare phenomena of
volcanoes, earthquakes, thunder-storms, eclipses, become supernatural
portents; and as the idea of power associates itself with them, they
are personified as actual agents and become gods. In like manner, the
more constant and useful objects and processes of nature become
personified as beneficent deities. This may be, to a great extent, the
character of the Aryan theology; but, except where all ideas of
primitive religion and traditions of early history have been lost, it
can not be the whole of the religion of any people. The Bible
negatively recognizes this source of idolatry, in so constantly
referring all natural phenomena to the divine decree. In connection
with this, it is worthy of remark that rude man tends to venerate the
new animal forms of strange lands. Something of this kind has probably
led some of the American Indians to give a sort of divine honor to the
bear. It was in Egypt that man first became familiar with the strange
and gigantic fauna of Africa, whose effect on his mind in primitive
times we may gather from the book of Job. In Egypt, consequently,
there must have been a strong natural tendency to the adoration of
animals.

The above origins of idolatry and mythology, as stated or implied in
the Bible, of course assume that the Semitic monotheistic religion is
the primitive one. The first deviations from it probably originated in
the family of Ham. A city of the Rephaim of Bashan was in the days of
Abraham named after Ashtoreth Karnaim--the two-horned Astarte, a
female divinity and prototype of Diana, and perhaps an historic
personage, in whom both the moon and the domestic ox were rendered
objects of worship. This is the earliest Bible notice of
idolatry.[160] In Egypt a mythology of complex diversity existed at
least as far back. We must remember, however, that Egypt is Cush as
well as Mizraim, and its idolatry is probably to be traced, in the
first instance, to the Nimrodic empire, from which, as from a common
centre, certain new and irreligious ideas seem to have been propagated
among all the branches of the human family. It is quite probable that
the correspondences between Egyptian, Greek, and Hindoo myths go back
as far as to the time when the first despotism was erected on the
plain of Shinar, and when able but ungodly men set themselves to erect
new political and social institutions on the ruins of all that their
fathers had held sacred. In addition to this, the mythology and
language of the Aryans alike bear the impress of the innovating and
restless spirit of the sons of Japhet.

I have stated the above propositions to show that the Bible affords a
rational and connected theory of the origin of the false religions of
antiquity; and to suggest as inquiries in relation to every form of
mythology--how much of it is primitive monotheism, how much
cherub-worship, how much hero-worship, how much ancestor-worship, how
much distorted cosmogony, how much pure idealism and superstition,
since all these are usually present. I may be allowed further to
remind the reader how much evidence we have, even in modern times, of
the strong tendency of the human mind to fall into one or another of
these forms of idolatry; and to ask him to reflect that really the
only effectual conservative element is that of revelation. How strong
an argument is this for the necessity to man of an inspired rule of
religious faith.

[The above note was in substance contained in the Appendix to
"Archaia" in 1860, and its correctness has, I think, been confirmed by
subsequent discoveries.]


K.--ASSYRIAN AND EGYPTIAN TEXTS.

Progress is continually being made in the decipherment and publication
of these, and new facts are coming to light in consequence as to the
religions of the early postdiluvian period.

According to the late George Smith and to Mr. Sayce, in their
contributions to Bagster's "Records of the Past," the earliest
monumental history of Babylonia reveals two races, the Akkadian or
Urdu, a Turanian race, with an agglutinate language of the Finnish or
Tartar type, and the Sumir or Keen-gi, believed to be Shemitic. The
race of Akkad seems to have invented the cuneiform writing at a very
early period, and it no doubt represents the primitive Cushites of the
Bible, to whom is attributed the empire of Nimrod, whose first cities
were Babel and Erech and Akkad and Calneh. Very ancient inscriptions
of this early Chaldean or Cushite race exist, probably earlier than
the time of Abraham. That of king Urukh, who is called "a very ancient
king," on an inscription of Nabonadius, 555 B.C., represents himself
as building temples to several gods and goddesses, so that in his time
there was already a developed polytheism, unless, indeed, he was
himself the inventor or introducer of much of it. Yet one can gather
from the probably contemporary Creation and Deluge tablets translated
by Mr. Smith, that a Supreme God was still recognized, and that the
subordinate deities, though their worship was probably gaining in
importance, were still only local and created beings. Yet it was
undoubtedly from this embryo idolatry that Abraham dissented, and was
thus led to leave his native land.

In like manner, in the early Egyptian Hymn to Amen Ra, translated by
Mr. Goodwin, though we have the gods mentioned, they are inferior
beings, and not higher in position than the angels of the Old
Testament, while Ra himself is "Lord of Eternity, Maker Everlasting,"
and is praised as

    "Chief creator of the whole earth,
    Supporter of affairs above every god,
    In whose goodness the gods rejoice."

Thus, although there can be little doubt that Ra was a sun-god, there
can be as little that he is the Il or El of the Shemitic peoples, and
that his worship represents that of the one God, the Creator. It seems
probable also that there was an esoteric doctrine of this kind among
the priests and the educated, however gross the polytheism of the
vulgar. In short, the state of things in Assyria and Egypt was not
dissimilar from that prevailing at this day in India, where learned
men may fall back upon the ancient Vedas, and maintain that their
religion is monotheistic, while the common people worship innumerable
gods. All this points to a primitive monotheism, just as the peculiar
forms of adoration given to saints and the Virgin Mary in the Greek
and Roman churches historically imply a primitive Christianity on
which these newer beliefs and rites have been engrafted.


L.--SPECIES AND VARIETAL FORMS WITH REFERENCE TO THE UNITY OF
MAN.

In the concluding chapters of "Archaia" the nature of species, as
distinguished from varieties, was discussed, and specially applied to
the varieties and races of man. This discussion has been omitted from
the text of the present work; but, in an abridged form, is introduced
here, with especial reference to those more recent views of this
subject now prevalent in consequence of the growth of the philosophy
of evolution; but which I feel convinced must, with the progress of
science, return nearer to the opinions held by me in 1860, and
summarized below.

We can determine species only by the comparison of individuals. If all
these agree in all their characters except those appertaining to sex,
age, and other conditions of the individual merely, we say that they
belong to the same species. If all species were invariable to this
extent, there could be no practical difficulty, except that of
obtaining specimens for comparison. But in the case of very many
species there are minor differences, not sufficient to establish
specific diversity, but to suggest its possibility; and in such cases
there is often great liability to error. In cases of this kind we have
principally two criteria: first, the nature and amount of the
differences; secondly, their shading gradually into each other, or the
contrary. Under the first of these we inquire--Are they no greater in
amount than those which may be observed in individuals of the same
parentage? Are they no greater than those which occur in other species
of similar structure or habits? Do they occur in points known in
other species to be readily variable, or in points that usually remain
unchanged? Are none of them constant in the one supposed species, and
constantly absent in the other? Under the second we ask--Are the
individuals presenting these differences connected together by others
showing a series of gradations uniting the extremes by minute degrees
of difference? If we can answer these questions--or such of them as we
have the means of answering--in the affirmative, we have no hesitation
in referring all to the same species. If obliged to answer all or many
in the negative, we must at least hesitate in the identification; and
if the material is abundant, and the distinguishing characters clear
and well defined, we conclude that there is a specific difference.

Species determined in this way must possess certain general properties
in common:

1. Their individuals must fall within a certain range of uniform
characters, wider or narrower in the case of different species.

2. The intervals between species must be distinctly marked, and not
slurred over by intermediate gradations.

3. The specific characters must be invariably transmitted from
generation to generation, so that they remain equally distinct in
their limits if traced backward or forward in time, in so far as our
observation may extend.

4. Within the limits of the species there is more or less liability to
variation; and this, though perhaps developed by external
circumstances, is really inherent in the species, and must necessarily
form a part of its proper description.

5. There is also a physiological distinction between species, namely,
that the individuals are sterile with one another, whereas this does
not apply to varieties; and though Darwin has labored to break down
this distinction by insisting on rare exceptional cases, and
suggesting many supposed ways by which varieties of the same species
might possibly attain to this kind of distinctness, the difference
still remains as a fact in nature; though one not readily available in
practically distinguishing species.

These general properties of species will, I think, be admitted by all
naturalists as based on nature, and absolutely necessary to the
existence of natural history as a science, independently of any
hypotheses as to the possible changes of specific forms in the lapse
of time. I now proceed to give a similar summary of the laws of the
varieties which may exist--always be it observed, within the limits of
the species.

1. The limits of variation are very different in different species.
There are many in which no well-marked variations have been observed.
There are others in which the variations are so marked that they have
been divided, even by skilful naturalists, into distinct species or
even genera. I do not here refer to differences of age and sex. These
in many animals are so great that nothing but actual knowledge of the
relation that subsists would prevent the individuals from being
entirely separated from one another. I refer merely to the varieties
that exist in adults of the same sex, including, however, those that
depend on arrest of development, and thus make the adult of one
variety resemble in some respects the young of another; as, for
instance, in the hornless oxen, and beardless individuals among men.
If we inquire as to the causes on which the greater or less
disposition to vary depends, we must, in the first place, confess our
ignorance, by saying that it appears to be in a great measure
constitutional, or dependent on minute and as yet not distinctly
appreciable structural, physiological, and psychical characters.
Darwin states that Pallas long ago suggested, from the known facts
that the seeds of hybrid plants and grafted trees are very variable,
the theory that mixture of breeds tends to produce variability; but
Darwin does not seem to attach much importance to this, and admits our
inability to explain the origin of these differences.[161] We know,
however, certain properties of species that are always or usually
connected with great liability to variation. The principal of these
are the following: 1. The liability to vary is, in many cases, not
merely a specific peculiarity; it is often general in the members of a
genus or family. Thus the cats, as a family, are little prone to vary;
the wolves and foxes very much so. 2. Species that are very widely
distributed over the earth's surface are usually very variable. In
this case the capacity to vary probably adapts the creature to a great
variety of circumstances, and so enables it to be widely distributed.
It must be observed here that hardiness and variability of
constitution are more important to extensive distribution than mere
locomotive powers, for matters have evidently been so arranged in
nature that, where the habitat is suitable, colonists will find their
way to it, even in the face of difficulties almost insurmountable. 3.
Constitutional liability to vary is sometimes connected with or
dependent on extreme simplicity of structure, in other cases on a high
degree of intelligence and consequent adaptation to various modes of
subsistence. Those minute, simply organized, and very variable
creatures, the Foraminifera, exemplify the first of these apparent
causes; the crafty wolves furnish examples of the second. 4.
Susceptibility to variation is farther modified by the greater or less
adaptability of the digestive and locomotive organs to varied kinds of
food and habitat. The monkeys, intelligent, imitative, and active, are
nevertheless very limited in range and variability, because they can
comfortably subsist only in forests, and in the warmer regions of the
earth. The hog, more sluggish and less intelligent, has an omnivorous
appetite, and no very special requirements of habitat, and so can vary
greatly and extend over a large portion of the earth. Farther, in
connection with this subject it may be observed that the conditions
favorable to variation are also in the case of the higher animals
favorable to domestication, while it may also be affirmed that, other
things being equal, animals in a domesticated state are much more
liable to vary than those in a wild state, and this independent of
intentional selection. Darwin admits this, and gives many examples of
it.

2. Varieties may originate in two different ways. In the case of wild
animals it is generally supposed that they are gradually induced by
the slow operation of external influences; but it is certain that in
domesticated animals they often appear suddenly and unexpectedly, and
are not on that account at all less permanent. A large proportion of
our breeds of domestic animals appear to originate in this way. A very
remarkable instance is that of the "Niata" cattle of the Banda
Orientale, described by Darwin in his "Voyage of a Naturalist." These
cattle are believed to have originated about a century ago among the
Indians to the south of the La Plata, and the breed propagates itself
with great constancy. "They appear," says Darwin, "externally to hold
nearly the same relation to other cattle which bull-dogs hold to other
dogs. Their forehead is very short and broad, with the nasal end
turned up, and the upper lip much drawn back; their lower jaws project
outward; when walking they carry their heads low on a short neck, and
their hinder legs are rather longer compared with the front legs than
is usual." It is farther remarkable in respect to this breed that it
is, from its conformation of head, less adapted to the severe droughts
of those regions than the ordinary cattle, and can not, therefore, be
regarded as an adaptation to circumstances. In his later work on
animals under domestication, Darwin gives many other instances of the
origination of breeds of cattle and other animals in this abrupt and
mysterious manner, and without any selection, though he strongly leans
to the conclusion that slow and gradual changes are the most frequent
causes of variation. It is to be observed, however, that very slow
changes are in more danger of being accidentally diverted or
obliterated by crossing, and that the first stages of an incipient
change may be too unimportant to be permanent.

Many writers on the subject of the Unity of Man assume that any marked
variety must require a long time for its production. Our experience in
the case of the domestic animals teaches the reverse of this view; a
very important point too often overlooked.

3. The duration or permanence of varieties is very different. Some
return at once to the normal type when the causes of change are
removed. Others perpetuate themselves nearly as invariably as species,
and are named races. It is these races only that we are likely to
mistake for true species, since here we have that permanent
reproduction which is one of the characteristics of the species. The
race, however, wants the other characteristics of species as above
stated; and it differs essentially in having branched from a primitive
species, and in not having an independent origin. It is quite evident
that in the absence of historical evidence we must be very likely to
err by supposing races to have really originated in distinct
"primordial forms." Such error is especially likely to arise if we
overlook the fact of the sudden origination of such races, and their
great permanency if kept distinct. There are two facts which deserve
especial notice, as removing some of the difficulty in such cases. One
is that well-marked races usually originate only in domesticated
animals, or in wild animals which, owing to accidental circumstances,
are placed in abnormal circumstances. Another is, that there always
remains a tendency to return, in favorable circumstances, to the
original type. This tendency to reversion is much underrated by Darwin
and his followers; yet they constantly recur to it as a means of
proving possible derivation, and their writings abound in examples of
it. Perhaps the most remarkable of these reversions are those which
occur when varieties destitute of all the markings of the original
stock are crossed and reproduce those markings, which Darwin shows to
occur in pigeons and domestic fowls. The domesticated races usually
require a certain amount of care to preserve them in a state of
purity, both on this account and on account of the readiness with
which they intermix with other varieties of the same species. Many
very interesting facts in illustration of these points might be
adduced. The domesticated hog differs in many important characters
from the wild boar. In South America and the West Indies it has
returned, in three centuries or less, to its original form.[162] The
horse is probably not known in a state originally wild, but it has run
wild in America and in Siberia. In the prairies of North America,
according to Catlin[163] they still show great varieties of color. The
same is the case in Sable Island, off the coast of Nova Scotia[164]
where herds of wild horses have existed since an early period in the
settlement of America. In South America and Siberia they have assumed
a uniform chestnut or bay color. In the plains of Western America they
retain the dimensions and vigor of the better breeds of domesticated
horses. In Sable Island they have already degenerated to the level of
Highland ponies; but in all countries where they have run wild, the
elongated and arched head, high shoulders, straight back, and other
structural characters probably of the original wild horse, have
appeared. We also learn from such instances that, while races among
domesticated animals may appear suddenly, they revert to the original
type, when unmixed, comparatively slowly; and this especially when the
variation is in the nature of degeneracy.

4. Some characters are more subject to variation than others. In the
higher animals variation takes place very readily in the color and
texture of the skin and its appendages. This, from its direct relation
to the external world, and ready sympathy with the condition of the
digestive organs, might be expected to take the lead. In those
domesticated animals which are little liable to vary in other
respects, as the cat and duck, the color very readily changes. Next
may be placed the stature and external proportions, and the form of
such appendages as the external ear and tail. All these characters are
very variable in domestic animals. Next we may place the form of the
skull, which, though little variable in the wild state, is nearly
always changed by domestication. Psychological functions, as the
so-called instincts of animals, are also very liable to change, and to
have these changes perpetuated in races. Very remarkable instances of
this have been collected by Sir C. Lyell[165] and Dr. Prichard.
Lastly, important physiological characters, as the period of
gestation, etc., and the structure of the internal organs connected
with the functions of nutrition, respiration, etc., are little liable
to change, and remain unaffected by the most extreme variations in
other points; and it is, no doubt, in these more essential and
internal parts that the tendency survives to return under favorable
circumstances to the original type.

5. Varieties or races of the same species are fully reproductive with
each other, which is not the case with true species. Mutual sterility
of varieties of the same species is an exceptional peculiarity, if it
ever truly exist; and, on the other hand, the cross-fertilization of
varieties of the same species, whether in animals or plants, tends to
vigorous life, and also to return to the primitive or average type. On
the other hand, intermixture of distinct species rarely, if ever,
occurs freely in nature. It is generally a result of artificial
contrivance. Again, hybrids produced from species known to be distinct
are either wholly barren, or barren _inter se_, reproducing only with
one of the original stocks, and rapidly returning to it; or if ever
fertile _inter se_, which is somewhat doubtful, rapidly run out. It
has been maintained by Pallas and others, and Darwin leans to this
idea, that there is still another possibility, namely, that of the
perfect and continued fertility of such mixed races, especially after
long domestication; but their proofs are derived principally from the
intermixture of the races of dogs and of poultry, which are cases
actually in dispute at present, as to the original unity or diversity
of the so-called species.

If we apply these considerations to man, our conclusion must be that,
even in his bodily frame, he is not merely specifically but ordinally
distinct from other animals, and that the differences between races of
men are varietal rather than specific. This view is confirmed by the
following facts:

1. The case of man is not that of a wild animal; and it presents many
points of difference even from the case of the domesticated lower
animals. According to the Bible history, man was originally fitted to
subsist on fruits, to inhabit a temperate climate, and to be exempt
from the necessity of destroying or contending with other animals.
This view unquestionably accords very well with his organization. He
still subsists principally on vegetable food, is most numerous in the
warmer regions of the earth; and, when so subsisting in these regions,
is naturally peaceful and timid. On the whole, however, his habits of
life are artificial--more so than those of any domesticated animal. He
is, therefore, in the conditions most favorable to variation. Again,
man possesses more than merely animal instincts. His mental powers
permit him to devise means of locomotion, of protection, of
subsistence, far superior to those of any mere animal; and his
dominant will, insatiable in its desires, bends the bodily frame to
uses and exposes it to external influences more various than any
inferior animal can dream of. Man is also more educable and plastic in
his constitution than other animals, owing both to his being less
hemmed in by unchanging instincts, and to his physical frame being
less restricted in its adaptations. If a single species, he is also
more widely distributed than any other; and there are even single
races which exceed in their extent of distribution nearly all the
inferior animals. Nor is there anything in his structure specially to
limit him to plains, or hills, or forests, or coasts, or inland
regions. All the causes which we can suppose likely to produce
variation thus meet in man, who is himself the producer of most of the
distinct races that we observe in the lower animals. If, therefore, we
condescend to compare man with these creatures, it must be under
protest that what we learn from them must be understood with reference
to his greater capabilities.

2. The races of men are deficient in some of the essential characters
of species. It is true that they are reproduced with considerable
permanency; though a great many cases of spontaneous change, of
atavism, or return to the character of progenitors, and of slow
variation under changed conditions, have been recorded. But the most
manifest deficiency in true specific characters is in the invariable
shading-off of one race into another, and in the entire failure of
those who maintain the distinction of species in the attempt
accurately to define their number and limits. The characters run into
each other in such a manner that no natural arrangement based on the
whole can apparently be arrived at; and when one particular ground is
taken, as color, or shape of skull, the so-called species have still
no distinct limits; and all the arrangements formed differ from each
other, and from the deductions of philology and history. Thus, from
the division of Virey into two species, on the entirely arbitrary
ground of facial angle, to that of Bory de St. Vincent into fifteen,
we have a great number and variety of distinctions, all incapable of
zoological definition; or, if capable of definition, eminently
unnatural. There are, in short, no missing links between the varieties
of men corresponding to that which obtains between man and lower
animals.

3. The races of men differ in those points in which the higher animals
usually vary with the greatest facility. The physical characters
chiefly relied on have been color, character of hair, and form of
skull, together with diversities in stature and general proportion.
These are precisely the points in which our domestic races are most
prone to vary. The manner in which these characters differ in the
races of men may be aptly illustrated by a few examples of the
arrangements to which they lead.

Dr. Pickering, of the U. S. Exploring Expedition[166]--who does not,
however, commit himself to any specific distinctions--has arranged the
various races of men on the very simple and obvious ground of color.
He obtains in this way four races--the White, the Brown, the
Blackish-brown, the Black. The distinction is easy; but it divides
races historically, philologically, and structurally alike; and unites
those which, on other grounds, would be separated. The white race
includes the Hamite Abyssinian, the Semitic Arabian, the Japhetic
Greek. The Ethiopian or Berber is separated from the cognate
Abyssinian, and the dark Hindoo from the paler races speaking like him
tongues allied to the Sanscrit. The Papuan, on the other hand, takes
his place with the Hindoo; while the allied Australian must be content
to rank with the Negro; and the Hottentot is promoted to a place
beside the Malay. It is unnecessary to pursue any farther the
arrangement of this painstaking and conscientious inquirer. It
conclusively demonstrates that the color of the varieties of the human
race must be arbitrary and accidental, and altogether independent of
unity or diversity of origin.

Some use has been made, by the advocates of diversity of species, of
the quality of the hair in the different races. That of the Negro is
said to be flat in its cross section--in this respect approaching to
wool; that of the European is oval; and that of the Mongolian and
American round.[167] The subject has as yet been very imperfectly
investigated; but its indications point to no greater variety than
that which occurs in many domesticated animals--as, for instance, the
hog and sheep. Nay, Dr. Carpenter states[168]--and the writer has
satisfied himself of the fact by his own observation--that it does not
exceed the differences in the hair from different parts of the body of
the same individual. The human hair, like that of mammals in general,
consists of three tissues: an outer cortical layer, marked by
transverse striæ, having in man the aspect of delicate lines, but in
many other animals assuming the character of distinct joints or
prominent serrations; a layer of elongated, fibrous cells, to which
the hair owes most of its tenacity; and an inner cylinder of rounded
cells. In the proportionate development of these several parts, in the
quantity of coloring matter present, and in the transverse section,
the human hair differs very considerably in different parts of the
body. It also differs very markedly in individuals of different
complexions. Similar but not greater differences obtain in the hair of
the scalp in different races; but the flatness of the Negro's hair
connects itself inseparably with the oval of the hair of the ordinary
European, and this with the round observed in some other races. It
generally holds that curled and frizzled hair is flatter than that
which is lank and straight; but this is not constant, for I have found
that the waved or frizzled hair of the New Hebrideans, intermediate
apparently between the Polynesians and Papuans, is nearly circular in
outline, and differs from European hair mainly in the greater
development of the fibrous structure and the intensity of the color.
Large series of comparisons are required; but those already made point
to variation rather than specific difference. Some facts also appear
to indicate very marked differences as occurring in the same race from
constant exposure or habitual covering; and also the occasional
appearance of the most abnormal forms, without apparent cause, in
individuals. The differences depending on greater or less abundance or
vigor of growth of the hair are obviously altogether trivial, when
compared with such examples as the hairless dogs of Chili and hairless
cattle of Brazil, or even with the differences in this respect
observed in individuals of the same race of men.

Confessedly the most important differences of the races of men are
those of the skeleton, in all parts of which variations of proportion
occur, and are of course more or less communicated to the muscular
investments. Of these, as they exist in the pelvis, limbs, etc., I
need say nothing; for, manifest though they are, they all fall far
within the limits of variation in familiar domestic animals, and also
of hereditary malformation or defect of development occurring in the
European nations, and only requiring isolation for its perpetuation as
a race. The differences in the skull merit more attention, for it is
in this and in its enclosed brain that man most markedly differs from
the lower animals, as well as race from race. It is in the form rather
than in the mere dimensions of the skull that we should look for
specific differences; and here, adopting the vertical method of
Blumenbach as the most characteristic and valuable, we find a greater
or less antero-posterior diameter--a greater or less development of
the jaws and bones of the face. The skull of the normal European, or
Caucasian of Cuvier, is round oval; and the jaws and cheek-bones
project little beyond its anterior margin, when viewed from above. The
skull of the Mongolian of Cuvier is nearly round, and the cheek-bones
and jaws project much more strongly in front and at the sides. The
Negro skull is lengthened from back to front; the jaws project
strongly, or are prognathous; but the cheek-bones are little
prominent. For the extremes of these varieties, Retzius proposed the
names of brachy-kephalic or short-headed, and dolicho-kephalic or
long-headed, which have come into general use. The differences
indicated by these terms are of great interest, as distinctive marks
of many of the unmixed races of men; but, when pushed to extremes,
lead to very incorrect generalizations--as Professor D. Wilson has
well shown in his paper on the supposed uniformity of type in the
American races--a doctrine which he fully refutes by showing that
within a very narrow geographical range this primitive and unmixed
race presents very great differences of cranial form.[169] Exclusive
of idiots, artificially compressed heads, and deformities, the
differences between the brachy-kephalic and dolicho-kephalic heads
range from equality in the parietal and longitudinal diameter to the
proportion of about 14 to 24. As stated by some ethnologists, these
differences appear quite characteristic and distinct; but, so soon as
we attempt any minute discrimination, all confidence in them as
specific characters disappears. In our ordinary European races similar
differences, and nearly as extensive, occur. The dolicho-kephalic head
is really only an immature form perpetuated; and appears not only in
the Negro, but in the Esquimau, and in certain ancient and modern
Celtic races. The brachy-kephalic head, in like manner, is
characteristic of certain tribes and portions of tribes of Americans,
but not of all; of many northern Asiatic nations; of certain Celtic
and Scandinavian tribes; and often appears in the modern European
races as an occasional character. Farther, as Retzius has well shown,
the long heads and prominent jaws are not always associated with each
other; and his classification is really the testimony of an able
observer against the value of these characters. He shows that the
Celtic and Germanic races (in part) have long heads and straight jaws;
while the Negroes, Australians, Oceanians, Caribs, Greenlanders, etc.,
have long heads and prominent jaws. The Laplanders, Finns, Turks,
Sclaves, Persians, etc., have short heads and straight jaws; while the
Tartars, Mongolians, Incas, Malays, Papuans, etc., have short heads
and prominent jaws.

Another defect in the argument often based on the diverse forms of
heads is its want of acknowledgment of the ascertained and popularly
known fact that these forms in different tribes or individuals of the
same race are markedly influenced by culture and habits of life. In
all races ignorance and debasement tend to induce a prognathous form,
while culture tends to the elevation of the nasal bones, to an
orthognathous condition of the jaws, and to an elevation and expansion
of the cranium.[170]

Again, no adequate allowance has been made in the case of these forms
of skull for the influence of modes of nurture in infancy. Dr. Morton,
observing that the brachy-kephalic American skull was often unequal
sided, and the occiput much flattened, suggests that this is "an
exaggeration of the natural form produced by the pressure of the
cradle-board in common use among the American natives." Dr. Wilson has
noticed the same unsymmetrical character in brachy-kephalic skulls in
British barrows, and has suspected some artificial agency in infancy;
and says, in reference to the American instances, "I think it
extremely probable that further investigation will tend to the
conclusion that the vertical or flattened occiput, instead of being a
typical characteristic, pertains entirely to the class of artificial
modifications of the natural cranium familiar to the American
ethnologist."

While the points in which the races of men vary are those in which
lower animals are most liable to undergo change, the several races
display a remarkable constancy in those which are usually less
variable. Prichard and Carpenter have well shown this in relation to
physiological points, as, for instance, the age of arriving at
maturity, the average and extreme duration of life, and the several
periods connected with reproduction. The coincidence in these points
alone is by many eminent physiologists justly regarded as sufficient
evidence of the unity of the species.

4. It may also be affirmed, in relation to the varieties of man, that
they do not exceed in amount or extent those observed in the lower
animals. If with Frederick Cuvier, Dr. Carpenter, and many other
naturalists, we regard the dog as a single species, descended in all
probability from the wolf, we can have no hesitation in concluding
that this animal far exceeds man in variability.[171] But this is
denied by many, not without some show of reason; and we may,
therefore, select some animal respecting which little doubt can be
entertained. Perhaps the best example is the common hog (_Sus
scrofa_), an undoubted descendant of the wild boar, and a creature
especially suitable for comparison with man, inasmuch as its possible
range of food is very much the same with his, which is not the case
with any other of our domesticated animals; and as its headquarters as
a species are in the same regions which have supported the greatest
and oldest known communities of men. We may exclude from our
comparison the Chinese hog, by some regarded as a distinct species
(_Sus Indicus_), though no wild original is known, and it breeds
freely with the common hog. The color of the domestic hog varies, like
that of man, from white to black; and in the black hog the skin as
well as the hair partakes of the dark color. The abundance and
quality of the hair vary extremely; the stature and form are equally
variable, much more so than in man. Blumenbach long ago remarked that
the difference between the skull of the ordinary domestic hog and that
of the wild boar is quite equal to that observed between the Negro and
European skulls. Darwin shows that it is much greater, and illustrates
this by an amusing pair of portraits. The breeds of swine even differ
in directions altogether unparalleled in man. For instance, both in
America and Europe solid-hoofed swine have originated and become a
permanent variety; and there is said to be another variety with five
toes.[172] These are the more remarkable, because, in the American
instances, there can be no doubt that it is the common hog which has
assumed these abnormal forms.

5. All varieties or races of men intermix freely, in a manner which
strongly indicates specific unity. We hold here, as already stated,
that no good case of a permanent race arising from intermixture of
distinct species of the lower animals has been adduced; but there is
another fact in relation to this subject which the advocates of
specific diversity would do well to study. Even in varieties of those
domestic animals which are certainly specifically identical, as the
hog, the sheep, the ox--although crosses between the varieties may
easily be produced--they are not readily maintained, and sometimes
tend to die out. What are called good crosses lead to improved energy,
and continual breeding in and in of the same variety leads to
degeneracy and decay; but, on the other hand, crosses of certain
varieties are proved by experience to be of weakly and unproductive
quality; and every practical book on cattle contains remarks on the
difficulty of keeping up crosses without intermixture with one of the
pure breeds. It would thus appear that very unlike varieties of the
same species display in this respect, in an imperfect manner, the
peculiarities of distinct species. It is on this principle that I
would in part account for some of the exceptional facts which occur in
mixed races of men.

What, then, are the facts in the case of man? In producing crosses of
distinct species, as in the case of the horse and ass, breeders are
obliged to resort to expedients to overcome the natural repugnance to
such intermixture. In the case of even the most extreme varieties of
man, if such repugnance exists, it is voluntarily overcome, as the
slave population of America testifies abundantly. By far the greater
part of the intermixtures of races of men tend to increase of vital
energy and vigor, as in the case of judicious crosses of some domestic
animals. Where a different result occurs, we usually find sufficient
secondary causes to account for it. I shall refer to but one such
case--that of the half-breed American Indian. In so far as I have had
opportunities of observation or inquiry, these people are prolific,
much more so than the unmixed Indian. They are also energetic, and
often highly intellectual; but they are of delicate constitution,
especially liable to scrofulous diseases, and therefore not
long-lived. Now this is precisely the result which often occurs in
domestic animals, where a highly cultivated race is bred with one that
is of ruder character and training; and it very probably results from
the circumstance that the progeny may inherit too much of the delicacy
of the one parent to endure the hardships congenial to the other; or,
on the other hand, too much of the wild nature of the ruder parent to
subsist under the more delicate nurture of the more cultivated. This
difficulty does not apply to the intermixture of the Negro and the
European, though between the pure races this is a cross too abrupt to
be likely to be in the first instance successful.

6. The races of man may have originated in the same manner with the
breeds of our domesticated animals. There are many facts which render
it probable that they did originate in this way. Take color, for
instance. The fair varieties of man occur only in the northern
temperate zone, and chiefly in the equable climates of that zone. In
extreme climates, even when cold, dusky and yellow colors appear. The
black and blackish-brown colors are confined to the inter-tropical
regions, and appear in such portions of all the great races of mankind
as have been long domiciled there. Diet and degree of exposure have
also evidently very much to do with form, stature, and color. The
deer-eating Chippewayan of certain districts of North America is a
better developed man than his compatriots who subsist principally on
rabbits and such meaner fare; and excess of carbonaceous food, and
deficiency of perspiration or of combustion in the lungs, appear
everywhere to darken the skin.[173] The Negro type in its extreme form
is peculiar to low and humid river valleys of tropical Africa. In
Australasia similar characters appear in men of a very different race
in similar circumstances. The Mongolian type reappears in South
Africa. The Esquimau is like the Fuegian. The American Indian, both of
South and North America, resembles the Mongol; but in several of the
middle regions of the American continent men appear who approximate to
the Malay. Everywhere and in all races coarse features and deviations
from the oval form of skull are observed in rude populations. Where
men have sunk into a child-like simplicity, the elongated forms
prevail. Where they have become carnivorous, aggressive, and actively
barbarous, the brachy-kephalic forms abound. These and many other
considerations tend to the conclusion that these varieties are
inseparably connected with external conditions. It may still be
asked--Were not the races created as they are, with especial reference
to these conditions? I answer no--because the differences are of a
character in every respect like those that appear in other true
species as the results of influences from without.

Farther, not only have we varieties of man resulting from the slow
operation of climatal and other conditions, but we have the sudden
development of races. One remarkable instance may illustrate my
meaning. It is the hairy family of Siam, described by Mr. Crawford and
Mr. Yule.[174] The peculiarities here consisted of a fine silky coat
of hair covering the face and less thickly the whole body, with at the
same time the entire absence of the canine and molar teeth. The person
in whom these characters originated was sent to Ava as a curiosity
when five years old. He married at twenty-two, his wife being an
ordinary Burmese woman. One of two children who survived infancy had
all the characters of the father. This was a girl; and on her marriage
the same characters reappeared in one of two boys constituting her
family when seen by Mr. Yule. Here was a variety of a most extreme
character, originating without apparent cause, and capable of
propagation for three generations, even when crossed with the ordinary
type. Had it originated in circumstances favorable to the preservation
of its purity, it might have produced a tribe or nation of hairy men,
with no teeth except incisors. Such a tribe would, with some
ethnologists, have constituted a new and very distinct species; and
any one who had suggested the possibility of its having originated
within a few generations as a variety would have been laughed at for
his credulity. It is unnecessary to cite any further instances. I
merely wish to insist on the necessity of a rigid comparison of the
variations which appear in man, either suddenly or in a slow or
secular manner, with the characters of the so-called races or species.

7. If we turn from the merely physical constitution of man, and
inquire as to his psychical and spiritual endowments, it would be easy
to show, as Dr. Carpenter and others have done, in opposition to
Darwin, that on the one hand an impassable barrier separates man from
the lower animals, and that on the other there is an essential unity
among the races of men. But this subject I have discussed fully in the
concluding chapters of my "Story of the Earth."

If man is thus so very variable, and if many of his leading varieties
have existed for a very long time, does not the fact that we have but
one species afford very strong evidence that species change only
within fixed limits, and do not pass over into new specific types.
Viewed in this way, variability within the specific limits becomes in
itself one of the strongest arguments against the doctrine of descent
with modification as a mode of origination of new species.

Let us now add to all this the farther consideration, so well
illustrated in the "Reliquiæ Aquitanicæ" of Christy and Lartet, that
the oldest-known men of the caves and gravels may be placed in one of
the varieties, and this the most widely distributed, of modern man,
and we have a further argument which tells most strongly against the
assumption either of the extreme antiquity or of the unlimited
variability of the human species.



FOOTNOTES


[Footnote 1: Argyll's "Primeval Man."]

[Footnote 2: Essays on Theism, 1875.]

[Footnote 3: John i., 9.]

[Footnote 4: Hebrews xi., 3.]

[Footnote 5: I avail myself of the condensed translation in Bancroft's
"Native Races," vol. iii. The original French translation of Brasseur du
Bourbourg is more full.]

[Footnote 6: The Feathered Serpent is perhaps the representative of the
Dragon and Serpent in the Semitic version; but has not the same evil
import, and his color gave sacredness to blue and green stones, as the
turquois and emerald, both in North and South America, and perhaps also
in Asia and Africa.]

[Footnote 7: I do not think it necessary to attach any value to the
doubts of certain schools of criticism as to the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch. Whatever quibbles may be raised on isolated texts, no
rational student can doubt that we have in these books a collection of
authentic documents of the Exodus. They are absolutely inexplicable on
any other supposition.]

[Footnote 8: "Cosmos," Otté's translation.]

[Footnote 9: Hamilton, "Royal Preacher."]

[Footnote 10: Harvey, "Nereis Boreali Americana."]

[Footnote 11: Osburn, "Monumental History of Egypt."]

[Footnote 12: On this subject I may refer naturalists to the intimate
acquaintance with animals and their habits, indicated by manner of their
use as sacred emblems, and as symbols in hieroglyphic writing. Another
illustration is afforded by the Mosaic narrative of the miracles and
plagues connected with the exodus. The Egyptian king, on this occasion,
consulted the _philosophers_ and _augurs_. These learned men evidently
regarded the serpent-rod miracle as but a more skilful form of one of
the tricks of serpent-charmers. They showed Pharaoh the possibility of
reddening the Nile water by artificial means, or perhaps by the
development of red algæ in it. They explained the inroad of frogs on
natural principles, probably referring to the immense abundance
ordinarily of the ova and tadpoles of these creatures compared with that
of the adults. But when the dust of the land became gnats ("lice" in our
version), this was a phenomenon beyond their experience. Either the
species was unknown to them, or its production out of the dry ground was
an anomaly, or they knew that no larvæ adequate to explain it had
previously existed. In the case of this plague, therefore, comparatively
insignificant and easily simulated, they honestly confessed--"This is
the finger of God." No better evidence could be desired that the savans
here opposed to Moses were men of high character and extensive
observation. Many other facts of similar tendency might be cited both
from Moses and the Egyptian monuments.]

[Footnote 13: That in Genesis, chap. ii.]

[Footnote 14: Kitto's Cyclopædia, art. "Creation."]

[Footnote 15: Much that is very silly has been written as to the extent
of the supposed "optical view" taken by the Hebrew writers; many worthy
literary men appearing to suppose that _scientific_ views of nature must
necessarily be different from those which we obtain by the evidence of
our senses. The very contrary is the fact; and so long as any writers
state correctly what they observe, without insisting on any fanciful
hypotheses, science has no fault to find with them. What science most
detests is the ignorant speculations of those who have not observed at
all, or have observed imperfectly. It is a leading excellence of the
Hebrew Scriptures that they state facts without giving any theories to
account for them. It is, on the contrary, the circumstance that
unscientific writers will not be content to be "optical," but must
theorize, that spoils much of our modern literature, especially in its
descriptions of nature.]

[Footnote 16: Prof. Hitchcock.]

[Footnote 17: McCosh, "Typical Forms and Special Ends."]

[Footnote 18: I adopt that view of the date of Job which makes it
precede the Exodus, because the religious ideas of the book are
patriarchal, and it contains no allusions to the Hebrew history or
institutions. Were I to suggest an hypothesis as to its origin, it would
be that it was written or found by Moses when in exile, and published
among his countrymen in Egypt, to revive their monotheistic religion,
and cheer them under the apparent desertion of their God and the evils
of their bondage.]

[Footnote 19: Tyndall seems to hold this.]

[Footnote 20: Newton.]

[Footnote 21: John v., 17; Rom. viii., 22; Heb. i., 2; 2 Peter iii.]

[Footnote 22: Heb. i., 2.]

[Footnote 23: Eph. iii., 9.]

[Footnote 24: 1 Tim. i., 17.]

[Footnote 25: Eph. iv., 11.]

[Footnote 26: Job xxxviii. and xxxix.]

[Footnote 27: Romans i., 20.]

[Footnote 28: Essays on Theism.]

[Footnote 29: Herschel, Dissertation on the Study of Natural Philosophy;
Maxwell, Lecture before the British Association.]

[Footnote 30: Carpenter, "Human Physiology."]

[Footnote 31: Asah.]

[Footnote 32: McDonald, "Creation and the Fall."]

[Footnote 33: Literally, "ages" or "time-worlds," as they have been
called.]

[Footnote 34: Genesis i., 8, 26-28.]

[Footnote 35: Job xxxviii., 37.]

[Footnote 36: Gen. i., 14; Deut. xvii., 3.]

[Footnote 37: Gen. xxviii., 17; Job xv., 15; Psa. ii., 4.]

[Footnote 38: Not "created," as some read. The verb is _kana_, not
_bara_.]

[Footnote 39: The usual Septuagint rendering is _Abyssus_.]

[Footnote 40: Smith, "Assyrian Genesis." Brasseur de Bourbourg's
translation of the "Popol Vuh" of the ancient Central American Indians.]

[Footnote 41: It is impossible to avoid recognizing in the Greek
Theogony, as it appears in Hesiod and the Orphic poems, an inextricable
intermingling of a cosmogony akin to that of Moses with legendary
stories of deceased ancestors; and this has, I must confess, always
appeared to me to be a more rational way of accounting for it than its
reference to mere nature-myths. Chaos, or space, for the chaos of Hesiod
differs from that of Ovid, came first, then Gaea, the earth, and
Tartarus, or the lower world. Chaos gave birth to Erebos (identical with
the Hebrew Ereb or Erev, evening) and Nyx, or night. These again give
birth to Aether, the equivalent of the Hebrew expanse or firmament, and
to Hemera, the day, and then the heavenly bodies were perfected. So far
the legend is apparently based on some primitive history of creation,
not essentially different from that of the Bible. But the Greek Theogony
here skips suddenly to the human period; and under the fables of the
marriage of Gaea and Uranos, and the Titans, appears to present to us
the antediluvian world, with its intermarriages of the sons of God and
men, and its Nephelim or Giants, with their mechanic arts and their
crimes. Beyond this, in Kronos and his three sons, and in the strange
history of Zeus, the chief of these, we have a coarse and fanciful
version of the story of the family of Noah, the insult offered by Ham to
his father, and the subsequent quarrels and dispersion of mankind. The
Zeus of Homer appears to be the elder of the three, or Japheth, the real
father of the Greeks, according to the Bible; but in the time of Hesiod
Zeus was the youngest, perhaps indicating that the worship of the
Egyptian Zeus, Ammon or Ham, had already supplanted among the Greeks
that of their own ancestor. But it is curious that even in the Bible,
though Japhet is said to be the greater, he is placed last in the lists.
After the introduction of Greek savans and literati to Egypt, about B.C.
660, they began to regard their own mythology from this point of view,
though obliged to be reserved on the subject. The cosmology of Thales,
the astronomy of Anaxagoras, and the history of Herodotus afford early
evidence of this, and it abounds in later writers. I may refer the
reader to Grote (History of Greece, vol. i.) for an able and agreeable
summary of this subject; and may add that even the few coincidences
above pointed out between Greek mythology and the Bible, independently
of the multitudes of more doubtful character to be found in the older
writers on this subject, appear very wonderful, when we consider that
among the Greeks these vestiges of primitive religion, whether brought
with them from the East or received from abroad, must have been handed
down for a long time by oral tradition among the people; but obscure
though they may be, the circumstance that some old writers have ridden
the resemblances to death affords no excuse for the prevailing neglect
of them in more modern times.]

[Footnote 42: Pages 21, 22, and 109, _supra_.]

[Footnote 43: The minor planets discovered in more recent times between
Mars and Jupiter form an exception to this; but they are of little
importance, and exceptional in other respects as well. To give their
arrangement and the motions of the satellites of Uranus, would require
the further assumption of some unknown disturbing cause.]

[Footnote 44: Nichol's "Planetary System."]

[Footnote 45: Proctor's Lectures, etc.]

[Footnote 46: This translation is as literal as is consistent with the
bold abruptness of the original. The last idea is that of a cylindrical
seal rolling over clay, and leaving behind a beautiful impression where
all before was a blank.]

[Footnote 47: Professor Dana thus sums up the various meanings of the
word _day_ in Genesis: "_First_, in verse 5, the _light_ in general is
called day, the darkness night. _Second_, in the same verse, _evening
and morning_ make the first day, before the sun appears. _Third_, in
verse 14, day stands for _twelve hours_, or the period of daylight, as
dependent on the sun. _Fourth_, same verse, in the phrase "days and
seasons," day stands for a period of _twenty-four hours_. _Fifth_, at
the close of the account, in verse 4 of the second chapter, day means
the _whole period of creation_. These uses are the same that we have in
our own language."

Warring, in his book "The Miracle of To-day," has suggested that the
Mosaic days are _epochal_ days, each considered as the close and
culmination of a period. This is an ingenious suggestion, and very well
coincides with the day-period theory as defended in the text.]

[Footnote 48: Psalm xc.]

[Footnote 49: It may be desirable to give here, in a slightly
paraphrased version, but strictly in accordance with the views of the
best expositors, the essential part of the passage in Hebrews, chap.
iv.:

"For God hath spoken in a certain place" (Gen. ii., 2) of the seventh
day in this wise--'And God did rest on the seventh day from all his
works;' and in this place again--'They shall not enter into my rest'
(Psa. xcv., 11). Seeing, therefore, it still remaineth that some enter
therein, and they to whom it (God's Sabbatism) was first proclaimed
entered not in, because of disobedience (in the fall, and afterward in
the sin of the Israelites in the desert), again he fixes a certain day,
saying in David's writings, long after the time of Joshua--'To-day, if
ye hear his voice, harden not your hearts.' For if Joshua had given them
rest in Canaan, he would not afterward have spoken of another day. There
is therefore yet reserved a keeping of a Sabbath for the people of God.
For he that is entered into his rest (that is, Jesus Christ, who has
finished his work and entered into his rest in heaven), he himself also
rested from his own works, as God did from his own. Let us therefore
earnestly strive to enter into that rest."

It is evident that in this passage God's Sabbatism, the rest intended
for man in Eden and for Israel in Canaan, Christ's rest in heaven after
finishing his work, and the final heavenly rest of Christ's people, are
all indefinite periods mutually related, and can not possibly be natural
days.]

[Footnote 50: For the benefit of those who may value ancient authorities
in such matters, and to show that such views may rationally be
entertained independently of geology, I quote the following passage from
Origen: "Cuinam quæso sensum habenti convenienter videbitur dictum, quod
dies prima et secunda et tertia, in quibus et vespera nominatur, et
mane, fuerint sine sole, et sine luna et sine stellis: prima autern dies
sine coelo." So St. Augustine expressly states his belief that the
creative days could not be of the ordinary kind: "Qui dies, cujusmodi
sint, aut perdifficile nobis, aut etiam impossibile est cogitare, quanto
magis discere." Bede also remarks, "Fortassis hic diei nomen, totius
temporis nomen est, et omnia volumina seculorum hoc vocabulo includit."
Many similar opinions of old commentators might be quoted. It is also
not unworthy of note that the cardinal number is used here, "one day"
for first day; and though the Hebrew grammarians have sought to found on
this, and a few similar passages, a rule that the cardinal may be
substituted for the ordinal, many learned Hebraists insist that this use
of the cardinal number implies singularity and peculiarity as well as
mere priority.]

[Footnote 51: It is to be observed, however, that on the so-called
literal day hypothesis the first Sabbath was not man's seventh day, but
rather his first, since he must have been created toward the close of
the sixth day.]

[Footnote 52: "Footprints of the Creator."]

[Footnote 53: This idea occurs in Lord Bacon's "Confession of Faith,"
and De Luc also maintains that the Creator's Sabbath must have been of
long continuance.]

[Footnote 54: See the quotation from Job, _supra_.]

[Footnote 55: This is not strictly correct, as many animals, especially
of the lower tribes, extend back to the early tertiary periods, long
before the creation of man; a fact which of itself is irreconcilable
with the Mosaic narrative on the theory of literal or ordinary days.]

[Footnote 56: Since this was written, the bones of many Batrachian
reptiles have been found in the Carboniferous, both in Europe and
America. No reptilian remains have yet been found in the Devonian
rocks.]

[Footnote 57: _Biblical Repository_, 1856. See also an excellent paper
by Prof. C. H. Hitchcock, _Bibliotheca Sacra_, 1867.]

[Footnote 58: Rhode, quoted by McDonald, "Creation and the Fall," p. 62;
Eusebius, Chron. Arm.]

[Footnote 59: Suidas, Lexicon--"Tyrrenia."]

[Footnote 60: Diodorus Siculus, bk. i. Prichard, Egyptian Mythology.]

[Footnote 61: "Asiatic Researches."]

[Footnote 62: This name is exactly identical in meaning with the Hebrew
Jehovah Elohim.]

[Footnote 63: Müller, Sanscrit Literature.]

[Footnote 64: The theology of the Institutes is clearly primitive
Semitic in its character; and therefore, if the Bible is true, must be
older than the Aryan theogony of the Rig-Veda, as expounded by Müller,
whatever the relative age of the documents.]

[Footnote 65: "Recent Advances in Physical Science."]

[Footnote 66: Croll's "Climate and Time" contains some interesting facts
as to this.]

[Footnote 67: See the discussion of this in the author's "Story of the
Earth," and in Sir William Thomson's British Association Address, 1876.]

[Footnote 68: Daniell's Meteorological Essays; Prout's Bridgewater
Treatise; art. "Meteorology," Encyc. Brit.; "Maury's Physical Geography
of the Sea."]

[Footnote 69: Kaemtz, "Course of Meteorology."]

[Footnote 70: Encyc. Brit., art. "Meteorology."]

[Footnote 71: It is not meant that the word _rakiah_ occurs in these
passages, but to show how by other words the idea of stretching out or
extension rather than solidity is implied. The verb in the first two
passages is _nata_, to spread out.]

[Footnote 72: See also Humboldt, "Cosmos," vol. ii., pt. 1.]

[Footnote 73: Heb., "they refine."]

[Footnote 74: "His pavilion round about him was dark waters and thick
clouds of the skies," Psa. xviii. This expression explains that in the
text.]

[Footnote 75: Or "He darkens the depths of the sea."]

[Footnote 76: Translation of these lines much disputed and very
difficult. Gesenius and Conant render it, "His thunder tells of him; to
the herds even of him who is on high."]

[Footnote 77: I take advantage of this long quotation to state that in
the case of this and other passages quoted from the Old Testament I have
carefully consulted the original; but have availed myself freely of the
renderings of such of the numerous versions and commentaries as I have
been able to obtain, whenever they appeared accurate and expressive, and
have not scrupled occasionally to give a free translation where this
seemed necessary to perspicuity. In the book of Job, I have consulted
principally the translation appended to Barnes's Commentary, Conant's
translation, 1857, and those of Tayler Lewis and Evans in Schaff's
edition of Lange, 1874.]

[Footnote 78: The word is one of those that pervade both Semitic and
Indo-European tongues: Sanscrit, _ahara_; Pehlevi, _arta_; Latin,
_terra_; German, _Erde_; Gothic, _airtha_; Scottish, _yird_; English,
_earth_.--Gesenius.]

[Footnote 79: Psalm xcv.]

[Footnote 80: Gesenius.]

[Footnote 81: Perhaps "changed," metamorphosed, as by fire. Conant has
"destroyed."]

[Footnote 82: "Dust" in our version, literally lumps or "nuggets."]

[Footnote 83: The vulgar and incorrect idea that the vulture "scents the
carrion from afar," so often reproduced by later poets, has no place in
the Bible poetry. It is the bird's keen eye that enables him to find his
prey.]

[Footnote 84: Lyell's "Principles of Geology."]

[Footnote 85: Stanford, London, 1875.]

[Footnote 86: In further explanation of these general geological
changes, see "The Story of the Earth and Man," by the author.]

[Footnote 87: "Tenera herba, sine semine saltem
conspicuo."--Rosenmüller, "Scholia."]

[Footnote 88: Haughton, Address to the Geological Society, Dublin.]

[Footnote 89: See McDonald, "Creation and the Fall." Professor Guyot, I
believe, deserves the credit of having first mentioned, on the American
side of the Atlantic, the doctrine respecting the introduction of plants
advocated in this chapter.]

[Footnote 90: "Eozoic" of this work. Professor Dana in the latest
edition of his Manual uses the name "Archaean."]

[Footnote 91: This may refer to an eclipse, but from the character of
the preceding verses more probably to the obscurity of a tempest. It is
remarkable that eclipses, which so much strike the minds of men and
affect them with superstitious awe, are not distinctly mentioned in the
Old Testament, though referred to in the prophetical parts of the New
Testament.]

[Footnote 92: Perhaps rather the high places of the waters, referring to
the atmospheric waters.]

[Footnote 93: The rendering "sweet influences" in our version may be
correct, but the weight of argument appears to favor the view of
Gesenius that the close bond of union between the stars of this group is
referred to. I think it is Herder who well unites both views, the
Pleiades being bound together in a sisterly union, and also ushering in
the spring by their appearance above the horizon. Conant applies the
whole to the seasons, the bands of Orion being in this view those of
winter.]

[Footnote 94: It would be unfair to suppress the farther probability
that the writer intends specially to indicate that the sacred crocodile
of the Nile was itself a creature of Jehovah, and among the humbler of
those creatures.]

[Footnote 95: The interesting discovery, by Mr. Beale and others, of
several species of mammalia in the Purbeck, and that of Professor Emmons
of a mammal in rocks of similar age in the Southern States of America,
do not invalidate this statement; for all these, like the _Microlestes_
of the German trias and the _Amphitherium_ of the Stonesfeld slate, are
small marsupials belonging to the least perfect type of mammals. The
discovery of so many species of these humbler creatures, goes far to
increase the improbability of the existence of the higher mammals.]

[Footnote 96: It is very interesting, in connection with this, to note
that nearly all the earliest and greatest seats of population and
civilization have been placed on the more modern geological deposits, or
on those in which stores of fuel have been accumulated by the growth of
extinct plants.]

[Footnote 97: See Appendix.]

[Footnote 98: See Appendix for farther discussion of this subject.]

[Footnote 99: See Lyell, Principles of Geology, "Introduction of
Species."]

[Footnote 100: For the exposition of the details of the fall, I beg to
refer the reader to McDonald's "Creation and the Fall," to Kitto's
"Antediluvians and Patriarchs," and to Kurtz's "History of the Old
Covenant."]

[Footnote 101: The Bible specifies, perhaps only as the principal of
these arts, music and musical instruments by Jubal, metallurgy by
Tubalcain, the domestication of cattle and the nomade life by Jabal. It
is highly probable that these inventors are introduced into the Mosaic
record for a theological reason, to point out the folly of the worship
rendered to Phtha, Hephæstos, Vulcan, Horus, Phoebus, and other
inventors, either traditionary representatives of the family of Lamech,
or other heroes wrongly identified with them. Very possibly their sister
Naamah, "the beautiful," is introduced for the same reason, as the true
original of some of the female deities of the heathen.]

[Footnote 102: I can not for a moment entertain the monstrous
supposition of many expositors that the "sons of God" of these passages
are angels, and the "Nephelim" hybrids between angels and men.]

[Footnote 103: See Lange's "Commentary on Genesis."]

[Footnote 104: The Russian surveys of 1836 made it one hundred and eight
English feet; but later authorities reduce it to eighty-three feet six
inches below the Black Sea.]

[Footnote 105: Kitto's "Bible Illustrations"--Book of Job.]

[Footnote 106: See article "Rephaim" in Kitto's "Journal of Sacred
Literature." But Gesenius and others regard it, not as an ethnic name,
but as a term for the "shades" or spirits of the dead. See Conant on
Job.]

[Footnote 107: On the Biblical view of this subject, the so-called
Aryan mythology, common to India and Greece, is either a derivative from
the Cushite civilization, or a spontaneous growth of the Japetic stock
scattered by the Cushite empire. The Semitic and Hamitic mythologies are
derived from the primeval cherubic worship of Eden, corrupted and mixed
with deification of natural objects and stages of the creative work, and
with adoration of deified ancestors and heroes.]

[Footnote 108: Genesis 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters. See also our
previous remarks on the deluge.]

[Footnote 109: Genesis iv.]

[Footnote 110: Japheth is "enlargement," his sons are Scythians and
inhabitants of the isles, varying in language and nationality; and Noah
predicts, "God shall enlarge Japheth, he shall dwell in the tents of
Shem, Ham shall be his servant." These are surely characteristic
ethnological traits for a period so early. On the rationalist view, it
may be supposed that this prediction was not written until the
characters in question had developed themselves; but since the greatest
enlargement of Japheth has occurred since the discovery of America,
there would be quite as good ground for maintaining that Noah's prophecy
was interpolated after the time of Columbus.]

[Footnote 111: The language of this people, the stem of the
Indo-European languages, is, though in a later form, probably that of
the Aryan or Persepolitan part of the trilingual inscriptions at
Behistun and elsewhere in Persia.]

[Footnote 112: Edkins, "China's Place in Philology."]

[Footnote 113: Reginald S. Poole has adduced very ingenious arguments,
monumental, astronomical, and mythological, for the date B.C. 2717.]

[Footnote 114: It is curious that almost simultaneously with the
appearance of Bunsen's scheme a similiar view was attempted to be
maintained on geological grounds. In a series of borings in the delta of
the Nile, undertaken by Mr. Horner, there was found a piece of pottery
at a depth which appeared to indicate an antiquity of 13,371 years. But
the basis of the calculation is the rate of deposit (3-1/2 inches per
century) calculated for the ground around the statue of Rameses II. at
Memphis, dated at 1361 B.C.; and Mr. Sharpe has objected that no mud
could have been deposited around that statue from its erection until the
destruction of Memphis, perhaps 800 years B.C. Farther, we have to take
into account the natural or artificial changes of the river's bed, which
in this very place is said to have been diverted from its course by
Menes, and which near Cairo is now nearly a mile from its former site.
The liability to error and fraud in boring operations is also very well
known. It has farther been suggested that the deep cracks which form in
the soil of Egypt, and the sinking of wells in ancient times, are other
probable causes of error; and it is stated that pieces of burnt brick,
which was not in use in Egypt until the Roman times, have been found at
even greater depths than the pottery referred to by Mr. Horner. This
discovery, at first sight so startling, and vouched for by a geologist
of unquestioned honor and ability, is thus open to the same doubts with
the Guadaloupe skeletons, the human bones in ossiferous caverns, and
that found in the mud of the Mississippi; all of which have, on
examination, proved of no value as proofs of the geological antiquity of
man.]

[Footnote 115: 5004 B.C.]

[Footnote 116: Perhaps the earliest certain date in Egyptian history is
that of Thothmes III. of the eighteenth dynasty, ascertained by Birch on
astronomical evidence as about 1445 B.C. (about 1600, Manetho); and it
seems nearly certain that before the eighteenth dynasty, of which this
king was the fifth sovereign, there was no settled general government
over all Egypt.]

[Footnote 117: The Egyptians seem, like our modern cattle-breeders, to
have taken pride in the initiation and preservation of varieties. Their
sacred bull, Apis, was required to represent one of the varieties of the
ox; and one can scarcely avoid believing that some of their deified
ancestors must have earned their celebrity as tamers or breeders of
animals. At a later period, the experiments of Jacob with Laban's flock
furnish a curious instance of attempts to induce variation.]

[Footnote 118: See for evidence of these views early notices in Genesis,
and Lenormant and Osburne on Egyptian Monuments and History.]

[Footnote 119: There is no good reason to believe the flint implements
mentioned by Delanoüe and others, as found on the banks of the Nile, to
be older than the historic period.]

[Footnote 120: Wilson, "Prehistoric Man," 2d edition, p. 68.]

[Footnote 121: Southall has accumulated a great number of these facts in
his book on the antiquity of man.]

[Footnote 122: Professor Issel, quoted in _Popular Science Monthly_.]

[Footnote 123: Wilson has remarked the striking similarity of the
pottery of these people to American fictile wares. This similarity
applies also to the early Cyprian art.]

[Footnote 124: I agree with Gladstone's conclusions as to the date and
country of Homer.]

[Footnote 125: I suggested these terms in my lectures published under
the title "Nature and the Bible," 1875.]

[Footnote 126: Since these words were written I have read the remarkable
book of Edkins on the Chinese language, which supplies much additional
information.]

[Footnote 127: Donaldson has pointed out (British Association
Proceedings, 1851) links of connection between the Slavonian or
Sarmatian tongues and the Semitic languages, which in like manner
indicate the primitive union of the two great branches of languages.]

[Footnote 128: "Man and his Migrations." See also "Descriptive
Ethnology," where the Semitic affinities are very strongly brought out.]

[Footnote 129: I can scarcely except such terms as "Japetic" and
"Japetidæ," for Iapetus can hardly be any thing else than a traditional
name borrowed from Semitic ethnology, or handed down from the Japhetic
progenitors of the Greeks.]

[Footnote 130: See art. "Philology," Encyc. Brit.]

[Footnote 131: Grammatical structure is no doubt more permanent than
vocabulary, yet we find great changes in the latter, both in tracing
cognate languages from one region to another, and from period to period.
The Indo-Germanic languages in Europe furnish enough of familiar
instances.]

[Footnote 132: It is fair, however, to observe that the Bible refers the
first great divergence of language to a divine intervention at the Tower
of Babel. The precise nature of this we do not know; but it would tend
to diminish the time required.]

[Footnote 133: Lecture in the Royal Institution, March 24, 1876.]

[Footnote 134: "Antiquity of Man," 4th ed.]

[Footnote 135: Southall, _Op. cit._]

[Footnote 136: The Mentone skeleton described by Dr. Rivière gives
evidence of these facts.]

[Footnote 137: Mr. Pengelly declines to admit this; but assigns no cause
for the breaking up of portions of the old floor, which he merely refers
in general terms to "natural causes."]

[Footnote 138: This whole subject of supposed preglacial or interglacial
men is still in great confusion and uncertainty, and is complicated with
questions, still debated, as to the ages of the supposed glacial and
postglacial deposits.]

[Footnote 139: _Quarterly Journal of Science_, April, 1875.]

[Footnote 140: Lyell's "Manual of Elementary Geology."]

[Footnote 141: For a full discussion of this subject, see the "Story of
the Earth and Man."]

[Footnote 142: Such a table, with an admirable exposition of the entire
succession, as at present known, is given in the Appendix to Lyell's
"Students' Manual of Geology."]

[Footnote 143: Lyell, basing his calculations on the surveys of Messrs.
Humphreys and Abbott, but others give very different estimates.]

[Footnote 144: A perfectly parallel example is that of the growth of the
peninsula of Florida in the modern period, by the same processes now
adding to its shores; and this has afforded to Professor Agassiz a still
more extended measure of the Post-tertiary period.]

[Footnote 145: Reade, of Liverpool, has recently given a much slower
rate--one foot in 13,000 years--as a result of recent English surveys;
but I have not seen his precise data, and the result certainly differs
from those of all other observations.]

[Footnote 146: I am quite aware that it may be objected to all this that
it is based on merely negative evidence; but this is not strictly the
case. There are positive indications of these truths. For example, in
the Mesozoic epoch the lacertian reptiles presented huge elephantine
carnivorous and herbivorous species--the Megalosaurus, Iguanodon, etc.;
flying species, with hollow bones and ample wings--the Pterodactyles;
and aquatic whale-like species--Pliosaurus, Ichthyosaurus, etc. These
creatures actually filled the offices now occupied by the mammals; and,
though lacertian in their affinities, they must have had circulatory,
respiratory, and nervous systems far in advance of any modern reptiles
even of the order of Loricates.]

[Footnote 147: "Story of the Earth"--concluding chapters.]

[Footnote 148: This was written in 1860 for the first edition of
"Archaia." I see no reason to change it now, and its vindication will
be, found in the Appendix.]

[Footnote 149: Heb. iv., 9; 2 Peter iii., 13.]

[Footnote 150: Hamilton.]

[Footnote 151: In the manner illustrated by Hyatt and Cope.]

[Footnote 152: Report on Fossil Plants of the Upper Silurian and
Devonian, 1871.]

[Footnote 153: Drysdale's "Protoplasmic Theories of Life."]

[Footnote 154: Lecture before the Royal Institution of London.]

[Footnote 155: _Leisure Hour_, 1876.]

[Footnote 156: See critique in _International Review_, January, 1877.]

[Footnote 157: Reported in _Nature_, 1876.]

[Footnote 158: "History of Creation."]

[Footnote 159: See also Hunt, "Chemical and Geological Essays," p. 35.]

[Footnote 160: Except, perhaps, Job xxxi., 27.]

[Footnote 161: "Animals and Plants under Domestication," p. 406.]

[Footnote 162: Prichard. This is admitted by Darwin, who gives other
examples, though he insists much on the climatal variations which still
remain in feral pigs.]

[Footnote 163: "North American Indians."]

[Footnote 164: Haliburton's "Nova Scotia;" Gilpin's Lecture on Sable
Island.]

[Footnote 165: "Principles of Geology;" "Natural History of Man." See
also a very able article on the "Varieties of Man," by Dr. Carpenter, in
Todd's Cyclopædia.]

[Footnote 166: "The Races of Men," etc. Boston, 1848.]

[Footnote 167: Browne, of Philadelphia, quoted by Kneeland and others.]

[Footnote 168: Todd's Cyclopædia, art. "Varieties of Man."]

[Footnote 169: "Prehistoric Man."]

[Footnote 170: Carpenter in Todd's Cyclopædia.]

[Footnote 171: For an interesting inquiry into the origin of the dog,
see the article in Todd's Cyclopædia already referred to; and the
subject is fully discussed by Darwin, who leans to the theory of the
diversity of origin in dogs.]

[Footnote 172: Prichard, Bachman, Cabell.]

[Footnote 173: A curious note, by Dr. John Rae, on the change of
complexion in the Sandwich Islanders, consequent on the introduction of
clothing, may be found in the "Montreal Medical Chronicle," 1856, and
the "Canadian Journal" for the same year.]

[Footnote 174: Latham's "Descriptive Ethnology."]



INDEX.


Abraham, 25, 270.

Abrahamic Genesis, 18.

Abyss, 104.

"Accommodation," theory of, 61.

Adaptation in nature, 78.

Æons of creation, 132.

Agassiz on prophetic types, 350.
  on species, 342.

Animals, higher, creation of the, 230.
  lower, creation of the, 211.

Antediluvians, 253.

Antiquity of man, 263, 386.
  of man, geological evidence of the, 294.
  of man, history in relation to the, 271.
  of man, language in relation to the, 285.
  of the earth, 154, 331.

_Aretz_ (earth), 94, 175.

Argyll, Duke of, on creation by law, 373.
  Duke of, on the origin of civilization, 391.

Aryan race, 16, 267.

Assyrian Genesis, 19, 108.
  Texts, 412.

Astronomy of the Bible, 207.

Atmosphere, constitution of the, 157.
  creation of the, 160.

Augustine on creative days, 134.

_Aur_ (light), 115.


Babel, 258, 266.

_Bara_ (create), 90.

Beaumont, De, on continents, 184.

Bede on creative days, 133.

Beginning, the, 87, 95.

_Behemoth_, 233.

_Bhemah_ (herbivores), 231, 406.

Birds, creation of, 216, 219.

Bronn on the origin of species, 339.

Bronze, age of, 279.

Bunsen's chronology, 273.


Cainozoic period, 331.

Carnivora, creation of, 232.

Caverns, human remains in, 298.

Centres of creation, 238.

Chaos, 100, 107.
  chemistry of, 112.

Chinese language, 288.

Comparisons and conclusions, 322.

"Conflict of the Bible with science," 44.

Continents, their origin, 182.

Cosmogony, Assyrian, 108.
  Egyptian, 106, 198.
  Greek, 109.
  Hebrew, its character, 70.
  Hebrew, its objects, 35.
  Hebrew, its origin, 46.
  Indian, 110, 148.
  Persian, 147.
  Phoenician, 107.

Cranial characters of primitive men, 298.

Creation, 90.
  by law, 373.
  centres of, 238.
  days of, 115.
  modes of, 375, 377.
  of birds, 216, 219.
  of carnivora, 232.
  of great reptiles, 213.
  of herbivora, 231.
  of higher animals, 230.
  of lower animals, 211.
  of man, 235.
  of plants, 186.

Croll, calculations of erosion, 334.
  glacial theory of, 396.


Dana on creation of plants, 196.
  on creative days, 144.
  on tertiary fauna, 234.

Darwin on species, 338.

Day of creation, first, 115.
  of creation, second, 157.
  of creation, third, 174.
  of creation, fourth, 199.
  of creation, fifth, 211.
  of creation, sixth, 230.
  of creation, seventh, 249.

Days of creation, 115.
  of creation compared with geological periods, 155.
  prophetic, 65.

Death before the fall, 355.

"Deep," the, 104.

Deluge, the, 256.

_Deshé_ (herbage), 186.

Design in nature, 78.

Desolate void, 100.

Drysdale on theories of life, 383.

Dupont on Belgian caves, 308.


Earth, the, 94, 102, 175.
  its foundations, 177.

Ecclesiastes, chap. i., 74.

Eden, conditions of, 237, 252.
  site of, 237-252.

Edkins on the Chinese language, 286, 288.

Egypt, early history of, 272.

Egyptian Cosmogony, 106, 198.
  Texts, 412.

_Elohim_, 89, 97.

Evans on the erosion of valleys, 313.

Evening of creative days, 138.

Evolution as applied to animals, 226, 363.

Excavation of valleys, 315.

Exodus xxiv., 10, 163.


Fall of man, 250.

Final causes, 355.

Firmament, the, 162.

Fluidity, original, of the earth, 110.

Forbes on creation of man, 250.

Foundations of the earth, 177.

Frontal, cave of, 308.


Genesis, chap. i., translated, 66.
  chap. i., 1, 87.
  chap. i., 2, 100.
  chap. i., 3 to 5, 115.
  chap. i., 6 to 8, 157.
  chap. i., 10 to 11, 174.
  chap. i., 14 to 19, 199.
  chap. i., 20 to 23, 211.
  chap. i., 24 to 31, 230.
  chap. ii., 1 to 3, 299.
  chap. iv., 23, 46.
  chap. x., 22, 263.
  the Abrahamic, 18.
  the Assyrian, 20.
  the Mosaic, 27.
  the Quiché, 22.

Geology, principles of, 325.

Glacial periods, theories of, 395.

God, personality of, 11.

"Grass" in Genesis i., 186.

Greek myths, 109.

Green on the forms of continents, 184.


Haeckel on the affiliation of races, 289.
  on man and apes, 389.

Hamite races, 268.

Harmony of revelation and science, 342.

Havilah, productions of, 255.

_Hay'th-eretz_ (wild beast), 232.

Heavens, the, 92, 165.

Herbivora, creation of, 231.

Hindoos, cosmogony of the, 149.

Hitchcock on creative days, 141.

Horner on the alluvium of the Nile, 274.

Hughes on the excavation of valleys, 315.
  on interglacial periods, 295.
  on stalagmite, 388.
  on the Victoria Cave, 387.

Humboldt on Hebrew poetry, 39.

Hunt on the chemistry of the primeval earth, 400.

Hurakon, 107.

Hut of Sodertelge, 386.


Ice-freshets in America, 314

Incandescence of the earth, 110, 119.

India, cosmogony of, 149.


Japhetic races, 267, 268.

Jehovah, 96.

Job ix., 5, 176.
  ix., 9, 206.
  xxii., 15, 257.
  xxviii., 179.
  xxviii., 26, 73.
  xxxvi., 166.
  xxxvii., 14, 161.
  xxxviii., 166, 177, 206.

Jones, Sir W., on Indian cosmogony, 149.


Kent's Cavern, 302.

Kurtz on days of vision, 49.


Lamech, his poem, 46.

Land, its creation, 174.
  geological history of, 182.

Languages, unity of, 285, 291.

La Place, nebular hypothesis of, 119.

Latham on African languages, 288.
  on the radiation of languages, 289.

Laws of nature, in the Bible, 73.

Lemuria, 289.

Leviticus xi., 212.

Life, succession of, 331, 337.
  theories of, 383.

Light, 115, 121.

Logos, 96.

Luminaries, 199.

Lyell on the cause of the glacial period, 397.
  on the delta of the Mississippi, 333.
  on the pleistocene period, 297.


Mammals, creation of, 231.

Mammoth age, 299.

Man, antiquity of, 386.
  creation of, 235.
  neocosmic, 285.
  palæocosmic, 285, 319.

Man, unity of, 263, 414.

Manetho, chronology of, 273.

Margite, cave of, 308.

Menes, his epoch, 273.

Mesozoic period, 218, 331.

Miller on creative days, 135.

Mining noticed in the Bible, 179.

Mississippi, delta of the, 333.

Mist watering the ground, 189.

Modern period of geology, 251.

Modes of creation, 377.

Moffatt on African languages, 292.

Morse on the evolution of man, 391.

Mosaic Genesis, 27.

Müller's classification of religions, 14.

Mythology, ancient, its origin, 408.
  of the atmosphere, 171.
  as related to the Bible, 109, 261.


Nature, study of, 244.

Neocosmic man, 285.

"Neolithic" men, 278.

Niagara, excavation of, 312.

Nimrod, 259.

Noah, sons of, 266.


Palæocosmic men, 285, 319.

"Palæolithic" men, 278.

Palæozoic animals, 217.
  period, 231.

Parallelism of Scripture and geology, 343.

Pattison on the antiquity of man, 318.

Pengelly on Kent's Cavern, 302.
  on stalagmite, 387.

Periods, creative, 126.
  geological, 330.

Persians, cosmogony of the, 147.

Philological evidence of the antiquity of man, 285.

Pictet on the origin of species, 339.

Pierce on the forms of continents, 184.

Pillars of the earth, 177.

Plants, creation of, 186.

Plastids and plastidules, 377.

Pratt, Archdeacon, on _bhemah_, 406.

Prayer and law, 171.

Progress in nature, 75, 337.

Proverbs, viii., 74, 96, 176.

Psalm viii., 208.
  viii., 1, 94.
  xviii., 178.
  xix., 208.
  xc., 108.
  civ., 164, 175, 178, 224.
  cxix., 90, 74.
  cxix., 20, 176.
  cxxxix., 84.
  cxlvii., 208.
  cxlviii., 6, 73.

Purpose in nature, 78.


Quiché Genesis, 22, 107.


_Rakiah_ (the expanse), 162.

Rawlinson on historical dates, 390.

Reconciliation of the Bible and geology, 342.

Reindeer age, 299.

Religion, Aryan, 16.
  Turanian, 15.
  Semitic, 16.

_Remes_ (creeping things), 215.

_Rephaim_, 257.

Reptiles, 213, 215.

Revelation, idea of, 12.

River valleys, excavation of, 314.

Ruach Elohim, 106.

Rutimeyer on interglacial men, 386.


Sabbath, the, as related to ages of creation, 130.
  of the Creator, 249.

Schliemann on Troy, 282.

_Shamayim_ (heavens), 92.

Shemite races, 16.

_Sheretz_ (swarming creature), 211.

Somme, gravels of the, 313.

Song of creation, 66.

Species, Agassiz on, 61.
  Bronn on, 339.
  distinct from varieties, 414.
  in Genesis i., 215.
  origin of, 368, 378.

Spirit of God in creation, 106.

Stalagmite, deposition of, 310, 385.

_Stereoma_, 162.

Stone, ages of, 281.


Table of Biblical periods, 352.
  of geological periods, 330.

Tait, Prof., on the age of the earth, 154.

_Tannin_ (great reptile), 213, 405.

Tennyson on types in nature, 222.

Theories of the origin of genesis, 51.

Thomson, Sir Wm., on the age of the earth, 154.

Time, geological, 321, 332.

Torel on the Sodertelge hut, 386.

Troy, as described by Schliemann, 282.

Type in nature, 82, 222.


Unity of man, 263, 414.
  of nature, 36.

Universe, the unseen, 11.


Variation, laws of, 414.

Veda, its cosmogony, 110.

Vegetation, its creation, 186.
  of Eozoic period, 192.

Victoria Cave, 386.

Vision of creation, 65.

Void, the, 100.


Wallace on evolution, 373.
  on primitive man, 389.

Waters above the heavens, 159.

"Whales, great," 213.

Wilson on American skulls, 427.
  on ancient pottery, 283.


THE END.

By PRINCIPAL DAWSON.


EARTH AND MAN. The Story of the Earth and Man. By J. W. DAWSON,
LL.D., F.R.S., F.G.S., Principal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill
University, Montreal. With Twenty Illustrations. 12mo, Cloth, $1
50.

     An admirable book. It is a clear and interesting _résumé_ of
     the results of geological investigation, told in simple
     language, devoid of technicalities. The unscientific reader
     will obtain more knowledge of geology in one hour's reading
     of this book than he will in a week's study of more
     elaborate and professional books upon the same subject. It
     is vigorously written, and with a certain picturesqueness
     that is exceedingly attractive. The chapters upon primitive
     man are peculiarly interesting.--_Saturday Evening Gazette_,
     Boston.

     The pleasantly written volume before us tells the story of
     the paleontology and physical geography of the earth in
     prehuman ages, and closes with a discussion of the theories
     of the appearance, late in geological time, of man upon the
     earth. Dr. Dawson's sketch of paleontology will, we feel
     sure, be found interesting by all readers.--_Athenæum_,
     London.

     Since Hugh Miller's time no scientific geologist has done
     more than Principal Dawson to extend popular interest in
     this branch of study, to secure attention to its educational
     value, or to remove misapprehensions which exist in some
     quarters as to the relations of science and Scripture on
     geological questions.--_Leisure Hour_, London.

     We have read his book with profound interest. It is
     intelligible, candid, modest.--_Boston Transcript._


ORIGIN OF THE WORLD. The Origin of the World, according to
Revelation and Science. By J. W. DAWSON, LL.D., F.R.S., F.G.S.,
&c. 12mo, Cloth.

       *     *     *     *     *

PUBLISHED BY HARPER & BROTHERS, NEW YORK.

HARPER & BROTHERS _will send either of the above works by mail,
postage prepaid, to any part of the United Slates, on receipt of
the price._

By ALEXANDER WINCHELL,


SKETCHES OF CREATION: a Popular View of some of the Grand
Conclusions of the Sciences in Reference to the History of Matter
and of Life. Together with a Statement of the Intimations of
Science respecting the Primordial Condition and the Ultimate
Destiny of the Earth and the Solar System. By ALEXANDER WINCHELL,
LL.D. With Illustrations. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.


A GEOLOGICAL CHART: exhibiting the Classification and Relative Positions
of the Rocks, and the Various Phenomena of Stratigraphical Geology;
together with an Indication of Geological Equivalents, the most
important American and Foreign Synonyms, the Economical Products of the
Rocks, and numerous Typical Localities; with an Actual Section from the
Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains, near the Parallel of Thirty-nine
Degrees. By ALEXANDER WINCHELL, LL.D. Mounted on roller, $10 00.

_With a Key._ 8vo, Paper, 25 cents.


THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION; its Data, its Principles, its
Speculations, and its Theistic Bearings. By ALEXANDER WINCHELL,
LL.D. 12mo, Cloth, $1 00.


RECONCILIATION OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION. By ALEXANDER WINCHELL,
LL.D. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.


_Published by HARPER & BROTHERS, New York._

HARPER & BROTHERS _will send any of the above works by mail,
postage prepaid, to any part of the United States, on receipt of
the price._





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.