{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_33049/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_33049","id":"gutenberg_33049","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33049","summary":null,"tags":["Bible and science","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Earth/Agricultural/Farming","Religion and science"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness, ismail user and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from scans of public domain works at the\nUniversity of Michigan's Making of America collection.)\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's note: All footnotes are renumbered and moved to the end of\nthe text before the index.]\n\n\n\n\n  THE\n  ORIGIN OF THE WORLD,\n  ACCORDING TO\n  REVELATION AND SCIENCE.\n\n  BY J. W. DAWSON, LL.D., F.R.S., F.G.S.,\n\n  PRINCIPAL AND VICE-CHANCELLOR OF M'GILL UNIVERSITY, MONTREAL; AUTHOR OF\n  \"ACADIAN GEOLOGY,\" \"THE STORY OF THE EARTH AND MAN,\"\n  \"LIFE'S DAWN ON EARTH,\" ETC.\n\n\"Speak to the Earth, and it shall teach thee.\"\n                                        --_Job._\n\n[Illustration]\n\n  NEW YORK:\n  HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS,\n  FRANKLIN SQUARE.\n  1877.\n\n  TO HIS EXCELLENCY\n\n  THE RIGHT HON. THE EARL OF DUFFERIN,\n  K.P., K.C.B., ETC.,\n\n  GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF CANADA,\n\n  _This Work is Respectfully Dedicated_,\n\n  AS A SLIGHT TRIBUTE OF ESTEEM TO ONE WHO GRACES THE\n  HIGHEST POSITION IN THE DOMINION OF CANADA BY HIS\n  EMINENT PERSONAL QUALITIES, HIS REPUTATION AS\n  A STATESMAN AND AN AUTHOR, AND HIS KIND\n  AND ENLIGHTENED PATRONAGE OF EDUCATION,\n  LITERATURE, AND SCIENCE.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe scope of this work is in the main identical with that of\n\"Archaia,\" published in 1860; but in attempting to prepare a new\nedition brought up to the present condition of the subject, it was\nfound that so much required to be rewritten as to make it essentially\na new book, and it was therefore decided to give it a new name, more\nclearly indicating its character and purpose.\n\nThe intention of this new publication is to throw as much light as\npossible on the present condition of the much-agitated questions\nrespecting the origin of the world and its inhabitants. To students of\nthe Bible it will afford the means of determining the precise import\nof the biblical references to creation, and of their relation to what\nis known from other sources. To geologists and biologists it is\nintended to give some intelligible explanation of the connection of\nthe doctrines of revealed religion with the results of their\nrespective sciences.\n\nA still higher end to which the author would gladly contribute is that\nof aiding thoughtful men perplexed with the apparent antagonisms of\nscience and religion, and of indicating how they may best harmonize\nour great and growing knowledge of nature with our old and cherished\nbeliefs as to the origin and destiny of man.\n\nIn aiming at these results, it has not been thought necessary to\nassume a controversial attitude or to stand on the defensive, either\nwith regard to religion or science, but rather to attempt to arrive at\nbroad and comprehensive views which may exhibit those higher harmonies\nof the spiritual and the natural which they derive from their common\nAuthor, and which reach beyond the petty difficulties arising from\nnarrow or imperfect views of either or both. Such an aim is too high\nto be fully attained, but in so far as it can be reached we may hope\nto rescue science from a dry and barren infidelity, and religion from\nmere fruitless sentiment or enfeebling superstition.\n\nSince the publication of \"Archaia,\" the subject of which it treats has\npassed through several phases, but the author has seen no reason to\nabandon in the least degree the principles of interpretation on which\nhe then insisted, and he takes a hopeful view as to their ultimate\nprevalence. It is true that the wide acceptance of hypotheses of\n\"evolution\" has led to a more decided antagonism than heretofore\nbetween some of the utterances of scientific men and the religious\nideas of mankind, and to a contemptuous disregard of revealed religion\nin the more shallow literature of the time; but, on the other hand, a\nbarrier of scientific fact and induction has been slowly rising to\nstem this current of crude and rash hypothesis. Of this nature are the\ngreat discoveries as to the physical constitution and probable origin\nof the universe, the doctrine of the correlation and conservation of\nforces, the new estimates of the age of the earth, the overthrow of\nthe doctrine of spontaneous generation, the high bodily and mental\ntype of the earliest known men, the light which philology has thrown\non the unity of language, our growing knowledge of the uniformity of\nthe constructive and other habits of primitive men, and of the\ncondition of man in the earlier historic time, the greater\ncompleteness of our conceptions as to the phenomena of life and their\nrelation to organizable matters--all these and many other aspects of\nthe later progress of science must tend to bring it back into greater\nharmony with revealed religion.\n\nOn the other side, there has been a growing disposition on the part of\ntheologians to inquire as to the actual views of nature presented in\nthe Bible, and to separate these from those accretions of obsolete\nphilosophy which have been too often confounded with them. With\nrespect to the first chapter of Genesis more especially, there has\nbeen a decided growth in the acceptance of those principles for which\nI contended in 1860. In illustration of this I may refer to the fact\nthat in 1862 it was precisely on these principles that Dr. McCaul\nconducted his able defence of the Mosaic record of creation in the\n\"Aids to Faith,\" which may almost be regarded as an authoritative\nexpression of the views of orthodox Christians in opposition to those\nof the once notorious \"Essays and Reviews.\" Equally significant is the\nadoption of this method of interpretation by Dr. Tayler Lewis in his\nmasterly \"Special Introduction\" to the first chapter of Genesis, in\nthe American edition of Lange's Commentary, edited by Dr. Philip\nSchaff; and the manifest approval with which the lucid statement of\nthe relations of Geology and the Bible by Dr. Arnold Guyot, was\nreceived by the great gathering of divines at the Convention of the\nEvangelical Alliance in New York, in 1873, bears testimony to the same\nfact. The author has also had the honor of being invited to\nillustrate this mode of reconciliation to the students of two of the\nmost important theological colleges in America, in lectures afterwards\npublished and widely circulated.\n\nThe time is perhaps nearer than we anticipate when Natural Science and\nTheology will unite in the conviction that the first chapter of\nGenesis \"stands alone among the traditions of mankind in the wonderful\nsimplicity and grandeur of its words,\" and that \"the meaning of these\nwords is always a meaning ahead of science--not because it anticipates\nthe results of science, but because it is independent of them, and\nruns as it were round the outer margin of all possible discovery.\"[1]\n\nIn the Appendix the reader will find several short essays on special\npoints collateral to the general subject, and important in the\nsolution of some of its difficulties, but which could not be\nconveniently included in the text. More especially I would refer to\nthe summaries given in the Appendix of the present state of our\nknowledge as to the origin of life, of species, and of man--topics not\ndiscussed in much detail in the body of the work, both because of the\nwide fields of controversy to which they lead, and because I have\ntreated of them somewhat fully in a previous work, \"The Story of the\nEarth and Man,\" in which the detailed history of life as disclosed by\nscience was the main subject in hand.\n\n                                                  J. W. D.\n\n_May, 1877._\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n  CHAPTER I.\n\n  THE MYSTERY OF ORIGINS AND ITS SOLUTIONS.\n\n  Reality of the Unseen.--Personality of God.--Possibility of a\n  Revelation of Origins.--Turanian, Aryan, and Semitic Solutions\n  of the Mystery.--The Abrahamic Genesis.--The Mosaic Genesis   Page 9\n\n\n  CHAPTER II.\n\n  OBJECTS AND NATURE OF A REVELATION OF ORIGINS.\n\n  Objects to be Attained by a Revelation of Origins.--Its Method and\n  Structure.--Vision of Creation.--Translation of the First Chapter of\n  Genesis                                                           35\n\n\n  CHAPTER III.\n\n  OBJECTS AND NATURE OF A REVELATION OF ORIGINS\n  (_continued_).\n\n  Character of the Revelation and its Views of Nature.--Natural Law.--\n  Progress and Development.--Purpose and Use.--Type or Pattern      70\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV.\n\n  THE BEGINNING.\n\n  The Universe not eternal.--Its Creation.--The Heavens.--The Earth.--\n  The Creator, Elohim.--The Beginning very Remote in Time           87\n\n\n  CHAPTER V.\n\n  THE DESOLATE VOID.\n\n  Characteristics of Biblical Chaos.--The Primitive Deep.--The Divine\n  Spirit.--The Breath of God.--Chaos in other Cosmogonies.--Chemical\n  and Physical Conditions of the Primitive Chaos                   100\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI.\n\n  LIGHT AND CREATIVE DAYS.\n\n  What is Implied in Cosmic Light.--Its Gradual Condensation.--Day and\n  Night.--Days of Creation.--Their Nature and Length.--They are\n  Olams, AEons or Time-worlds.--Objections to this View\n  Answered.--Confirmations from Extraneous Sources.                115\n\n\n  CHAPTER VII.\n\n  THE ATMOSPHERE.\n\n  Its Present Constitution.--Waters Above and Below.--The \"Expanse\"\n  of Genesis not a Solid Arch.--Mythology of the Atmosphere.--\n  Superstitions connected with it Opposed by the Bible.            157\n\n\n  CHAPTER VIII.\n\n  THE DRY LAND AND THE FIRST PLANTS.\n\n  The Earth of the Bible is the Dry Land.--Its Elevation and Support\n  above the Waters.--Structure of the Continents arranged from the\n  first.--The First Vegetation.--Its Nature.--Introduction of Life.--\n  Organization and Reproduction.--Objections considered.--Geological\n  Indications.                                                     174\n\n\n  CHAPTER IX.\n\n  LUMINARIES.\n\n  How Introduced.--What Implied in this.--Dominion of Existing Causes.\n  --Astronomy of the Hebrews.--Not Connected with Astrology        199\n\n\n  CHAPTER X.\n\n  THE LOWER ANIMALS.\n\n  The Sheretzim, or Swarmers.--Their Origin from the Waters.--The\n  Great Reptiles.--Their Creation.--Coincidences with Geology.\n  --Hypotheses of Evolution                                        211\n\n\n  CHAPTER XI.\n\n  THE HIGHER ANIMALS AND MAN.\n\n  The Placental Mammals.--The Principal Groups of these.--Man, how\n  Introduced.--His Early Condition.--His Relations to Nature       230\n\n\n  CHAPTER XII.\n\n  THE REST OF THE CREATOR.\n\n  The Sabbath of Creation.--The Modern Period.--Its Early History.\n  --The Fall and Antediluvian Man.--Postdiluvian Extension of Men  249\n\n\n  CHAPTER XIII.\n\n  UNITY AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN.\n\n  Biblical Account of his Introduction and Early History.--Historical\n  Testimony with respect to his Unity and Antiquity.--Testimony of\n  Language                                                         263\n\n\n  CHAPTER XIV.\n\n  UNITY AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN (_continued_).\n\n  Geological Evidence of Antiquity of Man.--General Conditions of\n  Post-glacial and Modern Periods.--Remains of Man in Caverns, in\n  River-gravels, etc.--Palaeocosmic and Neocosmic Men               294\n\n\n  CHAPTER XV.\n\n  COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS.\n\n  Geological Chronology.--Table of Succession of Life.--Points of\n  Agreement of the Two Records.--Parallelism of Genesis and Physical\n  Science with Reference to the Origin and Early History of the World.\n  --Conclusion                                                     322\n\n\n  APPENDICES.\n\n  A.--True and False Evolution.                                    363\n\n  B.--Evolution and Creation by Law.                               373\n\n  C.--Modes of Creation.                                           377\n\n  D.--Theories of Life.                                            383\n\n  E.--Recent Facts as to the Antiquity of Man.                     386\n\n  F.--Glacial Periods in Connection with Genesis.                  395\n\n  G.--Chemistry of the Primeval Earth.                             400\n\n  H.--Tannin and Bhemah.                                           405\n\n  I.--Ancient Mythologies.                                         408\n\n  K.--Assyrian and Egyptian Texts.                                 412\n\n  L.--Species and Varieties in Connection with Evolution and the\n      Unity of Man.                                                414\n\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE MYSTERY OF ORIGINS AND ITS SOLUTIONS.\n\n     \"The things that are seen are temporal.\"--PAUL.\n\n\nHave we or can we have any certain solution of those two great\nquestions--Whence are all things? and Whither do all things tend? No\nthinking man is content to live merely in a transitory present, ever\nemerging out of darkness and ever returning thither again, without\nknowing any thing of the origin and issue of the world and its\ninhabitants. Yet it would seem that to-day men are as much in\nuncertainty on these subjects as at any previous time. It even appears\nas if all our added knowledge would only, for a time at least, deprive\nus of the solutions to which we trusted, and give no others in their\nroom. Christians have been accustomed to rest on the cosmogony and\nprophecy of the Bible; but we are now frankly told on all hands that\nthese are valueless, and that even ministers of religion more or less\n\"sacrifice their sincerity\" in making them the basis of their\nteachings. On the other hand, we are informed that nothing can be\ndiscerned in the universe beyond matter and force, and that it is by a\npurely material and spontaneous evolution that all things exist. But\nwhen we ask as to the origin of matter and force, and the laws which\nregulate them--as to the end to which their movement is tending, as to\nthe manner in which they have evolved the myriad forms of life and the\nhuman intelligence itself--the only answer is that these are\n\"insoluble mysteries.\"\n\nAre we, then, to fall back on the real or imagined revelations and\ntraditions of the past, and to endeavor to find in them some foothold\nof assurance; or are we to wait till further progress in science may\nhave cleared up some of the present mysteries? Whatever may be said of\nthe former alternative, all honest students of science will unite with\nme in the admission that the latter is hopeless. We need not seek to\nbelittle the magnificent triumphs of modern science. They have been\nreal and stupendous. But it is of their very nature to conduct us to\nultimate facts and laws of which science can give no explanation; and\nthe further we push our inquiries the more insuperably does the wall\nof mystery rise before us. It is true we can furnish the materials for\nphilosophical speculations which may be built on scientific facts and\nprinciples; but these are in their nature uncertain, and must\nconstantly change as knowledge advances. They can not solve for us the\ngreat practical problems of our origin and destiny.\n\nIn these circumstances no apology is needed for a thorough and careful\ninquiry into those foundations of religious belief which rest on the\nidea of a revelation of origins and destinies made to man from\nwithout, and on which we may build the superstructure of a rational\nreligion, giving guidance for the present and hope for the future. In\nthe following pages I propose to enter upon so much of this subject as\nrelates to the origin and earliest history of the world, in so far as\nthese are treated of in the Bible and in the traditions of the more\nancient nations; and this with reference to the present standpoint of\nscience in relation to these questions.\n\nTo discuss such questions at all, certain preliminary admissions are\nnecessary. These are: (1) The reality of an unseen universe, spiritual\nrather than material in its nature. (2) The existence of a personal\nGod, or of a great Universal Will. (3) The possibility of\ncommunication taking place between God and man. I do not propose to\nattempt any proof of these positions, but it may be well to explain\nwhat they mean.\n\n(1) That the great machine for the dissipation of energy, in which we\nexist, and which we call the universe, must have a correlative and\ncomplement in the unseen, is a conclusion now forced upon physicists\nby the necessities of the doctrine of the conservation of force. In\nshort, it seems that, unless we admit this conclusion, we can not\nbelieve in the possible existence of the material universe itself, and\nmust sink into absolute nihilism. This doctrine is expressed by the\napostle Paul in the statement, \"The things that are seen are temporal,\nbut the things that are not seen are eternal,\" and it has been ably\ndiscussed by the authors of the remarkable work, \"The Unseen\nUniverse.\" That this unseen world is spiritual--that is, not subject\nto the same material laws with the visible universe--is also a fair\ndeduction from physical science, as well as a doctrine of Scripture. I\nprefer the term spiritual to supernatural, because the first is the\nterm used in the Bible, and because the latter has had associated with\nit ideas of the miraculous and abnormal, not implied at all in the\nidea of the spiritual, which in some important senses may be more\nnatural than the material.\n\n(2) The idea of a personal God implies not merely the existence of an\nunknown absolute power, as Herbert Spencer seems to hold, or of \"an\nEternal, not ourselves, that makes for righteousness,\" as Matthew\nArnold puts it, but of a Being of whom we can affirm will,\nintelligence, feeling, self-consciousness, not certainly precisely as\nthey occur in us, but in a higher and more perfect form, of which our\nown consciousness furnishes the type, or \"image and shadow,\" as Moses\nlong ago phrased it. On the one hand, it is true that we can not fully\ncomprehend such a personal God, because not limited by the conditions\nwhich limit us. On the other hand, it is clear that our intellect, as\nconstituted, can furnish us with no ultimate explanation of the\nuniverse except in the action of such a primary personal will. In the\nBible the absolute personality of God is expressed by the title \"I\nam.\" His intimate relation to us is indicated by the expression, \"In\nhim we live, and move, and have our being.\" His all-pervading essence\nis stated as \"the fullness of him that filleth all in all.\" His\nrelative personality is shadowed forth by the attribution to him of\nlove, anger, and other human feelings and sentiments, and by\npresenting him in the endearing relation of the universal Father.\n\n(3) With reference to the possibility of communication between God and\nman, it may truly be said that such communication is not only\npossible, but infinitely probable. God is not only near to us, but we\nare in him, and, independently of the testimony of revelation, it has\nbeen felt by all classes of men, from the rudest and most primitive\nsavages up to our great English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, that if\nthere is a God, he can not be excluded from communion with his\nintelligent creatures, either directly or through the medium of\nministering spirits.[2] Farther, placed as man is in the midst of\ncomplex and to him inexplicable phenomena, involved in a conflict of\ngood and evil, happiness and misery, to which the wisest and the\ngreatest minds have found no issue, subject to be degraded by low\npassions and tempted to great extremes of evil, and himself weak,\nimpulsive, and vacillating, there seems the most urgent need for\ndivine communication. It may be said that these are conflicts and\nproblems which God has left man to decide and solve for himself by his\nown reason. But when we consider how slow this process is, and how\nimperfect even now, after the experience of ages, we seem to need some\nintervention that shall stimulate the human mind, and impel it forward\nwith greater rapidity. Farther, it would appear only right that an\nintelligent and accountable being, placed in a world like this, should\nhave some explanation of his origin and destiny given him at first,\nand that, if he should perchance go astray, a helping hand should be\nextended to him.\n\nPractically it is an historical fact that all the great impulses given\nto humanity have been by men claiming divine guidance or inspiration,\nand professing to bring light and truth from the unseen world. It\nwould be too much to say that all these prophets and reformers have\nbeen inspired of heaven; but scarcely too much to say that they have\neither received a message of God, or have been permitted to transmit\nto our world messages for weal or woe from powers without in\nsubordination to him. Farther, we shall have reason in the sequel to\nsee that in far back prehistoric times there must have been impulses\ngiven to mankind, and revelations made to them, as potent as those\nwhich have acted in later historic periods. In Holy Scripture the Word\nof God is represented as \"enlightening every man;[3]\" and with\nreference to our present subject we are told that \"by faith we\nunderstand that the ages of the world were constituted by the Word of\nGod, so that the visible things were not made of those which\nappear.\"[4] In other words, that the will of God has been active and\noperative as the sole cause throughout all ages of the world's\ncreation and history, and that the visible universe is not a mere\nproduct of its own phenomena. We may call this faith, if we please, an\nintuition or instinct, a God-given gift, or a product of our own\nthought acting on evidence afforded by the outer world; but in any\ncase it seems to be the sole possible solution of the mystery of\norigins.\n\nThese points being premised, we are in a position to inquire as to the\nteaching of our own Holy Scriptures, and in this inquiry we can easily\ntake along with them all other revelations, pretended or true, that\ndeal with our subject.\n\nMax Mueller, in his lectures on the Science of Religion, rejects the\nordinary division into natural and revealed, and adopts a threefold\ngrouping, corresponding to the great division of languages into\nTuranian, Aryan, and Semitic. With some modification and explanation,\nthis classification will serve well our present purpose. As to natural\nand revealed religions, if we regard our own as revealed, we must\nadmit an element of revelation in all others as well. According to the\nHebrew Scriptures revelation began in Eden, and was continued more or\nless in all successive ages up to the apostolic times. Consequently\nthe earlier revelations of the antediluvian and postdiluvian times\nmust have been the common property of all races, and must have been\nassociated with whatever elements of natural religion they had. When,\ntherefore, we call our religion distinctively a revealed one, we must\nadmit that traces of the same revelation may be found in all others.\nOn the other hand, when we characterize our religion as Hebrew or\nSemitic, we must bear in mind that in its earlier stages it was not so\nlimited; but that, if as old as it professes to be, it must include a\nsubstratum common to it with the old religions of the Turanians and\nAryans. Neglect of these very simple considerations often leads to\ngreat confusion in the minds both of Christians and unbelievers, as to\nthe relation of Christianity to heathenism, and especially to the\nolder and more primitive forms of heathenism.\n\nThe Turanian stock, of which the Mongolian peoples of Northern Asia\nmay be taken as the type, includes also the American races, and the\noldest historical populations of Western Asia and of Europe; and they\nare the peoples who, in their physical features and their art\ntendencies, most nearly resemble the prehistoric men of the caves and\ngravels. They largely consist of the populations which the Bible\naffiliates with Ham. They are remarkable for their permanent and\nstationary forms of civilization or barbarism, and for the languages\nleast developed in grammatical structure. These people had and still\nhave traditions of the creation and early history of man similar to\nthose in the earlier Biblical books; but the connection of their\nreligions with that of the Bible breaks off from the time of Abraham;\nand the earlier portions of revelation which they possessed became\ndisintegrated into a polytheism which takes very largely the form of\nanimism, or of attributing some special spiritual indwelling to all\nnatural objects, and also that of worship of ancestors and heroes. The\nportion of primitive theological belief to which they have clung most\npersistently is the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, which in\nall their religious beliefs occupies a prominent place, and has always\nbeen connected with special attention to rites of sepulture and\nmonuments to the dead. Their version of the revelation of creation\nappears most distinctly in the sacred book of the Quiches of Central\nAmerica, and in the creation myths of the Mexicans, Iroquois,\nAlgonquins, and other North American tribes; and it has been handed\ndown to us through the Semitic Assyrians from the ancient\nChaldaeo-turanian population of the valley of the Euphrates.\n\nThe Aryan races have been remarkable for their changeable and\nversatile character. Their religious ideas in the most primitive times\nappear to have been not dissimilar from those of the Turanians; and\nthe Indians, Persians, Greeks, Scandinavians, and Celts have all gone\nsome length in developing and modifying these, apparently by purely\nhuman imaginative and intellectual materials. But all these\ndevelopments were defective in a moral point of view, and had lost the\nstability and rational basis which proceed from monotheism. Hence they\nhave given way before other and higher faiths; and at this day the\nmore advanced nations of the Aryan, or in Scriptural language the\nJaphetic stock, have adopted the Semitic faith; and, as Noah long ago\npredicted, \"dwell in the tents of Shem.\" No indigenous account of the\ngenesis of things remains among the Aryan races, with the exception of\nthat in the Avesta, and in some ancient Hindoo hymns, and these are\nmerely variations of the Turanian or Semitic cosmogony. God has given\nto the Aryans no special revelations of his will, and they would have\nbeen left to grope for themselves along the paths of science and\nphilosophy, but for the advent among them of the prophets of \"Jehovah\nthe God of Shem.\"\n\nIt is to the Semitic race that God has been most liberal in his gift\nof inspiration. Gathering up and treasuring the old common\ninheritance of religion, and eliminating from it the accretions of\nsuperstition, the children of Abraham at one time stood alone, or\nalmost alone, as adherents of a belief in one God the Creator. Their\ntheology was added to from age to age by a succession of prophets, all\nworking in one line of development, till it culminated in the\nappearance of Jesus Christ, and then proceeded to expand itself over\nthe other races. Among them it has undergone two remarkable phases of\nretrograde development--the one in Mohammedanism, which carries it\nback to a resemblance to its own earlier patriarchal stage, the other\nin Roman and Greek ecclesiasticism, which have taken it back to the\nLevitical system, along with a strong color of paganism. Still its\noriginal documents survive, and retain their hold on large portions of\nthe more enlightened Aryan nations, while through their means these\ndocuments have entered on a new career of conquest among the Semites\nand Turanians. They are, however, it must be admitted, among the Aryan\nraces of Europe, growing in a somewhat uncongenial soil; partly\nbecause of the materialistic organization of these races, and partly\nbecause of the abundant remains of heathenism which still linger among\nthem; and it is possible that they may not realize their full triumphs\nover humanity till the Semitic races return to the position of\nAbraham, and erect again in the world the standard of monotheistic\nfaith, under the auspices of a purified Christianity.\n\nIt follows from this hasty survey that it is the Semitic solution of\nthe question of origins, as contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, that\nmainly concerns us; and in the first place we must consider the\nfoundation and historical development of this solution, as many\nmisconceptions prevail on these points. We may discuss these subjects\nunder the heads of the Abrahamic Genesis and the Mosaic Genesis, and\nmay in a subsequent chapter consider the results of these in the\nGenesis of the later Scripture writers.\n\n\nTHE ABRAHAMIC GENESIS.\n\nIt has been a favorite theory with some learned men that the earlier\nparts of the book of Genesis existed as ancient documents even in the\ntime of Moses, and were incorporated by him in his work, and attempts\nhave been made to separate, on various grounds, the older from the\nnewer portions. Until lately, however, these attempts have been\naltogether conjectural and destitute of any positive basis of\narchaeological fact. A new and interesting aspect has been given to\nthem by the recent readings of the inscriptions on clay tablets found\nat Nineveh, and to which especial attention has been given by the late\nMr. G. Smith, of the Archaeological Department of the British Museum.\n\nAssurbanipal, king of Assyria, one of the kings known to the Greeks by\nthe name of Sardanapalus, reigned at Nineveh about B.C. 673. He was a\ngrandson of the Biblical Sennacherib, and son of Esarhaddon, and it\nseems that he had inherited from his fathers a library of Chaldean and\nAssyrian literature, written not on perishable paper or parchment, but\non tablets of clay, and containing much ancient lore of the nations\ninhabiting the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates. Assurbanipal,\nliving when the Assyrian empire had attained to the acme of its\ngreatness, had leisure to become a greater patron of learning than any\npreceding king. His scribes ransacked the record chambers of the\noldest temples in the world; and Babel, Erech, Accad, and Ur had to\nyield up their treasures of history and theology to diligent copyists,\nwho transcribed them in beautiful arrow-head characters on new clay\ntablets, and deposited them in the library of the great king. It\nwould appear that, at the same time, these documents were edited,\narchaic forms of expression translated, and lacunae caused by decay or\nfracture repaired. They were also inscribed with legends stating the\nsources whence they had been derived.\n\nThe empire of Assyria went down in blood, and its palaces were\ndestroyed with fire, but the imperishable clay tablets which had\nformed the treasure of their libraries remained, more or less broken\nit is true, among the ruins. Exhumed by Layard and Smith, they are now\namong the collections of the British Museum, and their decipherment is\nthrowing a new and strange light on the cosmogony and religions of the\nearly East. Though the date of the writing of these tablets is\ncomparatively modern, being about the time of the later kings of\nJudah, the original records from which they were transcribed profess\nto have been very ancient--some of them about 1600 years before the\ntime of Assurbanipal, so that they go back to a time anterior to that\nof the early Hebrew patriarchs. Their genuineness has been endorsed,\nin one case, by the discovery by Mr. Loftus, in the city of Senkereh,\nof an apparent original, bearing date about 1600 years before Christ,\nand other inscriptions of equal or greater antiquity have been found\nin the ruins of Ur, on the Euphrates. Nor does there seem any reason\nto doubt that the scribes of Assurbanipal faithfully transcribed the\noldest records extant in their time. Their care and diligence are also\nshown by the fact that where different versions of these records\nexisted in different cities, they have made copies of these variant\nmanuscripts, instead of attempting to reduce them to one text. The\nsubjects treated of in the Nineveh tablets are very various, but those\nthat concern our present purpose are the documents relating to the\ncreation, the fall of man, and the deluge, of which considerable\nportions have been recovered, and have been translated by Mr. Smith.\n\nThese documents carry us back to a time when the Turanian religions\nhad not yet been separated from the Semitic. The early Chaldeans,\ntermed Cushites in the Bible, and who under Nimrod seem to have\nestablished the first empire in that region, are now known to have\nbeen Turanian; and among them apparently arose at a very early period\na literature and a mythology. The Chaldeans were politically\nsubjugated by the Semitic Assyrians, but they retained their religious\npredominance; and until a comparatively late period existed as a\nlearned and priestly caste. To these primitive _Chasdim_ were\nundoubtedly due the creation legends collected by the scribes of\nAssurbanipal. They were obtained in the old Chaldean cities, in the\ntemples under the guardianship of Chaldean priests; and their date\ncarries them back to a time anterior to the Assyrian conquest, and in\nwhich Chaldean kings still reigned. Here, then, we have an important\nconnecting link between the cosmogonies of the Turanian and Semitic\nraces; and leaving out of sight for the present the legends of the\ndeluge and other matters allied to it, we may inquire as to the nature\nand contents of the Assyrian and Chaldean record of creation.\n\nThe Assyrian Genesis is similar in order and arrangement to that in\nour own Bible, and gives the same general order of the creative work.\nIts days, however, of creation, as indeed there is good internal\nevidence to prove those of Moses also are, seem to be periods or ages.\nIt treats of the creation of gods, as well as of the universe, and\nthus introduces a polytheistic system; and it seems to recognize, like\nthe Avesta, a primitive principle of evil, presiding over chaos, and\nsubsequently introducing evil among men. These points may be\nillustrated by an extract from Mr. Smith's translation. It relates to\nthe earlier part of the work:\n\n  \"When above were not raised the heavens,\n  And below on the earth a plant had not grown up\n  The deep also had not broken up its boundaries\n  Chaos (or water) Tiamat (the sea or abyss) was the producing mother\n     of them all\n  These waters at the beginning were ordained\n  But a tree had not grown a flower had not unfolded\n  When the gods had not sprung up any one of them\n  A plant had not grown and order did not exist\n  Were made also the great gods\n  The gods Lahma and Lahamu they caused to come * * *\n  And they grew * * *\n  The gods Sar and Kisar were made\n  A course of days and a long time passed\n  The god Anu * * *\n  The gods Sar and * * *\"\n\nHere the first existences are Chaos (Mummu, or confusion) and Tiamat,\nwhich is the Thalatth of Berosus, representing the sea or primitive\nabyss, but also recognized as a female deity or first mother. Then we\nhave Lahma and Lahamu, which represent power or motion in nature, and\nare the equivalents of the Divine Spirit moving on the face of the\nwaters in our Genesis. Next we have the production of Sar or Iloar and\nKisar, representing the expanse or firmament. Sar is supposed to be\nthe god Assur of the Assyrians, a great weather god, and after whom\ntheir nation and its founder were named. The next process is the\ncreation of the heaven and the earth, represented by Anu and Anatu.\nAnu was always one of the greater gods, and was identified with the\nhigher or starry heavens. In succeeding tablets to this we find Bel or\nBelus introduced, as the agent in the creation of animals and of men;\nand he is the true Demiurgus or Mediator of the Assyrian system. Next\nwe have the introduction of Hea or Saturn, who is the equivalent of\nthe Biblical Adam, and of Ishtar, mother of men, who is the Isba or\nEve of Genesis. The rest of this legend evidently relates to deified\nmen, among whom are Merodach, Nebo, and other heroes.\n\nThe first remark that we may make on this Assyrian Genesis is that,\nwhile it resembles generally the Mosaic account of creation, it also\nstrongly resembles the old cosmogonies of the Egyptians and Persians,\nand those of the widely scattered Turanians of Northern Asia and of\nAmerica. As an extreme illustration of this, and to obviate the\nnecessity of digression at this point of our inquiry, I introduce here\nsome extracts from the Popul Vuh, or sacred book of the Quiche Indians\nof Central America, an undoubted product of prehistoric religion in\nthe western continent.[5]\n\n     \"And the heaven was formed, and all the signs thereof set in\n     their angle and alignment, and its boundaries fixed toward\n     the four winds by the Creator and Former, and Mother and\n     Father of life and existence--he by whom all move and\n     breathe, the Father and Cherisher of the peace of nations\n     and of the civilization of his people--he whose wisdom has\n     projected the excellence of all that is on the earth or in\n     the lakes or in the sea.\"\n\n     \"Behold the first word and the first discourse. There was\n     yet no man nor any animal, * * * nothing was but the\n     firmament. The face of the earth had not yet appeared over\n     the peaceful sea, and all the space of heaven * * * nothing\n     but immobility and silence in the night.\"\n\n     \"Alone also the Creator, the Former, the Dominator, the\n     Feathered Serpent--those that engender, those that give\n     being--they are upon the water like a growing light. They\n     are enveloped in green and blue, and therefore their name is\n     Gucumatz.\"[6]\n\n     \"Lo now how the heavens exist, how exists also the Heart of\n     Heaven; such is the name of God. It is thus that he is\n     called. And they spake, they consulted together and\n     meditated; they mingled their words and their opinions.\"\n\n     \"And the creation [of the earth] was verily after this wise.\n     Earth, they said, and on the instant it was formed; like a\n     cloud or a fog was its beginning. Then the mountains rose\n     over the water like great fishes; in an instant the\n     mountains and the plains were visible, and the cypress and\n     the pine appeared. Then was the Gucumatz filled with joy,\n     crying out: Blessed be thy coming, O Heart of Heaven,\n     Hurakan, Thunderbolt. Our work and our labor has\n     accomplished its end.\"\n\nThis corresponds to the work of the first four creative days; and next\ndetails are given as to the introduction of animals, with which,\nhowever, the Creator is represented as dissatisfied, because they\ncould not know or invoke the Creator. They are therefore condemned to\nbe subject to be devoured one of another. Again there is a council in\nheaven, and the gods determine to make man. But he also is imperfect,\nfor he has speech without intelligence: so he is condemned to be\ndestroyed by water. A new council is held, and a second race of men\nproduced; but this fails in the capacity for religious worship--\"they\nforgot the Heart of Heaven.\" These were partly destroyed by fire and\npartly converted into apes. Lastly another council is held, and\nperfect men created. Then follows a remarkable series of stories\nrelating to the early history and migrations of men.\n\nIt is known that similar creation myths existed among the Mexicans\nand other early civilized nations of America, and in ruder and more\ngrotesque forms even among the semi-barbarous and hunter tribes. Their\nconnection with the ancient Semitic and Turanian revelations of Asia\nis unquestionable.\n\nWe have thus in the Assyrian Genesis a relic of early religious belief\nbelonging to a period when such widely separated stocks as the\nAssyrian and American were still one: to a period, therefore,\npresumably long anterior to that of Moses. Yet at this very early\nperiod the central portions at least of the Turanian race had already\ndevised some means of recording their traditions in writing--probably\nthe arrow-head writing, afterwards used by the Assyrians, had already\nbeen invented. Again, at this early period a complex polytheism had\nalready sprung up, and this was connected with cosmological ideas,\ninasmuch as the primitive abyss, the firmament, the starry heavens,\nthe principle of life, were all subordinate gods; and so were also\nsome of the earliest of the patriarchs of the human race. It is\npossible, however, that this was among the early Chaldeans an exoteric\nrepresentation for the vulgar, and that the priestly caste may have\nunderstood it in a monotheistic sense. In any case, the idea of a\nSupreme Creator remains behind the whole. Farther, in the early\nChaldean record we have a more detailed and expanded document than\nthat of the Hebrew Genesis, probably intended for the popular ear, and\nto include as much as possible of the current mythology. As an\nexample, I quote the following in relation to the creation of the\nmoon, being apparently a part of the narrative of that creative period\ncorresponding with the fourth day of Genesis:\n\n  \"In its mass [that is, of the lower chaos] he made a boiling,\n  The God Uru [the moon] he caused to rise out, the night he\n     overshadowed.\n  To fix it also for the light of the night until the shining of\n     the day,\n  That the month might not be broken and in its amount be regular.\n  At the beginning of the month at the rising of the night,\n  His horns are breaking through to shine in the heavens.\n  On the seventh day to a circle he begins to swell,\n  And stretches toward the dawn farther.\"\n\nWe now come to the historical connection of all this with Abraham and\nwith the Hebrew Scriptures. The early life of the \"Father of the\nFaithful\" belongs to the time when Turanian and Semitic elements were\nmingled in the Euphratean valley. Himself of the stock of Shem, he\ndwelt in Ur of the Chaldees, a city in whose ruins, now known by the\nname of Mugheir, Chaldean inscriptions have been found of a date\nanterior to that of the patriarch. In the time of Abraham a\npolytheistic religion already existed in Ur, for we are told that his\nfather \"served other gods.\" Further, the legends of the creation and\nthe deluge, and the antediluvian age, with the history of Nimrod and\nother postdiluvian heroes, existed in a written form; and, strange\nthough this may seem, there can be little doubt that Abraham, before\nhe left Ur of the Chaldees, had read the same creation legends that\nhave so recently been translated and published by Mr. Smith. But\nAbraham's relation to these was of a peculiar kind. With a spiritual\nenlightenment beyond that of his age, he dissented from the Turanian\nanimism and polytheism, and maintained that pure and spiritual\nmonotheism which, according to the Bible, had been the original faith\nof the sons of Noah. But he was overborne by the tendencies of his\ntime, and probably by the royal and priestly influence then dominant\nin Chaldea, and he went forth from his native land in search of a\ncountry where he might have freedom to worship God. It is thus that\nAbraham appears as the earliest reformer, the first of those martyrs\nof conscience who fear not to differ from the majority, the father and\nprototype of the faithful of every age, and the earliest apostle of\nthe monotheistic faith which still reigns among all the higher races\nof men.\n\nDid Abraham take with him in his pilgrimage the records of his people?\nIt is scarcely possible to doubt that he did, and this probably in a\nwritten form, but purified from the polytheism and inane imaginations\naccreted upon them; or perhaps he had access to still older and more\nprimitive records anterior to the rise of the Turanian superstitions.\nIn any case we may safely infer that Abraham and his tribe carried\nwith them the substance of all that part of Genesis which contains the\nhistory of the world up to his time, and that this would be a precious\nheir-loom of his family, until it was edited and incorporated in the\nPentateuch by his great descendant Moses. It seems plain, therefore,\nthat the original prophet or seer to whom the narrative of creation\nwas revealed lived before Abraham, but we need not doubt that the\nlatter had the benefit of divine guidance in his noble stand against\nthe idolatry of his age, and in his selection of the documents on\nwhich his own theology was based. These considerations help us to\nunderstand the persistence of Hebrew monotheism in the presence of the\nidolatries of Canaan and Egypt, since these were closely allied to the\nChaldean system against which Abraham had protested. They also explain\nthe recognition by Abraham, as co-religionists, of such monotheistic\npersonages as Melchisedec, king of Salem. They further illustrate the\nnature of the religious basis in his people's beliefs on which Moses\nhad to work, and on which he founded his theocratic system.\n\nBefore leaving this part of the subject, I would observe that the view\nabove given; while it explains the agreement between the Hebrew\nGenesis and other ancient religious beliefs, is in strict accordance\nwith the teachings of Genesis itself. The history given there implies\nmonotheism and knowledge of God as the Creator and Redeemer, in\nantediluvian and early postdiluvian times, a decadence from this into\na systematic polytheism at a very early date, the protest and dissent\nof Abraham, his call of God to be the upholder of a purer faith, and\nthe maintenance of that faith by his descendants. Besides this, any\ncareful reader of Genesis and of the book of Job, which, whatever its\norigin, must be more ancient than the Mosaic law, will readily\ndiscover indications that Abraham and the patriarchs were in the\npossession of documents and traditions of the same purport with those\nin the early chapters of Genesis, and that these were to them their\nonly sacred literature. The reader of the Pentateuch must carry this\nidea with him, if he would have any clear conception of the unity and\nsymmetry of these remarkable books.\n\n\nTHE MOSAIC GENESIS.\n\nIn the period of 400 years intervening between Abraham's departure\nfrom Ur and the exodus of Israel from Egypt, no great prophetic mind,\nlike that of the Father of the Faithful, appeared among the Hebrews.\nBut then arose Moses, the greatest figure in all antiquity before the\nadvent of Christ, and who was destined to give permanence and\nworld-wide prevalence to the faith for which Abraham had sacrificed so\nmuch. Under the leadership of Moses, the Abrahamidae, now reduced to\nthe condition of a serf population, emancipated themselves from\nEgyptian bondage, and, after forty years of wandering desert life,\nsettled themselves permanently on the hills and in the valleys of\nPalestine. The voice of the ruling race, indistinctly conveyed to us\nfrom that distant antiquity, maintains that the fugitive slaves were\nan abject and contemptible herd; but the leader of the exodus informs\nus that, though cruelly trodden down by a haughty despot, they were of\nnoble parentage, the heirs of high hopes and promises. Their migration\nis certainly the most remarkable national movement in the world's\nhistory--remarkable, not merely in its events and immediate\ncircumstances, but in its remote political, literary, and moral\nresults. The rulers of Egypt, polished, enlightened, and practical\nmen, were yet the devotees of a complicated system of hero and animal\nworship, like that from which Abraham dissented, and derived in great\npart from the \"animism\" which caused some of the oldest nations of the\nworld to associate a spiritual indwelling with the natural objects\nsurrounding them; or, if they had ceased to believe in this, they had\nsunk into a materialistic devotion to the good things of the present\nworld, combined with a superstitious belief in the efficacy of\npriestly absolution.\n\nThe slaves, leaving all this behind them, rose in their religious\nopinions to the pure and spiritual monotheism of the great father of\ntheir race; and their leader presented to them a law unequalled up to\nour time in its union of justice, patriotism, and benevolence, and\nestablished among them, for the first time in the world's history, a\nfree constitutional republic. Nor is this all; unexampled though such\nresults are elsewhere in the case of serfs suddenly emancipated. The\nHebrew lawgiver has interwoven his institutions in a great historical\ncomposition, including the grand and simple cosmogony of the\npatriarchs, a detailed account of the affiliation and ethnological\nrelations of the races of men, and a narrative of the fortunes of his\nown people; intimating not only that they were a favored and chosen\nrace, but that of them was to arise a great Deliverer, who would bless\nall nations with pardon and with peace,[7] and would solve once for\nall those great problems of the relations of man to God and the unseen\nworld, which in the time of Moses as in our own were the most\nmomentous of all, and gave to questions of origins all their practical\nvalue.\n\nThe lawgiver passed to his rest. His laws and literature, surviving\nthrough many vicissitudes, have produced in each succeeding age a new\nharvest of poetry and history, leavened with their own spirit. In the\nmean time the learning and the superstition of Egypt faded from the\neyes of men. The splendid political and military organizations of\nAssyria, Babylon, Persia, and Macedon arose and crumbled into dust.\nThe wonderful literature of Greece blazed forth and expired. That of\nRome, a reflex and copy of the former, had reached its culminating\npoint; and no prophet had arisen among any of these Gentile nations to\nteach them the truth of God. The world, with all its national\nliberties crushed out, its religion and its philosophy corrupted and\nenfeebled to the last degree by an endless succession of borrowings\nand intermixtures, lay prostrate under the iron heel of Rome. Then\nappeared among the now obscure remnant of Israel, one who announced\nhimself as the Prophet like unto Moses, promised of old; but a prophet\nwhose mission it was to redeem not Israel only, but the whole world,\nand to make all who will believe, children of faithful Abraham.\nAdopting the whole of the sacred literature of the Hebrews, and\nproving his mission by its words, he sent forth a few plain men to\nwrite its closing books, and to plant it on the ruins of all the\ntime-honored beliefs of the nations--beliefs supported by a splendid\nand highly organized priestly system and by despotic power, and gilded\nby all the highest efforts of poetry and art.\n\nThe story is a very familiar one; but it is marvellous beyond all\nothers. Nor is the modern history of the Bible less wonderful. Exhumed\nfrom the rubbish of the Middle Ages, it has entered on a new career of\nvictory. It has stimulated the mind of modern Europe to all its\nhighest efforts, and has been the charter of its civil and religious\nliberties. Its wondrous revelation of all that man most desires to\nknow, in the past, in the present, and in his future destinies, has\ngone home to the hearts of men in all ranks of society and in all\ncountries. In many great nations it is the only rule of religious\nfaith. In every civilized country it is the basis of all that is most\nvaluable in religion. Where it has been withheld from the people,\ncivilization in its highest aspects has languished, and superstition,\npriestcraft, and tyranny have held their ground or have perished under\nthe assaults of a heartless and inhuman infidelity. Where it has been\na household book, education has necessarily flourished, liberty has\ntaken root, and the higher nature of man has been developed to the\nfull. Driven from many other countries by tyrannical interference with\nliberty of thought and discussion, or by a short-sighted\necclesiasticism, it has taken up its special abode with the greatest\ncommercial nations of our time; and, scattered by their agency\nbroadcast over the world, it is read by every nation under heaven in\nits own tongue, and is slowly but surely preparing the way for wider\nand greater changes than any that have heretofore resulted from its\ninfluence. Explain it as we may, the Bible is a great literary\nmiracle; and no amount of inspiration or authority that can be\nclaimed for it is more strange or incredible than the actual history\nof the book. Yet no book has ever thrown itself into so decided\nantagonism with all the great forces of evil in the world. Tyranny\nhates it, because the Bible so strongly maintains the individual value\nand rights of man as man. The spirit of caste dislikes it for the same\nreason. Anarchical license, on the other hand, finds nothing but\ndiscouragement in it. Priestcraft gnashes its teeth at it, as the very\nembodiment of private judgment in religion, and because it so\nscornfully ignores human authority in matters of conscience, and human\nintervention between man and his Maker. Skepticism sneers at it,\nbecause it requires faith and humility, and threatens ruin to the\nunbeliever. It launches its thunders against every form of violence or\nfraud or allurement that seeks to profit by wrong or to pander to the\nvices of mankind; all these consequently are its foes. On the other\nhand, by its uncompromising stand with reference to certain scientific\nand historical facts, it has appeared to oppose the progress of\nthought and speculation; though, as we shall see, it has been unfairly\naccused in this last respect.\n\nWith its antagonism to the evil that is in the world we have at\npresent nothing to do, except to caution the student of this venerable\nliterature against the prejudices which interested and unscrupulous\nfoes seek to cultivate. Its doctrine of the origin of man and of the\nworld, and the relation of this to modern scientific and historical\nresults, is that which now claims our attention; and this more\nespecially in the relation which the Mosaic cosmogony, considered as\nan early revelation from God, may be found to bear to the facts which\nmodern scientific research has elicited from the universe itself. The\naspects in which apparent conflicts present themselves are threefold.\nAt one time it was not unusual to impugn the historical accuracy of\nthe Pentateuch on the evidence of the Greek historians; and on many\npoints scarcely any corroborative evidence could be cited in favor of\nthe Hebrew writers. In our own time much of this difficulty has been\nremoved, and an immense amount of learned research has been reduced to\nwaste paper, by the circumstance that the monuments of Egypt and\nAssyria have risen up to bear testimony in favor of the Bible; and\nscarcely any sane man now doubts the value of the Hebrew history. The\nbattle-ground has in consequence been shifted farther back, to points\nconcerning the affiliation of the races of men, the absolute antiquity\nof man's residence on the earth, and the condition of prehistoric men;\nquestions on which we can scarcely expect to find, at least for a long\ntime, any decisive monumental or scientific evidence. Secondly, the\nBible commits itself to certain cosmological doctrines and statements\nrespecting the system of nature, and details of that system, more or\nless approaching to the domain which geology occupies in its\ninvestigations of the past history of the earth; and at every stage in\nthe progress of modern science, independently of the mischief done by\nsmatterers and skeptics, earnest bigotry on the one hand, and earnest\nscientific enthusiasm on the other, have come into collision. One\nstumbling-block after another has, it is true, been removed by mutual\nconcession and farther enlightenment, and by the removal of false\ntraditional interpretations of the sacred records, as well as by\nfarther discoveries in relation to nature. But the field of conflict\nhas thereby apparently only changed; and we still have some Christians\nin consequence regarding the revelations of natural science with\nsuspicion, and some scientific men cherishing a sullen resentment\nagainst what they regard as an intolerant intermeddling of theology\nwith the domain of legitimate investigation. Lastly, the great growth\nof physical science, and the tendency to take partial views of the\nuniverse as if it were comprehended in mere matter and force, with\nsimilarly partial views of the doctrines of continuity and the\nconservation of forces, along with the growth of a belief in\nspontaneous evolution as a philosophical dogma, have placed many\nscientific minds in a position which makes them treat the whole\nquestion of the origin and destiny of man and of the world with\nabsolute indifference.\n\nThere can nevertheless be no question that the whole subject is at the\npresent moment in a more satisfactory state than ever previously; that\nmuch has been done for the solution of difficulties; that many\ntheologians admit the great service which in many cases science has\nrendered to the interpretation of the Bible, and that most naturalists\nfeel themselves free from undue trammels. Above all, there is a very\ngeneral disposition to admit the distinctness and independence of the\nfields of revelation and natural science, the possibility of their\narriving at some of the same truths, though in very different ways,\nand the folly of expecting them fully and manifestly to agree in the\npresent state of our information. The literature of this kind of\nnatural history has also become very extensive, and there are few\npersons who do not at least know that there are methods of reconciling\nthe cosmogony of Moses with that obtained from the study of nature.\nFor this very reason the time is favorable for an unprejudiced\ndiscussion of the questions involved; and for presenting on the one\nhand to naturalists a summary of what the Bible does actually teach\nrespecting the early history of the earth and man, and on the other to\nthose whose studies lie in the book which they regard as the Word of\nGod, rather than in the material universe which they regard as his\nwork, a view of the points in which the teaching of the Bible comes\ninto contact with natural science at its present stage of progress.\nThese are the ends which I propose to myself in the following pages,\nand which I shall endeavor to pursue in a spirit of fair and truthful\ninvestigation; having regard on the one hand to the claims and\ninfluence of the venerable Book of God, and on the other to the rights\nand legitimate results of modern scientific inquiry.\n\nThe plan which I have proposed to myself in this part of my subject\nis to take the statements of Genesis in their order, and consider what\nthey import, and how they appear to harmonize with what we know from\nother sources. This will occupy some space, but it will save time in\ndealing with the remaining parts of the subject. Before entering upon\nit, I propose to devote one chapter to the answers to three questions\nwhich concern the whole doctrine of revealed religion, whether\nSemitic, Turanian, or Aryan. These are: (1) _Why_ the origin of things\nshould be revealed; (2) _How_ it could be revealed; and (3) _What_\nwould require to be revealed in order to form the basis of a rational\ntheism.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nOBJECTS AND NATURE OF A REVELATION OF ORIGINS.\n\n\n     \"There are two books from which I collect my divinity;\n     besides that written one of God, another of his servant\n     nature--that universal and public manuscript that lies\n     expansed unto the eyes of all.\"--SIR T. BROWNE.\n\n\nThere are some questions, simple enough in themselves, respecting the\ngeneral character and object of the references to nature and creation\nin the Scriptures, which yet are so variously and vaguely answered\nthat they deserve some consideration before entering on the detailed\nstudy of the subject. These are: (1) The object of the introduction of\nsuch subjects into the Hebrew sacred books--the _why_ of the\nrevelation of origins. (2) The origin, character, and structure of the\nnarrative of creation and other cosmological statements in those\nbooks--the _how_ of the revelation. (3) The character of the Biblical\ncosmogony, and general views of nature to which it leads--the _what_\nof the revelation.\n\n(1) _The Object of the Introduction of a Cosmogony in the\nBible._--Man, even in his rudest and most uncivilized state, does not\nlimit his mental vision to his daily wants. He desires to live not\nmerely in the present, but in the future also and the past. This is a\npsychological peculiarity which, as much as any other, marks his\nseparation from the lower animals, and which in his utmost degradation\nhe never wholly loses. Whatever may be fancied as to imagined\nprehistoric nations, it is certain that no people now existing, or\nhistorically known to us, is so rude as to be destitute of some hopes\nor fears in reference to the future, some traditions as to the distant\npast. Every religious system that has had any influence over the human\nmind has included such ideas. Nor are we to regard this as an\naccident. It depends on fixed principles in our constitution, which\ncrave as their proper aliment such information; and if it can not be\nobtained, the mind, rather than want it, invents for itself. We might\ninfer from this very circumstance that a true religion, emanating from\nthe Creator, would supply this craving; and might content ourselves\nwith affirming that, on this ground alone, it behooved revelation to\nhave a cosmogony.\n\nBut the religion of the Hebrews especially required to be explicit as\nto the origin of the earth and all things therein. Its peculiar dogma\nis that of one only God, the Creator, requiring the sole homage of his\ncreatures. The heathen for the most part acknowledged in some form a\nsupreme god, but they also gave divine honors to subordinate gods, to\ndeceased ancestors and heroes, and to natural phenomena, in such a\nmanner as practically to obscure their ideas of the Creator, or\naltogether to set aside his worship. The influence of such idolatry\nwas the chief antagonism which the Hebrew monotheism had to encounter;\nand we learn from the history of the nation how often the worshippers\nof Jehovah were led astray by its allurements. To guard against this\ndanger, it was absolutely necessary that no place should be left for\nthe introduction of polytheism, by placing the whole work of creation\nand providence under the sole jurisdiction of the One God. Moses\nconsequently takes strong ground on these points. He first insists on\nthe creation of all things by the fiat of the Supreme. Next he\nspecifies the elaboration and arrangement of all the powers of\ninanimate nature, and the introduction of every form of organic\nexistence, as the work of the same First Cause. Lastly, he insists on\nthe creation of a primal human pair, and on the descent from them of\nall the branches of the human race, including of course those\nancestors and magnates who up to his time had been honored with\napotheosis; and on the same principle he explains the golden age of\nEden, the fall, the cherubic emblems, the deluge, and other facts in\nhuman history interwoven by the heathen with their idolatries. He thus\ngrasps the whole material of ancient idolatry, reduces it within the\ncompass of monotheism, and shows its relation to the one true\nprimitive religion, which was that not only of the Hebrews, but of\nright that of the whole world, whose prevailing polytheism consisted\nin perversions of its truth or unity. For such reasons the early\nchapters of Genesis are so far from being of the character of\ndigressions from the scope and intention of the book, that they form a\nsubstratum of doctrine absolutely essential to the Hebrew faith, and\nequally so to its development in Christianity.\n\nThe references to nature in the Bible, however, and especially in its\npoetical books, far exceed the absolute requirements of the reasons\nabove stated; and this leads to another and very interesting view,\nnamely, the tendency of monotheism to the development of truthful and\nexalted ideas of nature. The Hebrew theology allowed no attempt at\nvisible representations of the Creator or of his works for purposes of\nworship. It thus to a great extent prevented that connection of\nimitative art with religion which flourished in heathen antiquity, and\nhas been introduced into certain forms of Christianity. But it\ncultivated the higher arts of poetry and song, and taught them to draw\ntheir inspiration from nature as the only visible revelation of Deity.\nHence the growth of a healthy \"physico-theology,\" excluding all\nidolatry of natural phenomena, and all superstitious dread of them as\nindependent powers, but inviting to their examination as\nmanifestations of God, and leading to conceptions of the unity of plan\nin the cosmos, of which polytheism, even in its highest literary\nefforts, was quite incapable. In the same manner the Bible has always\nproved itself an active stimulant of natural science, connecting such\nstudies, as it does, with our higher religious sentiments; while\npolytheism and materialism have acted as repressive influences, the\none because it obscures the unity of nature, the other because, in\nrobbing it of its presiding Divinity, it gives a cold and repulsive,\ncorpse-like aspect, chilling to the imagination, and incapable of\nattracting the general mind.\n\nNaturalists should not forget their obligations to the Bible in this\nrespect, and should on this very ground prefer its teachings to those\nof modern pantheism and positivism, and still more to those of mere\npriestly authority. Very few minds are content with simple\nmaterialism, and those who must have a God, if they do not recognize\nthe Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures as the Creator and Supreme Ruler\nof the universe, are too likely to seek for him in the dimness of\nhuman authority and tradition, or of pantheistic philosophy; both of\nthem more akin to ancient heathenism than to modern civilization, and\nin their ultimate tendencies, if not in their immediate consequences,\nquite as hostile to progress in science as to evangelical\nChristianity.\n\nEvery student of human nature is aware of the influence in favor of\nthe appreciation of natural beauty and sublimity which the Bible\nimpresses on those who are deeply imbued with its teaching; even where\nthat same teaching has induced what may be regarded as a puritanical\ndislike of imitative art, at least in its religious aspects. On the\nother hand, naturalists can not refuse to acknowledge the surpassing\nmajesty of the views of nature presented in the Bible. No one has\nexpressed this better than Humboldt: \"It is characteristic of the\npoetry of the Hebrews that, as a reflex of monotheism, it always\nembraces the universe in its unity, comprising both terrestrial life\nand the luminous realms of space; it dwells but rarely on the\nindividuality of phenomena, preferring the contemplation of great\nmasses. The Hebrew poet does not depict nature as a self-dependent\nobject, glorious in its individual beauty, but always as in relation\nor subjection to a higher spiritual power. Nature is to him a work of\ncreation and order--the living expression of the omnipresence of the\nDivinity in the visible world.\" In reference to the 104th Psalm, which\nmay be viewed as a poetical version of the narrative of creation in\nGenesis, the same great writer remarks: \"We are astonished to find in\na lyrical poem of such a limited compass, the whole universe--the\nheavens and the earth--sketched with a few bold touches. The calm and\ntoilsome life of man, from the rising of the sun to the setting of the\nsame, when his daily work is done, is here contrasted with the moving\nlife of the elements of nature. This contrast and generalization in\nthe conception of the mutual action of natural phenomena, and the\nretrospection of an omnipresent invisible Power, which can renew the\nearth or crumble it to dust, constitute a solemn and exalted rather\nthan a gentle form of poetic creation.\"[8]\n\nIf we admit the source of inspiration claimed by the Hebrew poets, we\nshall not be surprised that they should thus write of nature. We shall\nonly lament that so many pious and learned interpreters of Scripture\nhave been too little acquainted with nature to appreciate the natural\nhistory of the Book of God, or adequately to illustrate it to those\nwho depend on their teaching; and that so many naturalists have\ncontented themselves with wondering at the large general views of the\nHebrew poets, without considering that they are based on a revelation\nof the nature and order of the creative work which supplied to the\nHebrew mind the place of those geological wonders which have\nastonished and enlarged the minds of modern nations. A modern divine,\nhimself well read in nature, truly says: \"If men of piety were also\nmen of science, and if men of science were to read the Scriptures,\nthere would be more faith on the earth and also more philosophy.\"[9]\nIn a similar strain the patient botanist of the marine algae thus\npleads for the joint claims of the Bible and nature: \"Unfortunately it\nhappens that in the educational course prescribed to our divines\nnatural history has no place, for which reason many are ignorant of\nthe important bearings which the book of nature has on the book of\nrevelation. They do not consider, apparently, that both are from\nGod--both are his faithful witnesses to mankind. And if this be so, is\nit reasonable to suppose that either, without the other, can be fully\nunderstood? It is only necessary to glance at the absurd commentaries\nin reference to natural objects which are to be found in too many\nannotations of the Holy Scriptures to be convinced of the benefit\nwhich the clergy would themselves derive from a more extended study of\nthe works of creation. And to missionaries especially, a minute\nfamiliarity with natural objects must be a powerful assistance in\nawakening the attention of the savage, who, after his manner, is a\nclose observer, and likely to detect a fallacy in his teacher, should\nthe latter attempt a practical illustration of his discourse without\nsufficient knowledge. These are not days in which persons who ought to\nbe our guides in matters of doctrine can afford to be behind the rest\nof the world in knowledge; nor can they safely sneer at the knowledge\nwhich puffeth up, until, like the apostle, they have sounded its\ndepths and proved its shallowness.\"[10] It is truly much to be desired\nthat divines and commentators, instead of trying to distort the\nrepresentations of nature in the Bible into the supposed requirements\nof a barbarous age, or of setting aside modern discoveries as if they\ncould have no connection with Scripture truth, would study natural\nobjects and laws sufficiently to bring themselves in this respect to\nthe level of the Hebrew writers. Such knowledge would be cheaply\npurchased even by the sacrifice of a part of their verbal and literary\ntraining. It is well that this point is now attracting the attention\nof the Christian world, and it is but just to admit that some of our\nmore eminent religious writers have produced noble examples of\naccurate illustrations of Scripture derived from nature. In any case,\nthe Bible itself can not be charged with any neglect of the claims of\nnature or with any narrow tendency to place material and spiritual\nthings in antagonism to one another.\n\nAnother reason why a revelation from God must deal with the origins of\nthings, is that such revelation is, like creation, in its own nature\nprogressive. It is given little by little to successive generations of\nmen, and must proceed from the first rudiments of religious truth\nonward to its higher developments with the growth of humanity from age\nto age. Hence the teachings in the early chapters of Genesis are of\nthe simplest and most child-like character, and the first of these\nearly teachings is necessarily that of God the Creator, just as our\nelementary catechisms for children have been wont to begin with the\nquestion, \"Who made you?\" In this way man is led in the most direct\nand simple way to the feet of the Universal Father, and a foundation\nis laid whereon further religious teaching adapted to the growth of\nthe individual mind and to the growing complications of human society\ncan be built. But again, alike in the earliest and simplest as in the\nmore advanced states of the human mind, if spiritual things are to be\ntaught, it must be through the medium of material things. We have no\nlanguage to express in any direct way spiritual truths; they must be\ngiven to us in terms of the natural. We have not yet learned the\ntongue of the immortals, and probably can not learn it in this world.\nThe word \"spirit\" itself, which we borrow from the Latin, the Greek\n_Pneuma_, the Hebrew _Ruah_, primarily all agree in signifying breath\nor wind. We have to speak of our own breath when we mean our spiritual\nnature, of God's breath when we mean his spiritual nature, and so of\nall other things not obvious to our senses. There is constant danger\nin this that the material shall be taken for the spiritual of which it\nis the symbol, the figure for the reality, the creature for the\nCreator, and this danger is best counteracted by a decided testimony\nin relation to the origin of all material things in the will of the\nspiritual and eternal God. Thus the Bible writers are enabled to use a\nfree and bold manner of speech respecting divine things. Their\nexpressions at one time appear pantheistic and at another\nanthropomorphic; they see God in every thing, and use with the utmost\nfreedom natural emblems to indicate his perfections and procedure, and\nour relations to him. In this way there is life and action in their\nteaching, and it is removed as far as possible from a dry, abstract\ntheology, while equally remote from any tinge of idolatry or\nsuperstition.\n\nIt may, however, be objected that by the introduction of a cosmogony\nthe Bible exposes itself to a conflict with science, and that thereby\ninjury results both to science and to religion. This is a grave\ncharge, and one that has evidently had much weight with many minds,\nsince it has been the subject of entire treatises designed to\nillustrate the history of the conflict or to explain its nature. The\nrevelation of God's will to man for his moral guidance, if necessary\nat all, was necessary before the rise of natural science. Men could\nnot do without the knowledge of the unity of nature and of the unity\nof God, until these great truths could be worked out by scientific\ninduction. Perhaps they might never have been so worked out. Therefore\na revealed book of origins has a right to precedence in this matter.\nNor need it in any way come into conflict with the science\nsubsequently to grow up. Science does not deal so much with the origin\nof nature as with its method and laws, and all that is necessary on\nthe part of a revelation, to avoid conflict with it, is to confine\nitself to statements of phenomena and to avoid hypotheses. This is\neminently the course of the Bible. In its cosmogony it shuns all\nembellishments and details, and contents itself with the fact of\ncreation and a slight sketch of its order; and in their subsequent\nreferences to nature the sacred writers are strictly phenomenal in\ntheir statements, and refer every thing directly to the will of God,\nwithout any theory as to secondary causes and relations. They are thus\ndecided and positive on the points with reference to which it behooves\nrevelation to testify, and absolutely non-committal on the points\nwhich belong to the exclusive domain of science.\n\nWhat, then, are we to say of the imaginary \"conflict of science with\nreligion,\" of which so much has been made? Simply that it results\nlargely from misapprehension and from misuse of terms. True religion,\nwhich consists in practical love to God and to our fellow-men, can\nhave no conflict with science. True science is its fast ally. The\nBible, considered as a revelation of spiritual truth to man for his\nsalvation and enlightenment, can have no conflict with science. It\npromotes the study of nature, rendering it honorable by giving it the\ndignity of an inquiry into the ways of God, and rendering it safe by\nseparating it from all ideas of magic and necromancy. It gives a\ntheological basis to the ideas of the unity of nature and of natural\nlaw. The conflict of science, when historically analyzed, is found to\nhave been fourfold--with the Church, with theology, with superstition,\nand with false or imperfect science and philosophy. Religious men may\nhave identified themselves from time to time with these opponents, but\nthat is all; and much more frequently the opposition has been by bad\nmen more or less professing religious objects. Organizations calling\nthemselves \"the Church,\" and whose warrant from the Bible is often of\nthe slenderest, have denounced and opposed and persecuted new\nscientific truths; but they have just as often denounced the Bible\nitself, and religious doctrines founded on it. Theology claims to be\nitself one of the sciences, and as such it is necessarily imperfect\nand progressive, and may at any time be more or less in conflict with\nother sciences; but theology is not religion, and may often have very\nlittle in common either with true religion or the Bible. When\ndiscussions arise between theology and other sciences, it is only a\npity that either side should indulge in what has been called the\n_odium theologicum_, but which is unfortunately not confined to\ndivines. Superstition, considered as the unreasonable fear of natural\nagencies, is a passive rather than an active opponent of science. But\nrevelation, which affirms unity, law, and a Father's hand in nature,\nis the deadly foe of superstition, and no people who have been readers\nof the Bible and imbued with its spirit have ever been found ready to\nmolest or persecute science. Work of this sort has been done only by\nthe ignorant, superstitious, and priest-ridden votaries of systems\nwhich withhold the Bible from the people, and detest it as much as\nthey dislike science. Perhaps the most troublesome opposition to\nscience, or rather to the progress of science, has sprung from the\ntenacity with which men hold to old ideas. These, which may have been\nat one time the best science attainable, root themselves in popular\nliterature, and even in learned bodies and in educational books and\ninstitutions. They become identified with men's conceptions both of\nnature and religion, and modify their interpretations of the Bible\nitself. It thus becomes a most difficult matter to wrench them from\nmen's minds, and their advocates are too apt to invoke in their\ndefense political, social, and ecclesiastical powers, and to seek to\nsupport them by the authority of revelation, when this may perhaps be\nquite as favorable to the newer views opposed to them. All these\nconflicts are, however, necessary incidents in human progress, which\ncomes only by conflict; and there is reason to believe that they would\nbe as severe in the absence of revealed religion as in its presence,\nwere it not that the absence of revelation seems often to produce a\nfixity and stagnation of thought unfavorable to any new views, and\nconsequently to some extent to any intellectual conflict. It has been,\nindeed, to the disinterment of the Bible in the Reformation of the\nfifteenth century that the world owes, more than to any other cause,\nthe immense growth of modern science, and the freedom of discussion\nwhich now prevails. The Protestant idea of individual judgment in\nmatters of religion is thoroughly Biblical, for the Bible everywhere\nappeals to men in this way; and this idea is the strongest guarantee\nthat the world possesses for intellectual liberty in other matters.\n\nWe conclude, therefore, on all these grounds, that it was necessary\nthat a revelation from God should take strong and positive ground on\nthe question of the origin of the universe.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\n(2) _The Origin, Method, and Structure of the Scriptural\nCosmogony._--A respectable physicist, but somewhat shallow naturalist\nand theologian, whose works at one time attracted much attention, has\nsaid of the first chapter of Genesis: \"It can not be history--it may\nbe poetry.\" Its claims to be history we shall investigate under\nanother head, but it is pertinent to our present inquiry to ask\nwhether it can be poetry. That its substance or matter is poetical no\none who has read it once can believe; but it can not be denied that in\nits form it approaches somewhat to that kind of thought-rhythm or\nparallelism which gives so peculiar a character to Hebrew poetry. We\nlearn from many Scripture passages, especially in the Proverbs, that\nthis poetical parallelism need not necessarily be connected with\npoetical thought; that in truth it might be used, as rhyme is\nsometimes with us, to aid the memory. The oldest acknowledged verse in\nScripture is a case in point. Lamech, who lived before the flood,\nappears to have slain a man in self-defense, or at least in an\nencounter in which he himself was wounded; and he attempts to define\nthe nature of the crime in the following words:\n\n  \"Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;\n  Ye wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech:--\n  I have slain a man to my wounding,\n  And a young man to my hurt;\n  If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,\n  Truly Lamech seventy and seven fold.\"\n\nAll this is prosaic enough in matter, but the form into which it is\nthrown gives it a certain dignity, and impresses it on the memory;\nwhich last object was probably what the author of this sole fragment\nof antediluvian literature had in view. He succeeded too--for the\nsentiment was handed down, probably orally; and Moses incorporates it\nin his narration, perhaps on account of its interest as the first\nrecord of the distinction between willful murder like that of Cain,\nand justifiable homicide. It is interesting also to observe the same\nparallelism of style, no doubt with the same objects, in many old\nEgyptian monumental inscriptions, which, however grandiloquent, are\nscarcely poetical.[11] It also appears in that ancient record of\ncreation and the deluge recently rescued from the clay tablets of\nNineveh.\n\nNow in the first chapter of Genesis, and the first three verses of\nchapter second, being the formal general narrative of creation, on\nwhich, as we shall see, every other statement on the subject in the\nBible is based, we have this peculiar parallelism of style. If we ask\nwhy, the answer must, I think, be--to give dignity and symmetry to\nwhat would otherwise be a dry abstract, and still more to aid memory.\nThis last consideration, perhaps indicating that this chapter, like\nthe apology of Lamech, had been handed down orally for a long period,\nconnects itself with the theory of the pre-Abrahamic origin of these\ndocuments to which reference has already been made.\n\nThe form of the narrative, however, in no way impairs its precision\nor accuracy of statement. On this Eichhorn well says: \"There lies at\nthe foundation of the first chapter a carefully designed plan, all\nwhose parts are carried out with much art, whereby its appropriate\nplace is assigned to every idea;\" and we may add, whereby every idea\nis expressed in the simplest and fewest words, yet with marvellous\naccuracy, amounting to an almost scientific precision of diction, for\nwhich both the form into which it is thrown and the homogeneous and\nsimple character of the Hebrew language are very well adapted. Much of\nthis indeed remains in the English version, though our language is\nless perfectly suited than the Hebrew for the concise announcement of\ngeneral truths of this description. Our translators have, however,\ndeviated greatly from the true sense of many important words,\nespecially where they have taken the Septuagint translation for their\nguide, as in the words \"firmament,\" \"whales,\" \"creeping things,\" etc.\nThese errors will be noticed in subsequent pages. In the mean time I\nmay merely add that the labors of the ablest Biblical critics give us\nevery reason to conclude that the received text of Genesis preserves,\nalmost without an iota of change, the beautiful simplicity of its\nfirst chapter; and that we now have it in a more perfect state than\nthat in which it was presented to the translators of most of the early\nversions. It must also be admitted that the object in view was best\nserved by that direct reference to the creative fiat, and ignoring of\nall secondary causes, which are conspicuous in this narrative. This is\nindeed the general tone of the Bible in speaking of natural phenomena;\nand this mode of proceeding is in perfect harmony with its claims to\ndivine authority. Had not this course been chosen, no other could have\nbeen adopted, in strict consistency with truth, short of a full\nrevelation of the whole system of nature, in the details of all its\nlaws and processes. This we now know would have been impossible, and,\nif possible, useless or even mischievous.\n\nRegarded from this point of view--the plenary inspiration of the\nbook--the Scriptural references to creation profess to furnish a very\ngeneral outline, for theological purposes, of the principal features\nof a vast region unexplored when they were written, and into which\nhuman research has yet penetrated along only a few lines. Natural\nscience, in following out these lines of observation, has reached some\nof the objects delineated in the Scriptural sketch; of others it has\nobtained distant glimpses; many are probably unknown, and we can\nappreciate the true value and dimensions relatively to the whole of\nvery few. So vast indeed are the subjects of the bold sketch of the\nHebrew prophet, that natural science can not pretend as yet so to fill\nin the outline as quite to measure the accuracy of its proportions.\nYet the lines, though few, are so boldly drawn, and with so much\napparent unity and symmetry, that we almost involuntarily admit that\nthey are accurate and complete. This may appear to be underrating the\nactual progress of science relatively to this great foreshadowing\noutline; but I know that those most deeply versed in the knowledge of\nnature will be the least disposed to quarrel with it, whatever\nskepticism they may entertain as to the greater general completeness\nof the inspired record.\n\nAnother point which deserves a passing notice here is the theory of\nDr. Kurtz and others, that the Mosaic narrative represents a vision of\ncreation, analogous to those prophetic visions which appear in the\nlater books of Scripture. This is beyond all question the most simple\nand probable solution of the origin of the document, when viewed as\ninspired, but we shall have to recur to it on a future page.\n\nBut with respect to the precise origin of this cosmogony, the question\nnow arises, Is it really in substance a revelation from God to man? We\nmust not disguise from ourselves that this deliberate statement of an\norder of creation in so far challenges comparison with the results of\nscience, and this in a very different way from that which applies to\nthe incidental references to nature in the Bible. Further, inasmuch as\nit relates to events which transpired before the creation of man, it\nis of the nature of prophecy rather than of history. It is, in short,\neither an inspired revelation of the divine procedure in creation, or\nit is a product of human imagination or research, or a deliberate\nfraud.\n\nTo no part of the Bible do these alternatives more strictly apply than\nto its first chapter. This \"can not be history\" in the strict\nacceptation of the term. It relates to events which no human eye\nwitnessed, respecting which no human testimony could give any\ninformation. It represents the creation of man as the last of a long\nseries of events, of which it professes to inform us. The knowledge of\nthese events can not have been a matter of human experience. If at all\nentitled to confidence, the narrative must, therefore, be received as\nan inspired document, not handed down by any doubtful tradition, but\nexisting as originally transfused into human language from the mind of\nthe Author of nature himself. This view is in no way affected by the\nhypothesis, already mentioned, that the first chapters of Genesis were\ncompiled by Moses from more ancient documents. This merely throws back\nthe revelation to a higher antiquity, and requires us to suppose the\nagency of two inspired men instead of one.\n\nIt would be out of place here to enter into any argument for the\ninspiration of Scripture, or to attempt to define the nature of that\ninspiration. I merely wish to impress on the mind of the reader that\nwithout the admission of its reality, or at least its possibility, our\npresent inquiry becomes merely a matter of curious antiquarian\nresearch. We must also on this ground distinguish between the claims\nof the Scriptures and those of tradition or secular history, when they\nrefer to the same facts. The traditions and cosmogonies of some\nancient nations have many features in common with the Bible narrative;\nand, on the supposition that Moses compiled from older documents, they\nmay be portions of this more ancient sacred truth, but clothed in the\nvaried garments of the fanciful mythological creeds which have sprung\nup in later and more degenerate times. Such fragments may safely be\nreceived as secondary aids to the understanding of the authentic\nrecord, but it would be folly to seek in them for the whole truth.\nThey are but the scattered masses of ore, by tracing which we may\nsometimes open up new and rich portions of the vein of primitive lore\nfrom which they have been derived. It is, however, quite necessary\nhere formally to inquire if there are any hypotheses short of that of\nplenary inspiration which may allow us to attach any value whatever to\nthis most ancient document. I know but two views of this kind that are\nworthy of any attention.\n\n1. The Mosaic account of creation may be a result of ancient\nscientific inquiries, analogous to those of modern geology.\n\n2. It may be an allegorical or poetical mythus, not intended to be\nhistorical, but either devised for some extraneous purpose, or\nconsisting of the conjectures of some gifted intellect.\n\nThese alternatives we may shortly consider, though the materials for\ntheir full discussion can be furnished only by facts to be\nsubsequently stated. I am not aware that the first of these views has\nbeen maintained by any modern writer. Some eminent scientific men are,\nhowever, disposed to adopt such an explanation of the ancient Hindoo\nhymns, as well as of the cosmogony of Pythagoras, which bears evidence\nof this origin; and it may be an easy step to infer that the Hebrew\ncosmogony was derived from some similar source. Not many years ago\nsuch a supposition would have been regarded as almost insane. Then the\nscience of antiquity was only another name for the philosophy of\nGreece and Rome. But in recent times we have seen Egypt disclose the\nruins of a mighty civilization, more grand and massive though less\nelegant than that of Greece, and which had reached its acme ere Greece\nhad received its alphabet--a civilization which, according to the\nScripture history, is derived from that of the primeval Cushite\nempire, which extended from the plains of Shinar over all Southeastern\nAsia, but was crushed at its centre before the dawn of secular\nhistory. We have now little reason to doubt that Moses, when he\nstudied the learning of Egypt, held converse with men who saw more\nclearly and deeply into nature's mysteries than did Thales or\nPythagoras, or even Aristotle.[12] Still later the remnants of old\nNineveh have been exhumed from their long sepulture, and antiquaries\nhave been astonished by the discovery that knowledge and arts,\nsupposed to belong exclusively to far more recent times, were in the\ndays of the early Hebrew kings, and probably very long previously,\nfirmly established on the banks of the Tigris. Such discoveries, when\ncompared with hints furnished by the Scriptures, tend greatly to exalt\nour ideas of the state of civilization at the time when they were\nwritten; and we shall perceive, in the course of our inquiry, many\nadditional reasons for believing that the ancient Israelites were much\nfarther advanced in natural science than is commonly supposed.\n\nWe have, however, no positive proof of such a theory, and it is\nsubject to many grave objections. The narrative itself makes no\npretension to a scientific origin, it quotes no authority, and it is\nconnected with no philosophical speculations or deductions. It bears\nno internal evidence of having been the result of inductive inquiry,\nbut appeals at once to faith in the truth of the great ultimate\ndoctrine of absolute creation, and then proceeds to detail the steps\nof the process, in the manner of history as recorded by a witness, and\nnot in the manner of science tracing back effects to their causes.\nFarther, it refers to conditions of our planet respecting which\nscience has even now attained to no conclusions supported by evidence,\nand is not in a position to make dogmatic assertions. The tone of all\nthe ancient cosmogonies has in these respects a resemblance to that\nof the Scriptures, and bears testimony to a general impression\npervading the mind of antiquity that there was a divine and\nauthoritative testimony to the facts of creation, distinct from\nhistory, philosophical speculation, or induction.\n\nOne of the boldest and simplest methods of this kind is that followed\nby the authors of the \"Types of Mankind,\" in the attempt to assign a\npurely human origin to Genesis 1st. These writers admit the greater\nantiquity of the first chapter, though assigning the whole of the book\nto a comparatively modern date. They say:\n\n\"The 'document Jehovah'[13] does not especially concern our present\nsubject; and it is incomparable with the grander conception of the\nmore ancient and unknown writer of Genesis 1st. With extreme felicity\nof diction and conciseness of plan, the latter has defined the most\nphilosophical views of antiquity upon _cosmogony_; in fact so well\nthat it has required the palaeontological discoveries of the nineteenth\ncentury--at least 2500 years after his death--to overthrow his\n_septenary_ arrangement of 'Creation;' which, after all, would still\nbe correct enough in great principles, were it not for one individual\noversight and one unlucky blunder; not exposed, however, until long\nafter his era, by post-Copernican astronomy. The oversight is where he\nwrote (Gen. i. 6-8), 'Let there be _raquie_,' _i. e._, a _firmament_;\nwhich proves that his notions of 'sky' (solid like the concavity of a\ncopper basin, with _stars_ set as brilliants in the metal) were the\nsame as those of adjacent people of his time--indeed, of all men\nbefore the publication of Newton's 'Principia' and of Laplace's\n'Mecanique Celeste.' The blunder is where he conceives that _aur_,\n'light,' and _iom_, 'day' (Gen. i. 14-18), could have been physically\npossible _three whole days_ before the 'two great luminaries,' _Sun_\nand _Moon_, were created. These venial errors deducted, his majestic\nsong beautifully illustrates the simple process of ratiocination\nthrough which--often without the slightest historical proof of\nintercourse--different 'Types of Mankind,' at distinct epochas, and in\ncountries widely apart, had arrived, naturally, at cosmogonic\nconclusions similar to the doctrines of that Hebraical school of which\nhis harmonic and melodious numbers remain a magnificent memento.\n\n\"That process seems to have been the following: The ancients knew, as\nwe do, that man _is_ upon the earth; and they were persuaded, as we\nare, that his appearance was preceded by unfathomable depths of time.\nUnable (as we are still) to measure periods antecedent to man by any\n_chronological_ standard, the ancients rationally reached the\ntabulation of some events anterior to man through _induction_--a\nmethod not original with Lord Bacon, because known to St. Paul; 'for\nhis unseen things from the creation of the world, his power and\nGodhead, are clearly seen, _being understood by the things that are\nmade_' (Rom. i., 20). Man, they felt, could not have lived upon earth\nwithout _animal_ food; ergo, 'cattle' preceded him, together with\nbirds, reptiles, fishes, etc. Nothing living, they knew, could have\nexisted without light and heat; ergo, the _solar system_ antedated\nanimal life, no less than the _vegetation_ indispensable for animal\nsupport. But terrestrial plants can not grow without _earth_; ergo,\nthat dry land had to be separated from pre-existent 'waters.' Their\ngeological speculations inclining rather to the _Neptunian_ than to\nthe _Plutonian_ theory--for Werner ever preceded Hutton--the ancients\nfound it difficult to 'divide the waters from the waters' without\ninterposing a metallic substance that 'divided the waters which were\n_under_ the firmament from the waters that were _above_ the\nfirmament;' so they inferred, logically, that a _firmament_ must have\nbeen actually created for this object. [_E.g._, 'The _windows_ of the\nskies' (Gen. vii., 11); 'the waters _above_ the skies' (Psa. cxlviii.,\n4).] Before the 'waters' (and here is the peculiar error of the\ngenesiacal bard) some of the ancients claimed the pre-existence of\n_light_ (a view adopted by the writer of Genesis 1st); while others\nasserted that 'chaos' prevailed. Both schools united, however, in the\nconviction that DARKNESS--_Erebus_--anteceded all other _created\nthings_. What, said these ancients, can have existed before the\n'darkness?' _Ens entium_, the CREATOR, was the humbled reply. _Elohim_\nis the Hebrew vocal expression of that climax; to define whose\nattributes, save through the phenomena of creation, is an attempt we\nleave to others more presumptuous than ourselves.\"\n\nThe problem here set to the \"unknown\" author of Genesis is a hard\none--given the one fact that \"man is\" to find in detail how the world\nwas formed in a series of preceding ages of vast duration. Is it\npossible that such a problem could have been so worked out as to have\nendured the test of three thousand years, and the scrutiny of modern\nscience? But there is an \"oversight\" in one detail, and a \"blunder\" in\nanother. By reference farther on, the reader will find under the\nchapters on \"Light\" and the \"Atmosphere\" that the oversight and\nblunder are those not of the writer of Genesis, but of the learned\nAmerican ethnologists in the nineteenth century; a circumstance which\ncuts in two ways in defense of the ancient author so unhappily unknown\nto his modern critics.\n\nThe second of the alternatives above referred to, the mythical\nhypothesis, has been advanced and ably supported, especially on the\ncontinent of Europe, and by such English writers as are disposed to\napply the methods of modern rationalistic criticism to the Bible. In\none of its least objectionable forms it is thus stated by Professor\nPowell:\n\n\"The narrative, then, of six periods of creation, followed by a\nseventh similar period of rest and blessing, was clearly designed by\nadaptation to their conceptions to enforce upon the Israelites the\ninstitution of the Sabbath; and in whatever way its details may be\ninterpreted, it can not be regarded as an _historical_ statement of\nthe _primeval_ institution of a Sabbath; a supposition which is indeed\non other grounds sufficiently improbable, though often adopted. * * *\nIf, then, we would avoid the alternative of being compelled to admit\nwhat must amount to impugning the truth of those portions at least of\nthe Old Testament, we surely are bound to give fair consideration to\nthe only suggestion which can set us entirely free from all the\ndifficulties arising from the geological contradiction which does and\nmust exist against any conceivable interpretation which retains the\nassertion of the historical character of the details of the narrative,\nas referring to the distinct transactions of each of the seven\nperiods. * * * The one great fact couched in the general assertion\nthat all things were created by the sole power of one Supreme Being is\nthe whole of the representation to which an historical character can\nbe assigned. As to the particular form in which the descriptive\nnarrative is conveyed, we merely affirm that it can not be history--it\nmay be poetry.\"[14]\n\nThe general ground on which this view is entertained is the supposed\nirreconcilable contradiction between the literal interpretation of the\nMosaic record and the facts of geology. The real amount of this\ndifficulty we are not, in the present stage of our inquiry, prepared\nto estimate. We can, however, readily understand that the hypothesis\ndepends on the supposition that the narrative of creation is posterior\nin date to the Mosaic ritual, and that this plain and circumstantial\nseries of statements is a fable designed to support the Sabbatical\ninstitution, instead of the rite being, as represented in the Bible\nitself, a commemoration of the previously recorded fact. This is,\nfortunately, a gratuitous assumption, contrary to the probable date of\nthe documents, as deduced from internal evidence and from comparison\nwith the Assyrian and other cosmogonies; and it also completely\nignores the other manifest uses mentioned under our first head. If\nproved, it would give to the whole the character of a pious fraud, and\nwould obviously render any comparison with the geological history of\nthe earth altogether unnecessary. While, therefore, it must be freely\nadmitted that the Mosaic narrative can not be history, in so far at\nleast as history is a product of human experience, we can not admit\nthat it is a poetical mythus, or, in other words, that it is destitute\nof substantial truth, unless proved by good evidence to be so; and,\nwhen this is proved, we must also admit that it is quite undeserving\nof the credit which it claims as a revelation from God.\n\nSince, therefore, the events recorded in the first chapter of Genesis\nwere not witnessed by man; since there is no reason to believe that\nthey were discovered by scientific inquiry; and since, if true, they\ncan not be a poetical myth, we must, in the mean time, return to our\nformer supposition that the Mosaic cosmogony is a direct revelation\nfrom the Creator. In this respect, the position of this part of the\nearth's Biblical history resembles that of prophecy. Writers _may_\naccurately relate contemporary events, or those which belong to the\nhuman period, without inspiration; but the moment that they profess\naccurately to foretell the history of the future, or to inform us of\nevents which preceded the human period, we must either believe them to\nbe inspired, or reject them as impostors or fanatics. Many attempts\nhave been made to find intermediate standing-ground, but it is so\nprecarious that the nicest of our modern critical balancers have been\nunable to maintain themselves upon it.\n\nHaving thus determined that the Mosaic cosmogony, in its grand general\nfeatures, must either be inspired or worthless, we have further to\ninquire to what extent it is necessary to suppose that the particular\ndetails and mode of expression of the narrative, and the subsequent\nallusions to nature in the Bible, must be regarded as entitled to this\nposition. We may conceive them to have been left to the discretion of\nthe writers; and, in that case, they will merely represent the\nknowledge of nature actually existing at the time. On the other hand,\ntheir accuracy may have been secured by the divine afflatus. Few\nmodern writers have been disposed to insist on the latter alternative,\nand have rather assumed that these references and details are\naccommodated to the state of knowledge at the time. I must observe\nhere, however, that a careful consideration of the facts gives to a\nnaturalist a much higher estimate of the real value of the\nobservations of nature embodied in the Scriptures than that which\ndivines have ordinarily entertained; and, consequently, that if we\nsuppose them of human origin, we must be prepared to modify the views\ngenerally entertained of early Oriental simplicity and ignorance. The\ntruth is, that a large proportion of the difficulties in Scriptural\nnatural history appear to have arisen from want of such accommodation\nto the low state of the knowledge of nature among translators and\nexpositors; and this is precisely what we should expect in a\nveritable revelation. Its moral and religious doctrines were slowly\ndeveloped, each new light illuminating previous obscurities. Its human\nhistory comes out as evidence of its truth, when compared with\nmonumental inscriptions; and why should not the All-wise have\nconstructed as skilfully its teachings respecting his own works? There\ncan be no doubt whatever that the Scripture writers intended to\naddress themselves to the common mind, which now as then requires\nsimple and popular teaching, but they were under obligation to give\ntruthful statements; and we need not hesitate to say, with Dr.\nChalmers, in reference to a book making such claims as those of the\nBible: \"There is no argument, saving that grounded on the usages of\npopular language, which would tempt us to meddle with the literalities\nof that ancient and, as appears to us, authoritative document, any\nfarther than may be required by those conventionalities of speech\nwhich spring from 'optical' impressions of nature.\"[15]\n\nAttempt as we may to disguise it, any other view is totally unworthy\nof the great Ruler of the universe, especially in a document\ncharacterized as emphatically _the truth_, and in a moral revelation,\nin which statements respecting natural objects need not be inserted,\nunless they could be rendered at once truthful and illustrative of the\nhigher objects of the revelation. The statement often so flippantly\nmade that the Bible was not intended to teach natural history has no\napplication here. _Spiritual_ truths are no doubt shadowed forth in\nthe Bible by material emblems, often but rudely resembling them,\nbecause the nature of human thought and language render this\nnecessary, not only to the unlearned, but in some degree to all; but\nthis principle of adaptation can not be applied to plain material\nfacts. Yet a confusion of these two very distinct cases appears to\nprevail almost unaccountably in the minds of many expositors. They\ntell us that the Scriptures ascribe bodily members to the immaterial\nGod, and typify his spiritual procedure by outward emblems; and this\nthey think analogous to such doctrines as a solid firmament, a plane\nearth, and others of a like nature, which they ascribe to the sacred\nwriters. We shall find that the writers of the Scriptures had\nthemselves much clearer views, and that, even in poetical language,\nthey take no such liberties with truth.\n\nAs an illustration of the extent to which this doctrine of\n\"accommodation\" carries us beyond the limits of fair interpretation, I\ncite the following passage from one of the ablest and most judicious\nwriters on the subject:[16] \"It was the opinion of the ancients that\nthe earth, at a certain height, was surrounded by a transparent hollow\nsphere of solid matter, which they called the firmament. When rain\ndescended, they supposed that it was through windows or holes made in\nthe crystalline curtain suspended in mid-heavens. To these notions\nthe language of the Bible is frequently conformed. * * * But the most\ndecisive example I have to give on this subject is derived from\nastronomy. Until the time of Copernicus no opinion respecting natural\nphenomena was thought better established than that the earth is fixed\nimmovably in the centre of the universe, and that the heavenly bodies\nmove diurnally round it. To sustain this view the most decisive\nlanguage of Scripture might be quoted. God is there said to have\n'_established the foundations of the earth, so that they could not be\nremoved forever_;' and the sacred writers expressly declare that the\nheavenly bodies _arise and set_, and nowhere allude to any proper\nmotion of the earth.\"\n\nWill it be believed that, with the exception of the poetical\nexpression, \"windows of heaven,\" and the common forms of speech\nrelating to sunrise and sunset, the above \"decisive\" instances of\naccommodation have no foundation whatever in the language of\nScripture. The doctrine of the rotation of solid celestial spheres\naround the earth belongs to a Greek philosophy which arose after the\nHebrew cosmogony was complete; and though it occurs in the Septuagint\nand other ancient versions, it is not based on the Hebrew original. In\ntruth, we know that those Grecian philosophers--of the Ionic and\nPythagorean schools--who lived nearest the times of the Hebrew\nwriters, and who derived the elements of their science from Egypt and\nWestern Asia, taught very different doctrines. How absurd, then, is it\nthus to fasten upon the sacred writers, contrary to their own words,\nthe views of a school of astronomy which probably arose long after\ntheir time, when we know that more accurate ideas prevailed nearer\ntheir epoch. Secondly, though there is some reason for stating that\nthe \"ancients,\" though certainly not those of Israel, believed in\ncelestial spheres supporting the heavenly bodies, I suspect that the\ndoctrine of a solid vault _supporting the clouds_, except as a mere\npoetical or mythological fancy, is a product of the imagination of the\ntheologians and closet philosophers of a more modern time. The\ntestimony of men's senses appears to be in favor of the whole universe\nrevolving around a plane earth, though the oldest astronomical school\nwith which we are acquainted suspected that this is an illusion; but\nthe every-day observation of the most unlettered man who treads the\nfields and is wet with the mists and rains must convince him that\nthere is no _sub-nubilar_ solid sphere. If, therefore, the Bible had\ntaught such a doctrine, it would have shocked the common-sense even of\nthe plain husbandmen to whom it was addressed, and could have found no\nfit audience except among a portion of the literati of comparatively\nmodern times. Thirdly, with respect to the foundations of the earth, I\nmay remark that in the tenth verse of Genesis there occurs a\ndefinition as precise as that of any lexicon--\"and God called the _dry\nland_ earth;\" consequently it is but fair to assume that the earth\nafterwards spoken of as supported above the waters is the dry land or\ncontinental masses of the earth, and no geologist can object to the\nstatement that the dry land is supported above the waters by\nfoundations or pillars.\n\nWe shall find in our examination of the document itself that all the\ninstances of such accommodation which have been cited by writers on\nthis subject are as baseless as those above referred to. It is much to\nbe regretted that so many otherwise useful expositors have either\nwanted that familiarity with the aspects of external nature by which\nall the Hebrew writers are characterized, or have taken too little\npains to ascertain the actual meaning of the references to creation\nwhich they find in the Bible. I may further remark that if such\ninstances of accommodation could be found in the later poetical books,\nit would be extremely unfair to apply them as aids in the\ninterpretation of the plain, precise, and unadorned statements of the\nfirst chapters of Genesis. There is, however, throughout even the\nhigher poetry of the Bible, a truthful representation and high\nappreciation of nature for which we seek in vain in any other poetry,\nand we may fairly trace this in part to the influence of the cosmogony\nwhich appears in its first chapter. The Hebrew was thus taught to\nrecognize the unity of nature as the work of an Almighty Intelligence,\nto regard all its operations as regulated by his unchanging law or\n\"decree,\" and to venerate it as a revelation of his supreme wisdom and\ngoodness. On this account he was likely to regard careful observation\nand representation with as scrupulous attention as the modern\nnaturalist. Nor must we forget that the Old Testament literature has\ndescended to us through two dark ages--that of Greek and Roman\npolytheism and of Middle Age barbarism--and that we must not confound\nits tenets with those of either. The religious ideas of both these\nages were favorable to certain forms of literature and art, but\neminently unfavorable to the successful prosecution of the study of\nnature. Hence we have a right to expect in the literature of the\ngolden age of primeval monotheism more affinity with the ideas of\nmodern science than in any intermediate time; and the truthful\ndelineation which the claims of the Bible to inspiration require might\nhave been, as already hinted, to a certain extent secured merely by\nthe reflex influence of its earlier statements, without the necessity\nof our supposing that illustrations of this kind in the later books\ncame directly from the Spirit of God.\n\nOur discussion of this part of the subject has necessarily been rather\ndesultory, and the arguments adduced must depend for their full\nconfirmation on the results of our future inquiries. The conclusions\narrived at may be summed up as follows: 1. That the Mosaic cosmogony\nmust be considered, like the prophecies of the Bible, to claim the\nrank of inspired teaching, and must depend for its authority on the\nmaintenance of that claim. 2. That the incidental references to nature\nin other parts of Scripture indicate, at least, the influence of these\nearlier teachings, and of a pure monotheistic faith, in creating a\nhigh and just appreciation of nature among the Hebrew people.\n\nIt is now necessary to inquire in what precise form this remarkable\nrevelation of the origin of the world has been given. I have already\nreferred to the hypothesis that it represents a vision of creation\npresented to the mind of a seer, as if in a series of pictures which\nhe represents to us in words. This is perhaps the most intelligible\nconception of the manner of communication of a revelation from God;\nand inasmuch as it is that referred to in other parts of the Bible as\nthe mode of presentation of the future to inspired prophets, there can\nbe no impropriety in supposing it to have been the means of\ncommunicating the knowledge of the unknown past. We may imagine the\nseer--perhaps some aboriginal patriarch, long before the time of\nMoses--perhaps the first man himself--wrapt in ecstatic vision, having\nhis senses closed to all the impressions of the present time, and\nlooking as at a moving procession of the events of the earth's past\nhistory, presented to him in a series of apparent days and nights. In\nthe first chapter of Genesis he rehearses this divine vision to us,\nnot in poetry, but in a series of regularly arranged parts or\nstrophes, thrown into a sort of rhythmical order fitted to impress\nthem on the memory, and to allow them to be handed down from mouth to\nmouth, perhaps through successive generations of men, before they\ncould be fixed in a written form of words. Though the style can\nscarcely be called poetical, since its expressions are obviously\nliteral and unadorned by figures of speech, the production may not\nunfairly be called the Song or Ballad of Creation, and it presents an\nArchaic simplicity reminding us of the compositions of the oldest and\nrudest times, while it has also an artificial and orderly arrangement,\nmuch obscured by its division into verses and chapters in our Bibles.\nIt is undoubtedly also characterized by a clearness and grandeur of\nexpression very striking and majestic, and which shows that it was\nwritten by and intended for men of no mean and contracted minds, but\nwho could grasp the great problems of the origin of things, and\ncomprehend and express them in a bold and vigorous manner. It may be\nwell, before proceeding farther, to present to the reader this ancient\ndocument in a form more literal and intelligible, and probably nearer\nto its original dress, than that in which we are most familiar with it\nin our English Bibles:\n\n\nTHE ABORIGINAL SONG OF CREATION.\n\n\n_Beginning._\n\n      In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth,\n      And the Earth was formless and empty,\n      And darkness on the surface of the deep,\n      And the Breath of God moved on the Surface of the Waters.\n\n\n_Day One._\n\n    _And God said_--\"Let Light be,\"\n    And Light was.\n  And God saw the Light that it was good.\n     And God called the Light Day,\n     And the darkness he called Night.\n  And Evening was and Morning was--Day one.\n\n\n_Day Second._\n\n    _And God said_--\"Let there be an Expanse\n           in the midst of the waters,\n    And let it divide the waters from the waters.\"\n    And God made the Expanse,\n    And divided the waters below the Expanse\n           from the waters above the Expanse.\n    And it was so.\n    And God called the Expanse Heavens.\n  And Evening was and Morning was, a Second Day.\n\n_Day Third._\n\n    _And God said_--\"Let the waters under the\n           Heavens be gathered into one place,\n    And let the Dry Land appear.\"\n    And it was so,\n    And God called the Dry Land Earth,\n    And the gathering of waters called he Seas.\n  And God saw that it was good.\n    _And God said_--\"Let the earth shoot forth herbage,\n    The Herb yielding seed and the fruit-tree yielding fruit\n           containing seed after its kind, on the earth.\"\n    And it was so.\n    And the earth brought forth herbage,\n    The Herb yielding seed and the Tree yielding fruit whose\n           seed is in it after its kind,\n  And God saw that it was good.\n  And Evening was and Morning was, a Third Day.\n\n\n_Day Fourth._\n\n    _And God said_--\"Let there be Luminaries\n           in the Expanse of Heaven,\n    To divide the day from the night,\n    And let them be for Signs and for Seasons,\n    And for Days and for Years.\n    And let them be Luminaries in the Expanse of Heaven\n    To give light on the earth.\"\n    And it was so.\n    And God made two great Luminaries,\n    The greater Luminary to rule the day,\n    The lesser Luminary to rule the night,\n    The Stars also.\n    And God placed them in the Expanse of Heaven\n    To give light upon the earth,\n    And to rule over the day and over the night,\n    And to divide the light from the darkness.\n  And God saw that it was good.\n  And Evening was and Morning was, a Fourth Day.\n\n\n_Day Fifth._\n\n    _And God said_--\"Let the waters swarm\n           with swarmers, having life,\n    And let winged animals fly over the earth on the\n           surface of the expanse of heaven.\"\n    And God created great Reptiles,\n    And every living thing that moveth,\n    With which the waters swarmed after their kind,\n    And every winged bird after its kind.\n  And God saw that it was good.\n    And God blessed them, saying--\n    \"Be fruitful and multiply,\n    And fill the waters of the sea;\n    And let birds multiply in the land.\"\n  And Evening was and Morning was, a Fifth Day.\n\n_Day Sixth._\n\n    _And God said_--\"Let the Land bring forth\n           living things after their kind,\n    Herbivores and smaller mammals and Carnivores after their kind.\"\n    And it was so.\n    And God made all Carnivores after their kind,\n    And all Herbivores after their kind,\n    And all minor mammals after their kind.\n  And God saw that it was good.\n    _And God said_--\"Let us make man in our image,\n           after our likeness,\n    And let him have dominion over the fish in the sea\n    And over the birds of the heavens,\n    And over the Herbivora,\n    And over the Earth,\n    And over all the minor animals that creep upon the earth.\"\n    And God created man in his own image,\n    In the image of God created he him,\n    Male and female created he them.\n    And God blessed them.\n    And God said unto them--\n    \"Be fruitful and multiply,\n    And replenish the earth and subdue it,\n    And have dominion over the fishes of the sea\n    And over the birds of the air,\n    And over all the animals that move upon the earth.\"\n    _And God said_--\"Behold, I have given you all herbs\n           yielding seed,\n    Which are on the surface of the whole earth,\n    And every tree with fruit having seed,\n    They shall be unto you for food.\n    And to all the animals of the land\n    And to all the birds of the heavens,\n    And to all things moving on the land having the breath of life,\n    I have given every green herb for food.\"\n  And it was so.\n  And God saw every thing that he had made,\n      and behold it was very good.\n  And Evening was and Morning was, a Sixth Day.\n\n\n_Day Seventh._\n\n    Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finished,\n    And all the hosts of them.\n    And on the seventh day God ended the work which he had made,\n    And he rested on the seventh day from all his work\n        which he had made.\n    And God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it,\n   Because that in it he rested from all his work that he had\n        created and made.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nOBJECTS AND NATURE OF A REVELATION OF ORIGINS--_Continued._\n\n\n                             \"What if earth\n  Be but a shadow of heaven, and things therein\n  Each to the other like; more than on earth is thought.\"\n                                                 MILTON.\n\n\n\n(3) _Character of the Biblical Cosmogony, and general Views of Nature\nwhich it Contains or to which it Leads._--Much of what appertains to the\ncharacter of the revelation of origins has been anticipated under\nprevious heads. We have only to read the Song of Creation, as given in\nthe last chapter, to understand its power and influence as a beginning\nof religious doctrine. The revelation was written for plain men in the\ninfancy of the world. Imagine Chaldean or Hebrew shepherd listening to\nthese majestic lines from the lips of some ancient patriarch, and\nreceiving them as truly the words of God. What a grand opening to him of\nboth the seen and unseen worlds! Henceforth he has no superstitious\ndread of the stars above, or of the lightning and thunder, or of the\ndark woods and flowing waters beneath. They are all the works of the one\nCreator, the same Creator who is his own Maker, in whose image and\nshadow he is made. He can look up now to the heavens or around upon the\nearth, and see in all the handiwork of God, and can worship God through\nall. He can see that the power that cares for the birds and the flowers\nof the field cares for him. He is no longer the slave and sport of\nunknown and dreadful powers; they are God's workmanship and under his\ncontrol--nay, God has given him a mission to subdue and rule over them.\nSo these noble words raise him to a new manhood, and emancipate him from\nthe torture of endless fears, and open to him vast new fields of thought\nand inquiry, which may enrich him with boundless treasures of new\nreligious and intellectual wealth. Imagine still farther that he wanders\ninto those great cities which are the seats of the idolatries of his\ntime. He enters magnificent temples, sees elaborately decorated altars,\nhuge images, gorgeous ceremonials, priests gay in vestments and imposing\nin numbers. He is invited to bow down before the bull Apis, to worship\nthe statue of Belus or of Ishtar, of Osiris or of Isis. But this is not\nin his book of origins. All these things are contrivances of man, not\nworks of God, and their aim is to invite him to adore that which is\nmerely his fellow-creature, that which he has the divine commission to\nsubdue and rule. So our primitive Puritan turns away. He will rather\nraise an altar of rough stones in the desert, and worship the unseen yet\nreal Creator, the God that has no local habitation in temples made with\nhands, yet is everywhere present. Such is the moral elevation to which\nthis revelation of origins raises humanity; and when there was added to\nit the farther history of primeval innocence, of the fall, and of the\npromise of a Redeemer, and of the fate of the godless antediluvians,\nthere was a whole system of religion, pure and elevating, and placing\nthe Abrahamidae, who for ages seem alone to have held to it, on a plane\nof spiritual vantage immeasurably above that of other nations. Farther,\nevery succeeding prophet whose works are included in the sacred canon,\nfollowing up these doctrines in the same spirit, and added new\ntreasures of divine knowledge from age to age.\n\nBut admitting all this, it may be asked, Are these ancient records of\nany value to us? May we not now dispense with them, and trust to the\nlight of science? The infinitely varied and discordant notions of our\nmodern literature on these great questions of origin, the incapacity\nof any philosophical system to reach the common mind for practical\npurposes, and the baseless character of any religious system which\ndoes not build on these great primitive truths, give a sufficient\nanswer. Farther, we may affirm that the greatest and widest\ngeneralizations of our modern science have, in so far as they are of\npractical importance, been anticipated in the revelations of the\nBible, and that in the cosmogony of Genesis and its continuation in\nthe other sacred books we have general views of the universe as broad\nas those of any philosophies, ancient or modern. This is a hard test\nfor our revelation, but it can be endured, and we may shortly inquire\nwhat we find in the Bible of such great general truths.\n\nMany may be disposed to admit the accurate delineation of natural\nfacts open to human observation in the sacred Scriptures, who may not\nbe prepared to find in these ancient books any general views akin to\nthose of the ancient philosophers, or to those obtained by inductive\nprocesses in modern times. Yet views of this kind are scattered\nthrough the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, and are a natural\noutgrowth and development of the great facts and principles asserted\nin the first chapter of Genesis. They resolve themselves, almost as a\nmatter of course, into the two leading ideas of order and adaptation.\nI have already quoted the eloquent admission by Baron Humboldt of the\npresence of these ideas of the cosmos in Psalm civ. They are both\nconspicuous in the narrative of creation, and equally so in a great\nnumber of other passages. \"Order is heaven's first law; and the second\nis like unto it--that every thing serves an end. This is the sum of\nall science. These are the two mites, even all that she hath, which\nshe throws into the treasury of the Lord; and, as she does so in\nfaith, Eternal Wisdom looks on and approves the deed.\"[17] These two\nmites, lawfully acquired by science, by her independent exertions, she\nmay, however, recognize as of the same coinage with the treasure\nalready laid up in the rich storehouse of the Hebrew literature; but\nin a peculiar and complex form, which may be illustrated under the\nfollowing general statements:\n\n1. The Scriptures assert invariable natural law, and constantly\nrecurring cycles in nature. Natural law is expressed as the ordinance\nor decree of Jehovah. From the oldest of the Hebrew books I select the\nfollowing examples:[18]\n\n  \"When he made a decree for the rain,\n  And a way for the thunder-flash.\"\n\n  --Job xxviii., 26.\n\n  \"Knowest thou the ordinances of the heavens?\n  Canst thou establish a dominion even over the earth?\"\n\n  --Job xxxviii., 33.\n\nThe later books give us such views as the following:\n\n  \"He hath established them [the heavens] for ever and ever;\n  He hath made a decree which shall not pass.\"\n\n  --Psa. cxlviii., 6.\n\n  \"Thou art forever, O Jehovah, thy word is established\n        in the heavens;\n  Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth;\n  They continue this day according to thine ordinances,\n        for all are thy servants.\"\n\n  --Psa. cxix., 90.\n\n  \"When he established the clouds above;\n  When he strengthened the fountains of the deep;\n  When he gave to the sea his decree,\n  That the waters should not pass his commandment;\n  When he appointed the foundations of the earth.\"\n\n  --Prov. viii., 28.\n\nMany similar instances will be found in succeeding pages; and in the\nmean time we may turn to the idea of recurring cycles, which forms the\nstarting-point of the reasonings of Solomon on the current of human\naffairs, in the book of Ecclesiastes: \"One generation passeth away,\nand another generation cometh; but the earth abideth for the ages. The\nsun ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to its place whence\nit arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth unto the north.\nIt whirleth about continually, and returneth again according to its\ncircuits. All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea doth not\noverflow; unto the place whence the rivers came, thither they return\nagain.\" I might fill pages with quotations more or less illustrative\nof the statement in proof of which the above texts are cited; but\nenough has been given to show that the doctrine of the Bible is not\nthat of fortuitous occurrence, or of materialism, or of pantheism, or\nof arbitrary supernaturalism, but of invariable natural law\nrepresenting the decree of a wise and unchanging Creator. It is a\ncommon but groundless and shallow charge against the Bible that it\nteaches an \"arbitrary supernaturalism.\" What it does teach is that\nall nature is regulated by the laws of God, which like himself are\nunchanging, but which are so complex in their relations and\nadjustments that they allow of infinite variety, and do not exclude\neven miraculous intervention, or what appears to our limited\nintelligence as such. In opposition to this, it is true, some\nphysicists have held that natural law is a fatal necessity.[19] If\nthey mean by this a merely hypothetical necessity that certain effects\nmust follow if certain laws act, this is in accordance with the\nBiblical view, for nothing can resist the will of God. But if they\nmean an absolute necessity that these laws can not be suspended or\ncounteracted by higher laws, or by the will of the Creator, they\nassert what is not only contrary to Scripture, but absurd, for \"blind\nmetaphysical necessity, which is the same always and everywhere, could\nproduce no variety of things.\"[20] It could lead merely to a dead and\ninert equilibrium. On the hypothesis of mere physical necessity, the\nuniverse either never could have existed, or must have come to an end\ninfinite ages ago, which is the same thing. Only on the hypothesis of\nlaw proceeding from an intelligent will can we logically account for\nnature.\n\n2. The Bible recognizes progress and development in nature. At the\nvery outset we have this idea embodied in the gradual elaboration of\nall things in the six creative periods, rising from the formless void\nof the beginning, through successive stages of inorganic and organic\nbeing, up to Eden and to man. Beyond this point the work of creation\nstops; but there is to be an occupation and improvement of the whole\nearth by man spreading from Eden. This process is arrested or impeded\nby sin and the fall. Here commences the special province of the\nBible, in explaining the means of recovery from the fall, and of the\nestablishment of a new spiritual and moral kingdom, and finally of the\nrestoration of Eden in a new heaven and earth. All this is moral, and\nrelates to man, in so far as the present state of things is concerned;\nbut we have the commentary of Jesus: \"My Father worketh hitherto, and\nI work;\" the remarkable statement of Paul, that the whole creation is\ninvolved in the results of man's moral fall and restoration, and the\nequally remarkable one that the Redeemer is also the maker of the\n\"worlds\" or ages of the earth's physical progress, as well as of the\nfuture \"new heaven and new earth.\" Peter also rebukes indignantly\nthose scoffers who maintained that all things had remained as they are\nsince the beginning; and refers to the creation week and to the deluge\nas earnests of the great changes yet in store for the earth.[21]\n\nIt is indeed curious to observe how in our version of the Bible this\nidea of progress in the universe, or of \"time-worlds,\" as it has been\ncalled, has been variously replaced by the words \"world\" and\n\"eternity,\" owing to the defective ideas prevalent at the time when\nthe translation was made. In the Hebrew Scriptures the term _Olam_,\n\"age,\" and in the New Testament the equivalent term _Ai[=o]n_ have\nbeen thus treated, and their real significance much obscured. Thus\nwhen it is said, \"by faith we understand that the _worlds_ were\nframed,\" or \"by him God made the _worlds_,\"[22] or that certain of\nGod's plans have been hid \"from the beginning of the _world_,\"[23] the\nreference is not to worlds in space, but to worlds in time, or ages of\nGod's working in the universe. So also these ages of God's working\nare given to us as our only intelligible type of eternity, of which\nabsolutely we can have no conception. Thus God's \"eternal purpose\" is\nhis purpose of the ages. So when he is the \"King eternal,\"[24] and in\nthat capacity gives to his people \"life everlasting,\" he is the King\nof the ages, and gives life of the ages. So in the noble hymn\nattributed to Moses (Psalm xc.), where our version has, \"from\neverlasting to everlasting thou art God,\"[25] the original is, \"from\nage to age thou art, O God.\" It has perhaps been a defect of our\nmodern science that it has familiarized us merely with the existence\nof worlds in space, and not with their existence in time. It is only\nin comparatively modern times that the developments of chronological\ngeology and of physical astronomy have brought before us, not only the\nlong ages in which the earth was passing through its formative stages,\nbut also the fact that still longer aeons are embraced in the history\nof the other bodies of our solar system, and of the starry orbs and\nnebulae. These grand conceptions were already embodied in the Hebrew\nrevelation, and were used there as the means of giving some faint\napproach to a conception of the unlimited existence of God himself, of\nthe ages in which his creative work has been going on, and of the\nfuture life he has prepared for his redeemed people.\n\nSuch views of development and progress are not unknown to many ancient\ncosmogonies and philosophical systems, but they had no stable\nfoundation in observed fact until the rise of modern geology and\nphysical astronomy; which enable us to affirm that, in addition to\nthose changeless physical laws which cause the bodies of the universe\nto wheel in unvarying cycles, and all natural powers to reproduce\nthemselves, and, in addition to those organic laws which produce\nunceasing successions of living individuals, there is a higher law of\nprogress. We can now trace back man, the animals and plants his\ncontemporaries, and others which preceded them, our continents and\nmountain ranges, and the solid rocks of which they are composed--nay,\nthe very fabric of the solar system itself--to their several origins\nat distinct points of time; and can maintain that since the earth\nbegan to wheel around the sun, no succeeding year has seen it\nprecisely as it was in the year before. The old Hebrew record affirms,\nand I presume scarcely any sane man really doubts, that this law of\nprogress emanates from the mind and power of one creative Being. When\nmen see in natural law only recurring cycles, they may be pardoned for\nfalling even into the absurdity of believing in eternal succession;\nbut when they see change and progress, and this in a uniform\ndirection, overmastering recurring cycles, and introducing new objects\nand powers not accounted for by previous objects or powers, they are\nbrought very near to the presence of the Spiritual Creator. And hence,\nalthough no science can reach back to the act of creation, this\ndoctrine is much more strongly held in our day by geologists than by\nphysicists. It is quite true that the idea of creative acts has been\nsuperseded to a great extent by that of \"creation by law,\" or by that\nof \"evolution.\" Still behind all there lies a primary creative power;\nand the validity of these ideas and their bearing on theism and\ncreation we shall have to discuss in the sequel. In one thing only\ndoes the Bible here part company with natural science. The Bible goes\non into the future, and predicts a final condition of our planet, of\nwhich science can from its investigations learn nothing.\n\n3. The Bible recognizes purpose, use, and special adaptation in\nnature. It is, in short, full of natural theology, akin in some\nrespects to that which has been so elaborately worked out by so many\nmodern writers. Numerous passages in support of this will occur to\nevery one who has read the Scriptures. It is necessary here, however,\nto direct attention to a distinction very obvious in Scripture, but\nnot always attended to by writers on this subject. The Bible maintains\nthe true \"final cause\" of all nature to be, not its material and\nspecial adaptations or its value to man, but the pleasure or\nsatisfaction of the Creator himself. In the earlier periods of\nCreation, before man was upon the earth, God contemplates his work and\npronounces it good. The heavenly hosts praise him, saying, \"Thou hast\ncreated all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.\"\nFurther, the Bible represents intelligences higher than man as sharing\nin the delight which may be derived from the contemplation of God's\nworks. When the earth first rose from the waters to greet the light,\n\"the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for\njoy.\" There are many things in nature that strongly impress the\nnaturalist with this same view, that the Creator takes pleasure in his\nworks; and, like human genius in its highest efforts, rejoices in\nproduction, even if no sentient being should be ready to sympathize.\nThe elaborate structures of fossils, of which we have only fragmentary\nremains, the profusion of natural objects of surpassing beauty that\ngrow and perish unseen by us, the delicate microscopic mechanism of\nnearly all organic structures, point to other reasons for beauty and\norder than those that concern man, or the mere utilities of human\nbeings; and though there are now naturalists who deny absolutely that\nbeauty is an object in nature, and assign even the colors of flowers\nand insects to utility alone, and this of a very low order, this\ndoctrine is so repulsive to our higher sentiments that there is\nlittle danger of its general acceptance; while the slightest\nconsideration shows that the utilities referred to could have been\nsecured without any of this consummate beauty associated with them,\nand our perception of and delight in which mark in a way beyond the\nability of skepticism to cavil at our own spiritual kinship with the\nAuthor of all this profusion of beauty. Yet man is represented as the\nchief created being for whom this earth has been prepared and\ndesigned. He obtains dominion over it. A chosen spot is prepared for\nhim, in which not only his wants but his tastes are consulted; and,\nbeing made in the image of his Maker, his aesthetic sentiments\ncorrespond with the beauties of the Maker's work, and he finds there\nalso food for his reason and imagination. This view of the subject, as\nwell as others already referred to, is finely represented in the\naddress of the Almighty to Job.[26]\n\nThe Bible also very often refers to the special adaptations of natural\nobjects and laws to each other, and to the promotion of the happiness\nof sentient creatures lower than man. The 104th Psalm is replete with\nnotices of such adaptations, and so is the address to Job; and indeed\nthis view seems hardly ever absent from the minds of the Hebrew\nwriters, but has its highest applications in the lilies of the field,\nthat toil not neither do they spin, and the sparrows that are sold for\na farthing, yet the heavenly Father has clothed the one with\nsurpassing beauty, and provides food for the other, nor allows it to\nfail without his knowledge. I may, by way of farther illustration,\nmerely name a few of the adaptations referred to in Job xxxviii. and\nthe following chapters. The winds and the clouds are so arranged as to\nafford the required supplies of moisture to the wilderness where no\nman is, to \"cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth.\" For\nsimilar objects the tempest is ordered, and the clouds arranged \"by\nwisdom.\" The adaptations of the wild ass, the wild goat, the ostrich,\nthe migratory birds, the horse, the hippopotamus, the crocodile, to\ntheir several habitats, modes of life, and uses in nature, are most\nvividly sketched and applied as illustrations of the consummate wisdom\nof the Creator, which descends to the minutest details of organization\nand habit.\n\nIt is to be observed here that in holding this doctrine of use and\nadaptation in nature, the Bible is only consistent with its own theory\nof rational theism. The Monotheist can not refer nature to a conflict\nof antagonistic powers and forces. He must recognize in it a unity of\nplan; and even those things which appear aberrant, irregular, or\nnoxious must have their place in this plan. Hence in the Bible God is\nmaker not only of the day but of the night, not only of the peaceful\ncattle but of the voracious crocodile, not only of the sunshine and\nshower but of the tornado and the earthquake. Further, in all these\nthings God is manifested, so that we may learn \"his eternal power and\ndivinity[27] from the things which he has made,\" and in all these also\nthere are emblems of his relations to us. This argument from design is\nin truth the only proof the Bible condescends to urge for the\nexistence of God; and it is the only one in which in his later days\nour great English philosopher Mill could see any validity.[28]\n\nIf the reader happens to be familiar with the objections to the\ndoctrine of final causes, or teleology, in nature, urged in our day\nby Spencer, Haeckel, and others, he will have seen from the foregoing\nstatements that these objections are in themselves baseless, or\ninapplicable to this doctrine as maintained in the Bible. There is no\nconsistency in the position of men who, when they dig a rudely chipped\nflint out of a bed of gravel, immediately infer an intelligent\nworkman, and who refuse to see any indication of a higher intelligence\nin the creation of the workman himself. It is a blind philosophy which\nprofesses to see in primal atoms the \"promise and potency of mind,\"\nand which fails to perceive that such potency is more inconceivable\nthan the evidence of primary and supreme mind. The men who maintain\nthat wings were not planned for flight, but that flight has produced\nwings, and thousands of like propositions, are simply amusing\nthemselves with paradoxes to which may very properly be applied the\nstrange word devised by Haeckel to express his theory of\nnature--_Dysteleology_, or purposelessness. It is to be borne in mind,\nhowever, that the teleology of the Bible is not of that narrow kind\nwhich would make man the sole object of nature, and the supreme judge\nof its adaptations. Inasmuch as God's plan goes over all the ages past\nand future, and relates to the welfare of all sentient beings known or\nunknown to us, and also to his own sovereign pleasure as the supreme\nobject, we may not be in a position either to understand or profit by\nall its parts, and hence may expect to find many mysteries, and many\nthings that we can not at present reconcile with God's wisdom and\ngoodness. We know but \"parts of his ways,\" the \"fullness of his power\nwho can understand.\" \"His judgments are unsearchable,\" \"his ways are\npast finding out.\"\n\n4. The law of type or pattern in nature is distinctly indicated in the\nBible. This is a principle only recently understood by naturalists,\nbut it has more or less dimly dawned on the minds of many great\nthinkers in all ages. Nor is this wonderful, for the idea of type is\nscarcely ever absent from our own conceptions of any work that we may\nundertake. In any such work we anticipate recurring daily toil, like\nthe returning cycles of nature. We look for progress, like that of the\ngrowth of the universe. We study adaptation both of the several parts\nto subordinate uses, and of the whole to some general design. But we\nalso keep in view some pattern, style, or order, according to which\nthe whole is arranged, and the mutual relations of the parts are\nadjusted. The architect must adhere to some order of architecture, and\nto some style within that order. The potter, the calico-printer, and\nthe silversmith must equally study uniformity of pattern in their\nseveral manufactures. The Almighty Worker has exhibited the same idea\nin his works. In the animal kingdom, for instance, we have four or\nmore leading types of structure. Taking any one of these--the\nvertebrate, for example--we have a uniform general plan, embracing the\nvertebral column constructed of the same elements; the members,\nwhether the arm of man, the limb of the quadruped, or the wing of the\nbat or the bird, or the swimming-paddle of the whale, built of the\nsame bones. In like manner all the parts of the vertebral column\nitself in the same animal, whether in the skull, the neck, or the\ntrunk, are composed of the same elementary structures. These types are\nfarther found to be sketched out--first in their more general, and\nthen in their special features--in proceeding from the lower species\nof the same type to the higher, in proceeding from the earlier to the\nlater stages of embryonic development, and in proceeding from the more\nancient to the more recent creatures that have succeeded each other in\ngeological time. Man, the highest of the vertebrates, is thus the\narchetype, representing and including all the lower and earlier\nmembers of the vertebrate type. The above are but trite and familiar\nexamples of a doctrine which may furbish and has furnished the\nmaterial of volumes. There can be no question that the Hebrew Bible is\nthe oldest book in which this principle is stated. In the first\nchapter of Genesis we have specific type in the creation of plants and\nanimals after their kinds or species, and in the formation of man in\nthe image and likeness of the Creator; and, as we shall find in the\nsequel, there are some curious ideas of higher and more general types\nin the grouping of the creatures referred to. The same idea is\nindicated in the closing chapters of Job, where the three higher\nclasses of the vertebrates are represented by a number of examples,\nand the typical likeness of one of these--the hippopotamus--to man,\nseems to be recognized. Dr. McCosh has quoted, as an illustration of\nthe doctrine of types, a very remarkable passage from Psalm cxxxix.:\n\n  \"I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.\n  Marvellous are thy works,\n  And that my soul knoweth right well.\n  My substance was not hid from Thee,\n  When I was made in secret,\n  And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth:\n  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect;\n  And in thy book all my members were written,\n  Which in continuance were fashioned when as yet there\n    was none of them.\"\n\nIt would too much tax the faith of many to ask them to believe that\nthe writer of the above passage, or the Spirit that inspired him,\nactually meant to teach--what we now know so well from geology--that\nthe prototypes of all the parts of the archetypal human structure may\nbe found in those fossil remains of extinct animals which may, in\nnearly every country, be dug up from the rocks of the earth. No\nobjection need, however, be taken to our reading in it the doctrine of\nembryonic development according to a systematic type.\n\nScience, it is true, or rather I should perhaps say philosophical\nspeculation, has sometimes pushed this idea of plan into that of a\nspontaneous genetic evolution of things in time, without any creative\nsuperintendence or definite purpose. This way of viewing the matter\nis, however, as we shall have occasion to see, both bald and\nirrational, and wants the symmetry and completeness of that style of\nthought which grasps at once progress and plan and adaptation, as\nemanating from a Supreme Will. The question of how the plan has been\nworked out will come up for detailed consideration farther on. In the\nmean time we have before us the fact that the Bible represents the\ncosmos as not the product of a blind conflict of self-existent forces,\nbut as the result of the production and guidance of these forces by\ninfinite wisdom.\n\nIt is more than curious that this idea of type, so long existing in an\nisolated and often depised form, as a theological thought in the\nimagery of Scripture, should now be a leading idea of natural science;\nand that while comparative anatomy teaches us that the structures of\nall past and present lower animals point to man, who, as Professor\nOwen expresses it, has had all his parts and organs \"sketched out in\nanticipation in the inferior animals,\" the Bible points still farther\nforward to an exaltation of the human type itself into what even the\ncomparative anatomist might perhaps regard as among the \"possible\nmodifications of it beyond those realized in this little orb of ours,\"\ncould he but learn its real nature.\n\nUnder the foregoing heads, of the object, the structure, the\nauthority, and the general cosmical views of the Scripture, I have\nendeavored to group certain leading thoughts important as preliminary\nto the study of the subject; and, in now entering on the details of\nthe Old Testament cosmogony, I trust the reader will pardon me for\nassuming, as a working hypothesis, that we are studying an inspired\nbook, revealing the origin of nature, and presenting accurate pictures\nof natural facts and broad general views of the cosmos, at least until\nin the progress of our inquiry we find reason to adopt lower views;\nand that he will, in the mean time, be content to follow me in that\ncareful and systematic analysis which a work claiming such a character\nsurely demands.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE BEGINNING.\n\n\n     \"In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the\n     earth.\"--Genesis i., 1.\n\n\nIt is a remarkable and instructive fact that the first verse of the\nHebrew sacred writings speaks of the material universe--speaks of it\nas a whole, and as originating in a power outside of itself. The\nuniverse, then, in the conception of this ancient writer, is not\neternal. It had a beginning, but that beginning in the indefinite and\nby us unmeasured past. It did not originate fortuitously, or by any\nmerely accidental conflict of self-existent material atoms, but by an\nact--an act of will on the part of a Being designated by that name\nwhich among all the Semitic peoples represented the ultimate, eternal,\ninscrutable source of power and object of awe and veneration. With the\nsimplicity and child-like faith of an archaic age, the writer makes no\nattempt to combat any objections or difficulties with which this great\nfundamental truth may be assailed. He feels its axiomatic force as the\nbasis of all true religion and sound philosophy, and the ultimate fact\nwhich must ever bar our further progress in the investigation of the\norigin of things--the production from non-existence of the material\nuniverse by the eternal self-existent God.\n\nIt did not concern him to know what might be the nature of that\nunconditioned self-existence; for though, like our ideas of space and\ntime, incomprehensible, it must be assumed. It did not concern him to\nknow how matter and force subsist, or what may be the difference\nbetween a material universe cognizable by our senses and the absolute\nwant of all the phenomena of such a universe or of whatever may be\ntheir basis and essence. Such questions can never be answered, yet the\nsuccession of these phenomena must have had a commencement somewhere\nin time. How simple and how grand is his statement! How plain and yet\nhow profound its teachings!\n\nIt is evident that the writer grasps firmly the essence of the\nquestion as to the beginning of things, and covers the whole ground\nwhich advanced scientific or philosophical speculation can yet\ntraverse. That the universe must have had a beginning no one now needs\nto be told. If any philosophical speculator ever truly held that there\nhas been an endless succession of phenomena, science has now\ncompletely negatived the idea by showing us the beginning of all\nthings that we know in the present universe, and by establishing the\nstrongest probabilities that even its ultimate atoms could not have\nbeen eternal. But the question remains--If there was a beginning, what\nexisted in that beginning? To this question many partial and imperfect\nanswers have been given, but our ancient record includes them all.\n\nIf any one should say, \"In the beginning was nothing.\" Yes, says\nGenesis, there was, it is true, nothing of the present matter and\narrangements of nature. Yet all was present potentially in the will of\nthe Creator.\n\n\"In the beginning were atoms,\" says another. Yes, says Genesis, but\nthey were created; and so says modern science, and must say of\nultimate particles determined by weight and measure, and incapable of\nmodification in their essential properties--\"They have the properties\nof a manufactured article.\"[29]\n\n\"In the beginning were forces,\" says yet another. True, says Genesis;\nbut all forces are one in origin--they represent merely the fiat of\nthe eternal and self-existent. So says science, that force must in the\nultimate resort be an \"expression of Will.\"[30]\n\n\"In the beginning was Elohim,\" adds our old Semitic authority, and in\nhim are the absolute and eternal thought and will, the Creator from\nwhom and by whom and in whom are all things.\n\nThus the simple familiar words, \"In the beginning God created the\nheaven and the earth,\" answer all possible questions as to the origin\nof things, and include all under the conception of theism. Let us now\nlook at these pregnant words more particularly as to their precise\nimport and significance.\n\nThe divine personality expressed by the Hebrew Elohim may be fairly\nsaid to include all that can be claimed for the pantheistic conception\nof \"dynamis,\" or universal material power. Lange gives this as\nincluded in the term Elohim, in his discussion of this term in his\nbook on Genesis. It has been aptly said that if, physically speaking,\nthe fall of a sparrow produces a gravitative effect that extends\nthroughout the universe, there can be no reason why it should be\nunknown to God. God is thus everywhere, and always. Yet he is\neverywhere and always present as a personality knowing and willing.\nFrom his thought and will in the beginning proceeded the universe. By\nhim it was created.\n\nWhat, then, is creation in the sense of the Hebrew writer. The act is\nexpressed by the verb _bara_, a word of comparatively rare occurrence\nin the Scriptures, and employed to denote absolute creation, though\nits primary sense is to cut or carve, and it is indeed a near relative\nof our own English word \"pare.\" If, says Professor Stuart, of Andover,\nthis word \"does not mean to create in the highest sense, then the\nHebrews had no word by which they could designate this idea.\" Yet,\nlike our English \"create,\" the word is used in secondary and\nfigurative senses, which in no degree detract from its force when\nstrictly and literally used. Since, however, these secondary senses\nmay often appear to obscure the primitive meaning, we must examine\nthem in detail.\n\nIn the first chapter of Genesis, after the general statement in verse\n1, other verbs signifying to _form_ or _make_ are used to denote the\nelaboration of the separate parts of the universe, and the word\n\"create\" is found in only two places, when it refers to the\nintroduction of \"great whales\" (reptiles) and of man. These uses of\nthe word have been cited to disprove its sense of absolute creation.\nIt must be observed, however, that in the first of these cases we have\nthe earliest appearance of animal life, and in the second the\nintroduction of a rational and spiritual nature. Nothing but pure\nmaterialism can suppose that the elements of vital and spiritual being\nwere included in the matter of the heavens and the earth as produced\nin the beginning; and as the Scripture writers were not materialists,\nwe may infer that they recognized, in the introduction of life and\nreason, acts of absolute creation, just as in the origin of matter\nitself. In Genesis ii. and iii. we have a form of expression which\nwell marks the distinction between creation and making. God is there\nsaid to have rested from all his works which he \"created and\nmade\"--literally, created \"for or in reference to making,\" the word\nfor making being one of those already referred to.[31] The force of\nthis expression consists in its intimating that God had not only\nfinished the work of _creation_, properly so called, but also the\nelaboration of the various details of the universe, as formed or\nfashioned out of the original materials. Of a similar character is the\nexpression in Isaiah xlii., 5, \"Jehovah, he that _created_ the heavens\nand spread them out;\" and that in Psalm cxlviii., 5, \"He commanded and\nthey were _created_, he hath also established them for ever and ever.\"\n\nIn as far as I am aware, the word _bara_ in all the remaining\ninstances of its occurrence in the Pentateuch refers to the creation\nof man, with the following exceptions: Exodus xxxiv., 10, \"I will do\n(create) marvels, such as have not been seen in all the earth;\"\nNumbers xvi., 30, \"If the Lord make a new thing (create a creation),\nand the earth open her mouth and swallow them up.\" These verses are\ntypes of a class of expressions in which the proper term for creation\nis applied to the production of something new, strange, and\nmarvellous; for instance, \"Create in me a clean heart, O Lord;\"\n\"Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth.\" It is, however,\nevidently an inversion of sound exposition to say that these secondary\nor figurative meanings should determine the primary and literal sense\nin Genesis i. On the contrary, we should rather infer that the sacred\nwriters in these cases selected the proper word for creation, to\nexpress in the most forcible manner the novel and thorough character\nof the changes to which they refer, and their direct dependence on the\nDivine will. By such expressions we are in effect referred back to the\noriginal use of the word, as denoting the actual creation of matter\nby the command of God, in contradistinction from those arrangements\nwhich have been effected by the gradual operation of secondary agents,\nor of laws attached to matter at its creation. It has been farther\nobserved[32] that in the Hebrew Scriptures this word _bara_ is applied\nto God only as an agent, not to any human artificer; a fact which is\nvery important with reference to its true significance. Viewing\ncreation in this light, we need not perplex ourselves with the\nquestion whether we should consider Genesis i., 1, to refer to the\nessence of matter as distinguished from its qualities. We may content\nourselves with the explanation given by Paul in the eleventh of\nHebrews: \"By faith we are certain that the worlds[33] were created by\nthe decree of God, so that that which _is seen_ was made of that which\n_appears not_.\" Or, with reference to the other uses of the word, if\nthe first introduction of animal life was a creation, and if the\nintroduction of the rational nature of man was a creation, we may\nsuppose that the original creation was in like manner the introduction\nor first production of those entities which we call matter and force,\nand which to science now are as much ultimate facts as they were to\nMoses.\n\nThe _nature_ of the act of creation being thus settled, its _extent_\nmay be ascertained by an examination of the terms heaven and earth.\n\nThe word \"heavens\" (_shamayim_) has in Hebrew as in English a variety\nof significations. Of material heavens there are, in the quaint\nlanguage of Poole, \"_tres regiones, ubi aves, ubi nubes, ubi sidera_;\"\nor (1) the atmosphere or firmament;[34] (2) the region of clouds in\nthe upper part of the atmosphere;[35] (3) the depths of space\ncomprehending the starry orbs.[36] Besides these we have the \"heaven\nof heavens,\" the abode of God and spiritual beings.[37] The\napplication of the term \"heaven\" to the atmosphere will be considered\nwhen we reach the 6th and 7th verses. In the mean time we may accept\nthe word in this place as including the material heavens in the widest\nsense: (1.) Because it is not here, as in verse 8th, restricted to the\natmosphere by the terms of the narrative; this restriction in verse\n8th in fact implying the wider sense of the word in preceding verses.\n(2.) Because the atmospheric firmament, elsewhere called heaven,\ndivides the waters above from those below, whereas it is evident that\nall these waters, and of consequence the materials of the atmosphere\nitself, are included in the earth of the following verse. (3.) Because\nin verse 14th the sidereal heavens are spoken of as arranged from\npre-existing materials, which refers their actual creation back to\nthis passage.\n\nIn the words now under consideration we therefore regard the heavens\nas including the whole material universe beyond the limits of our\nearth. That this sense of the word is not unknown to the writers of\nScripture, and that they had enlarged and rational views of the\nstar-spangled abysses of space, will appear from the terms employed by\nMoses in his solemn warning against the Sabaean idolatry, in\nDeuteronomy iv.: \"And lest thou lift up thine eyes to the heavens, and\nwhen thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the host\nof the heavens, shouldest be incited to worship them and serve them\nwhich Jehovah thy God hath appointed to all nations under the whole\nheavens.\" To the same effect is the expression of the awe and wonder\nof the poet king of Israel in Psalm viii.:\n\n  \"When I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers,\n  The moon and the stars which thou hast ordained;\n  What is man that thou art mindful of him?\"\n\nI may observe, however, that throughout the Scriptures the word in\nquestion is much more frequently applied to the atmospheric than to\nthe sidereal heavens. The reason of this appears in the terms of verse\n8th.\n\nIf we have correctly referred the term \"heavens\" to the whole of\nextramundane space, then the word \"earth\" must denote our globe as a\ndistinct world, with all the liquid and aeriform substances on its\nsurface. The arrangement of the whole universe under the heads\n\"heaven\" and \"earth\" has been derided as a division into \"infinity and\nan atom;\" but when we consider the relative importance of the earth to\nus, and that it constitutes the principal object of the whole\nrevelation to which this is introductory, the absurdity disappears,\nand we recognize the classification as in the circumstances natural\nand rational. The word \"earth\" (_aretz_) is, however, generally used\nto denote the dry land, or even a region or district of country. It is\nindeed expressly restricted to the dry land in verse 10th; but as in\nthe case of the parallel limitation of the word \"heaven,\" we may\nconsider this as a hint that its previous meaning is more extended.\nThat it is really so, appears from the following considerations: (1.)\nIt includes the deep, or the material from which the sea and\natmosphere were afterwards formed. (2.) The subsequent verses show\nthat at the period in question no dry land existed. If instances of a\nsimilar meaning from other parts of Scripture are required, I give\nthe following: Genesis ii., 1 to 4, \"Thus the heavens and the earth\nwere finished, and all the host of them;\" \"these are the generations\nof the heavens and the earth.\" In this general summary of the creative\nwork, the earth evidently includes the seas and all that is in them,\nas well as the dry land; and the whole expression denotes the\nuniverse. The well-known and striking remark of Job, \"Who hangeth the\nearth upon nothing,\" is also a case in point, and must refer to the\nwhole world, since in other parts of the same book the dry land or\ncontinental masses of the earth are said, and with great truth and\npropriety, to be supported above the waters on pillars or foundations.\nThe following passages may also be cited as instances of the\noccurrence of the idea of the whole world expressed by the word\n\"earth:\" Exodus x., 29, \"And Moses said unto him, As soon as I am gone\nout of the city, I will spread abroad my hands unto the Lord, and the\nthunder shall cease, neither shall there be any more hail; that thou\nmayest know the earth is the Lord's;\" Deuteronomy x., 14, \"Behold, the\nheaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's, the earth also, and\nall that therein is.\"\n\nThe material universe was brought into existence in the \"beginning\"--a\nterm evidently indefinite as far as regards any known epoch, and\nimplying merely priority to all other recorded events. It can not be\nthe first day, for there is no expressed connection, and the work of\nthe first day is distinct from that of the beginning. It can not be a\ngeneral term for the whole six days, since these are separated from it\nby that chaotic or formless state to which we are next introduced. The\nbeginning, therefore, is the threshold of creation--the line that\nseparates the old tenantless condition of space from the world-crowded\ngalaxies of the existing universe. The only other information\nrespecting it that we have in Scripture is in that fine descriptive\npoem in Proverbs viii., in which the Wisdom of God personified--who\nmay be held to represent the Almighty Word, or Logos, introduced in\nthe formula \"God said,\" and afterward referred to in Scripture as the\nmanifested or conditioned Deity, the Mediator between man and the\notherwise inaccessible Divinity, the agent in the work of creation as\nwell as in that of redemption--narrates the origin of all created\nthings:\n\n  \"Jehovah possessed[38] me, the beginning of his way,\n  Before his work of old.\n  I was set up from everlasting,\n  From the beginning, before the earth was;\n  When there were no deeps I was brought forth,\n  When there were no fountains abounding in water.\"\n\nThe beginning here precedes the creation of the earth, as well as of\nthe deep which encompassed its surface in its earliest condition. The\nbeginning, in this point of view, stretches back from the origin of\nthe world into the depths of eternity. It is to us emphatically _the_\nbeginning, because it witnessed the birth of our material system; but\nto the eternal Jehovah it was but the beginning of a great series of\nhis operations, and we have no information of its absolute duration.\nFrom the time when God began to create the celestial orbs, until that\ntime when it could be said that he had created the heavens and the\nearth, countless ages may have rolled along, and myriads of worlds may\nhave passed through various stages of existence, and the creation of\nour planetary system may have been one of the last acts of that long\nbeginning.\n\nThe author of creation is Elohim, or God in his general aspect to\nnature and man, and not in that special aspect in reference to the\nHebrew commonwealth and to the work of redemption indicated by the\nname Jehovah (_Iaveh_). We need not enter into the doubtful etymology\nof the word; but may content ourselves with that supported by many,\nperhaps the majority of authorities, which gives it the meaning of\n\"Object of dread or adoration,\" or with that preferred by Gesenius,\nwhich makes it mean the \"Strong or mighty one.\" Its plural form has\nalso greatly tried the ingenuity of the commentators. After carefully\nconsidering the various hypotheses, such as that of the plural of\nmajesty of the Rabbins, and the primitive polytheism supposed by\ncertain Rationalists, I can see no better reason than an attempt to\ngive a grammatical expression to that plurality in unity indicated by\nthe appearance of the Spirit or breath of God and his Word, or\nmanifested will and power, as distinct agents in the succeeding\nverses. This was probably always held by the Hebrews in a general\nform; and was by our Saviour and his apostles specialized in that\ntrinitarian doctrine which enables both John and Paul explicitly to\nassert the agency of the second person of the Trinity in the creative\nwork.\n\nThis elementary trinitarian idea of the first chapter of Genesis may\nbe further stated thus: The name Elohim expresses the absolute\nunconditioned will and reason--the Godhead. The manifestation of God\nin creative power, and in the framing and ordering of the cosmos, is\nrepresented by the formula \"God said\"--the equivalent of the Divine\nWord. The further manifestation of God in love of and sympathy with\nhis work is represented by the Breath of God, and by the expression,\n\"God saw that it was good\"--operations these of the Divine Spirit.\n\nThe aboriginal root of the word Elohim probably lies far back of the\nSemitic literature, and comes from the natural exclamations \"al,\"\n\"lo,\" \"la,\" which arise from the spontaneous action of the human vocal\norgans in the presence of any object of awe or wonder. The plural form\nmay in like manner be simply equivalent to our terms Godhead or\nDivinity, implying all that is essentially God without specification\nor distinction of personalities. As Dr. Tayler Lewis well remarks in\nhis \"Introduction to Genesis,\" we should not dismiss such plurals as\nmere _usus loquendi_. The plural form of the name of God, of the\nheavens (literally, the \"heights\"), of the _olamim_, or time-worlds,\nof the word for life in Genesis (lives), indicates an idea of vastness\nand diversity not measurable by speech, which must have been impressed\non the minds of early men, otherwise these forms would not have\narisen. God, heaven, time, life, were to them existences stretching\noutward to infinity, and not to be denoted by the bare singular form\nsuitable to ordinary objects.\n\nFairly regarding, then, this ancient form of words, we may hold it as\na clear, concise, and accurate enunciation of an ultimate doctrine of\nthe origin of things, which with all our increased knowledge of the\nhistory of the earth we are not in a position to replace with any\nthing better or more probable. On the other hand, this sublime dogma\nof creation leaves us perfectly free to interrogate nature for\nourselves, as to all that it can reveal of the duration and progress\nof the creative work. But the positive gain which comes from this\nancient formula goes far beyond these negative qualities. If received,\nthis one word of the Old Testament is sufficient to deliver us forever\nfrom the superstitious dread of nature, and to present it to us as\nneither self-existent nor omnipotent, but as the mere handiwork of a\nspiritual Creator to whom we are kin; as not a product of chance or\ncaprice, but as the result of a definite plan of the All-wise; as not\na congeries of unconnected facts and processes, but as a cosmos, a\nwell-ordered though complex machine, designed by Him who is the\nAlmighty and the supreme object of reverence. Had this verse alone\nconstituted the whole Bible, this one utterance would, wherever known\nand received, have been an inestimable boon to mankind; proclaiming\ndeliverance to the captives of every form of nature-worship and\nidolatry, and fixing that idea of unity of plan in the universe which\nis the fruitful and stable root of all true progress in science. We\nowe profound thanks to the old Hebrew prophet for these words--words\nwhich have broken from the necks of once superstitious Aryan races\nchains more galling than those of Egyptian bondage.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE DESOLATE VOID.\n\n\n     \"And the earth was desolate and empty, and darkness was upon\n     the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved on the\n     surface of the waters.\"--Genesis i., 2.\n\n\nWe have here a few bold outlines of a dark and mysterious scene--a\ncondition of the earth of which we have no certain intimation from any\nother source, except the speculations based on modern discoveries in\nphysical science. It was \"unshaped and empty,\" formless and\nuninhabited. The words thus translated are sufficiently plain in their\nmeaning. The first is used by Isaiah to denote the desolation of a\nruined city, and in Job and the Psalms as characteristic of the\nwilderness or desert. Both in connection are employed by Isaiah to\nexpress the destruction of Idumea, and by Jeremiah in a powerful\ndescription of the ruin of nations by God's judgments. When thus\nunited, they form the strongest expression which the Hebrew could\nsupply for solitary, uninhabited desolation, like that of a city\nreduced to heaps of rubbish, and to the silence and loneliness of\nutter decay.\n\nIn the present connection these words inform us that the earth was in\na chaotic state, and unfit for the residence of organized beings. The\nwords themselves suggest the important question: Are they intended to\nrepresent this as the original condition of the earth? Was it a scene\nof desolation and confusion when it sprang from the hand of its\nCreator? or was this state of ruin consequent on convulsions which\nmay have been preceded by a very different condition, not mentioned by\nthe inspired historian? That it may have been so is rendered possible\nby the circumstance that the words employed are generally used to\ndenote the ruin of places formerly inhabited, and by the want of any\nnecessary connection in time between the first and second verses. It\nhas even been proposed, though this does violence to the construction,\nto read \"and the earth became\" desolate and empty. Farther, it seems,\n_a priori_, improbable that the first act of creative power should\nhave resulted in the production of a mere chaos. The crust of the\nearth also shows, in its alternations of strata and organic remains,\nevidence of a great series of changes extending over vast periods, and\nwhich might, in a revelation intended for moral purposes, with great\npropriety be omitted.\n\nFor such reasons some eminent expositors of these words are disposed\nto consider the first verse as a title or introduction, and to refer\nto this period the whole series of geological changes; and this view\nhas formed one of the most popular solutions of the apparent\ndiscrepancies between the geological and Scriptural histories of the\nworld. It is evident, however, that if we continue to view the term\n\"earth\" as including the whole globe, this hypothesis becomes\naltogether untenable. The subsequent verses inform us that at the\nperiod in question the earth was covered by a universal ocean,\npossessed no atmosphere and received no light, and had not entered\ninto its present relations with the other bodies of our system. No\nconceivable convulsions could have effected such changes on an earth\npreviously possessing these arrangements; and geology assures us that\nthe existing laws and dispositions in these respects have prevailed\nfrom the earliest periods to which it can lead us back, and that the\nmodern state of things was not separated from those which preceded it\nby any such general chaos. To avoid this difficulty, which has been\nmuch more strongly felt as these facts have been more and more clearly\ndeveloped by modern science, it has been held that the word earth may\ndenote only a particular region, temporarily obscured and reduced to\nruin, and about to be fitted up, by the operations of the six days,\nfor the residence of man; and that consequently the narrative of the\nsix days refers not to the original arrangement of the surface,\nrelations, and inhabitants of our planet, but to the retrieval from\nruin and repeopling of a limited territory, supposed to have been in\nCentral Asia, and which had been submerged and its atmosphere obscured\nby aqueous or volcanic vapors. The chief support of this view is the\nfact, previously noticed, that the word earth is very frequently used\nin the signification of region, district, country; to which may be\nadded the supposed necessity for harmonizing the Scriptures with\ngeological discovery, and at the same time viewing the days of\ncreation as literal solar days.\n\nCan we, however, after finding that in verse 1st the term earth must\nmean the whole world, suddenly restrict it in verse 2d to a limited\nregion. Is it possible that the writer who in verse 10th for the first\ntime intimates a limitation of the meaning of this word, by the solemn\nannouncement, \"And God called the _dry land_ earth,\" should in a\nprevious place use it in a much more limited sense without any hint of\nsuch restriction. The case stands thus: A writer uses the word earth\nin the most general sense; in the next sentence he is supposed,\nwithout any intimation of his intention, to use the same word to\ndenote a region or country, and by so doing entirely to change the\nmeaning of his whole discourse from that which would otherwise have\nattached to it. Yet the same writer when, a few sentences farther on,\nit becomes necessary for him to use the word earth to denote the dry\nland as distinguished from the seas, formally and with an assertion of\ndivine authority, intimates the change of meaning. Is not this\nsupposition contrary not only to sound principles of interpretation,\nbut also to common-sense; and would it not tend to render worthless\nthe testimony of a writer to whose diction such inaccuracy must be\nascribed. It is in truth to me surprising beyond measure that such a\nview could ever have obtained currency; and I fear it is to be\nattributed to a determination, at all hazards and with any amount of\nviolence to the written record, to make geology and religion coincide.\nMust we then throw aside this simple and convenient method of\nreconciliation, sanctioned by Chalmers, Smith, Harris, King,\nHitchcock, and many other great or respectable names, and on which so\nmany good men complacently rest. Truth obliges us to do so, and to\nconfess that both geology and Scripture refuse to be reconciled on\nthis basis. We may still admit that the lapse of time between the\nbeginning and the first day may have been great; but we must\nemphatically deny that this interval corresponds with the time\nindicated by the series of fossiliferous rocks.\n\nBefore leaving this part of the subject, I may remark that the\ndesolate and empty condition of the earth was not necessarily a\nchaotic mass of confusion--_rudis indigestaque moles_; but in reality,\nwhen physically considered, may have been a more symmetrical and\nhomogeneous condition than any that it subsequently assumed. If the\nearth were first a vast globe of vapor, then a liquid spheroid, and\nthen acquired a crust not yet seamed by fissures or broken by\ncorrugations, and eventually covered with a universal ocean, then in\neach of these early conditions it would, in regard to its form, be a\nmore perfect globe than at any succeeding time. That something of this\nkind is the intention of our historian is implied in his subsequent\nstatements as to the absence of land and the prevalence of a universal\nocean in the immediately succeeding period, which imply that the crust\nhad not yet been ruptured or disturbed, but presented an even and\nuniform surface, no part of which could project above the\ncomparatively thin fluid envelope.\n\nThe second clause introduces a new object--\"_the deep_.\" Whatever its\nprecise nature, this is evidently something included in the earth of\nverse 1st, and created with it. The word occurs in other parts of the\nHebrew Scriptures in various senses. It often denotes the sea,\nespecially when in an agitated state (Psa. xlii., 8; Job xxxviii.,\n10). In Psalm cxxxv., however, it is distinguished from the sea:\n\"Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, in the earth, in\nthe seas, and _in all deeps_.\" In other cases it has been supposed to\nrefer to interior recesses of the earth, as when at the deluge \"the\nfountains of the great deep\" are said to have been broken up. It is\nprobable, however, that this refers to the ocean. In some places it\nwould appear to mean the atmosphere or its waters; as Prov. viii.,\n27-29, \"When he prepared the heavens, I was there; when he described a\ncircle on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above,\nwhen he strengthened the fountains of the deep.\" The Septuagint in\nthis passage reads \"throne on the winds\" and \"fountains under the\nheaven.\"[39] Though we can not attach much value to these readings,\nthere seems little reason to doubt that the author of this passage\nunderstands by the deep the atmospheric waters, and not the sea,\nwhich he mentions separately. The same meaning must be attached to the\nword in another passage of the Book of Proverbs: \"The Lord in wisdom\nhath founded the earth, by understanding hath he established the\nheavens; by his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds\ndrop down the small rain.\"\n\nIn the passage now under consideration, it would seem that we have\nboth the deep and the waters mentioned, and this not in a way which\nwould lead us to infer their identity. The darkness on the surface of\nthe deep and the Spirit of God on the face of the waters seem to refer\nto the condition of two distinct objects at the same time. Neither can\nthe word here refer to subterranean cavities, for the ascription of a\nsurface to these, and the statement that they were enveloped in\ndarkness, would in this case have neither meaning nor use. For these\nreasons I am induced to believe that the locality of the deep or abyss\nis to be sought, not in the universal ocean or the interior of the\nearth, but in the vaporous or aeriform mass mantling the surface of\nour nascent planet, and containing the materials out of which the\natmosphere was afterward elaborated. This is a view leading to\nimportant consequences: one of which is that the darkness on the\nsurface of the deep can not have been, as believed by the advocates of\na local chaos, a mere atmospheric obscuration; since even at the\n_surface_ of what then represented the atmosphere darkness prevailed.\n\"God covered the earth with the deep as with a garment, and the waters\nstood above the hills,\" and without this outer garment was the\ndarkness of space destitute of luminaries, at least of those greater\nones which are of primary importance to us. We learn from the\nfollowing verses that there was no layer of clear atmosphere in this\nmisty deep, separating the clouds from the ocean waters.\n\nThe last clause of the verse has always been obscure, and perhaps it\nis still impossible to form a clear idea of the operation intended to\nbe described. We are not even certain whether it is intended to\nrepresent any thing within the compass of ordinary natural laws, or to\ndenote a direct intervention of the Creator, miraculous in its nature\nand confined to one period. It is possible that the general intention\nof the statement may be to the effect that the agency of the divine\npower in separating the waters from the incumbent vapors had already\ncommenced--that the Spirit which would afterward evoke so many wonders\nout of the chaotic mass was already acting upon it in an unseen and\nmysterious way, preparing it for its future destiny.\n\nSome commentators, both Jewish and Christian, are, however, disposed\nto view the _Ruach Elohim_, Spirit, or breath of God, as meaning a\nwind of God, or mighty wind, according to a well-known Hebrew idiom.\nThe word in its primary sense means wind or breath, and there are\nundoubted instances of the expression \"wind of God\" for a great or\nstrong wind. For example, Isaiah xl., 7: \"The grass withereth because\nthe wind of the Lord bloweth upon it;\" see also 2 Kings ii., 16. Such\nexamples, however, are very rare, and by no means sufficient of\nthemselves to establish this interpretation. Those who hold this view\ndo so mainly in consideration of the advantage which it affords in\nattaching a definite meaning to the expression. Many of them are not,\nhowever, aware of its precise import in a cosmical point of view. A\nviolent wind, before the formation of the atmosphere, and the\nestablishment of the laws which regulate the suspension and motions of\naqueous vapors and clouds, must have been merely an agitation of the\nconfused misty and vaporous mass of the deep; since, as\nAinsworth--more careful than modern interpreters--long ago observed,\n\"winde (which is the moving of the aier) was not created till the\nsecond day, that the firmament was spred, and the aier made.\" Such an\nagitation is by no means improbable. It would be a very likely\naccompaniment of a boiling ocean, resting on a heated surface, and of\nexcessive condensation of moisture in the upper regions of the\natmosphere; and might act as an influential means of preparing the\nearth for the operations of the second day. It is curious also that\nthe Phoenician cosmogony is said to have contained the idea of a\nmighty wind in connection with this part of creation, and the idea of\nseething or commotion in the primitive chaos also occurs in the\nAssyrian tablets of creation, while the Quiche legend represents\nHurakon, the storm-god, as specially concerned in the creative\nwork.[40] On the other hand, the verb used in the text rather\nexpresses hovering or brooding than violent motion, and this better\ncorresponds with the old fable of the mundane egg, which seems to have\nbeen derived from the event recorded in this verse. The more\nevangelical view, which supposes the Holy Spirit to be intended, is\nalso more in accordance with the general scope of the Scripture\nteachings on this subject; and the opposite idea is, as Calvin well\nsays, \"too frigid\" to meet with much favor from evangelical\ntheologians.\n\nChaos, the equivalent of the Hebrew \"desolation and emptiness,\"\nfigures largely in all ancient cosmogonies. That of the Egyptians is\ninteresting, not only from its resemblance to the Hebrew doctrine, but\nalso from its probable connection with the cosmogony of the Greeks.\nTaking the version of Diodorus Siculus, which though comparatively\nmodern, yet corresponds with the hints derived from older sources, we\nfind the original chaos to have been an intermingled condition of\nelements constituting heaven and earth. This is the Hebrew \"deep.\" The\nfirst step of progress is the separation of these; the fiery particles\nascending above, and not only producing light, but the revolution of\nthe heavenly bodies--a curious foreshadowing of the nebular hypothesis\nof modern astronomy. After these, in the terms of the lines quoted by\nDiodorus from Euripides, plants, birds, mammals, and finally man are\nproduced, not however by a direct creative fiat, but by the\nspontaneous fecundity of the teeming earth. The Phoenician cosmogony\nattributed to Sancuniathon has the void, the deep, and the brooding\nSpirit; and one of the terms employed, \"baau,\" is the same with the\nHebrew \"bohu,\" void, if read without the points. The Babylonians,\naccording to Berosus, believed in a chaos--which, however, like the\nliteral-day theory of some moderns, produced many monsters before\nBelus intervened to separate heaven and earth. But the Assyrian legend\nfound in the Nineveh tablets is very precise in its intimation of the\nChaos or _Tiamat_, the mother of all things; and, farther, it\nrecognizes this personified chaos as the principle of evil, whose\n\"dragon\" becomes the tempter of the progenitors of mankind, exactly\nlike the Biblical serpent. This \"dragon of the abyss\" is thus\nidentical in name and function with the evil principle even of the\nlast book of the New Testament, and we have in this also probably the\norigin of the Ahriman of the Avesta. Thus in these Eastern theologies\nthe primeval chaos becomes the type of evil as opposed to the order,\nbeauty, and goodness of the creation of God--a very natural\nassociation; but one kept in the background by the Hebrew Scriptures,\nas tending to a dualistic belief subversive of monotheism. The Greek\nmyth of Chaos, and its children Erebus and Night, who give birth to\nAether and Day, is the same tradition, personified after the fanciful\nmanner of a people who, in the primitive period of their civilization,\nhad no profound appreciation of nature, but were full of human\nsympathies.[41] Lastly, in a hymn translated by Dr. Max Mueller from\nthe Rig-Veda, a work probably far older than the Institutes of Menu,\nwe have such utterances as the following:\n\n  \"Nor aught nor nought existed: yon bright sky\n  Was not, nor heaven's broad woof outstretched above.\n  What covered all? what sheltered? what concealed?\n  Was it the water's fathomless abyss? * * *\n  Darkness there was, and all at first was veiled\n  In gloom profound--an ocean without light;\n  The germ that still lay covered in the husk\n  Burst forth, one nature, from the fervent heat.\"\n\nIt is evident that the state of our planet which we have just been\nconsidering is one of which we can scarcely form any adequate\nconception, and science can in no way aid us, except by suggesting\nhypotheses or conjectures. It is remarkable, however, that nearly all\nthe cosmological theories which have been devised contain some of the\nelements of the inspired narrative. The words of Moses appear to\nsuggest a heated and cooling globe, its crust as yet unbroken by\ninternal forces, covered by a universal ocean, on which rested a mass\nof confused vaporous substances; and it is of such materials, thus\ncombined by the sacred historian, that cosmologists have built up\ntheir several theories, aqueous or igneous, of the early state of the\nearth. Geology, as a science of observation and induction, does not\ncarry us back to this period. It must still and always say, with\nHutton, that it can find \"no trace of a beginning, no prospect of an\nend\"--not because there has been no beginning or will be no end, but\nbecause the facts which it collects extend neither to the one nor the\nother. Geology, like every other department of natural history, can\nbut investigate the facts which are open to observation, and reason on\nthese in accordance with the known laws and arrangements of existing\nnature. It finds these laws to hold for the oldest period to which the\nrocky archives of the earth extend. Respecting the origin of these\ngeneral laws and arrangements, or the condition of the earth before\nthey originated, it knows nothing. In like manner a botanist may\ndetermine the age of a forest by counting the growth rings of the\noldest trees, but he can tell nothing of the forests that may have\npreceded it, or of the condition of the surface before it supported a\nforest. So the archaeologist may on Egyptian monuments read the names\nand history of successive dynasties of kings, but he can tell nothing\nof the state of the country and its native tribes before those\ndynasties began or their monuments were built. Yet geology at least\nestablishes a probability that a time was when organized beings did\nnot exist, and when many of the arrangements of the surface of our\nearth had not been perfected; and the few facts which have given birth\nto the theories promulgated on this subject tend to show that this\npre-geological condition of the earth may have been such as that\ndescribed in the words now under consideration. I may remark, in\naddition, that if the words of Moses imply the cooling of the globe\nfrom a molten or intensely heated state down to a temperature at which\nwater could exist on its surface, the known rate of cooling of bodies\nof the dimensions and materials of the earth shows that the time\nincluded in these two verses of Genesis must have been enormous,\namounting it may be to many millions of years.\n\nThere are two other sciences besides geology which have in modern\ntimes attempted to penetrate into the mysteries of the primitive\nabyss, at least by hypothetical explanations--astronomy and chemistry.\nThe magnificent nebular hypothesis of La Place, which explains the\nformation of the whole solar system by the condensation of a revolving\nmass of gaseous matter, would manifestly bring our earth to the\ncondition of a fluid body, with or without a solid crust, and\nsurrounded by a huge atmosphere of its more volatile materials,\ngradually condensing itself around the central nucleus. Chemistry\ninforms us that this vaporous mass would contain not only the\natmospheric air and water, but all the carbon, sulphur, phosphorus,\nchlorine, and other elements, volatile in themselves, or forming\nvolatile compounds with oxygen or hydrogen, that are now imprisoned in\nvarious states of combination in the solid crust of the earth. Such an\natmosphere--vast, dark, pestilential, and capable in its condensation\nof producing the most intense chemical action--is a necessity of an\nearth condensing from a vaporous and incandescent state. Thus, in so\nfar as scientific speculation ventures to penetrate into the genesis\nof the earth, its conclusions are at one with the Mosaic cosmogony and\nwith the traditions of most ancient nations as to the primitive\nexistence of a chaos--formless and void, in which \"nor aught nor\nnought existed.\"\n\nSome of the details of the Mosaic vision of the primeval chaos may be\nsupplied by the probabilities established by physics and chemistry.\nOur first idea of the earth would be a vast vaporous ball, recently\nspun out from the general mass of vapors forming the nebula which once\nrepresented the solar system. This huge cloud, whirling its annual\nround about the still vaporous centre of the system, would consist of\nall the materials now constituting the solid rocks as well as those of\nthe seas and atmosphere, their atoms kept asunder by the force of\nheat, preventing not only their mechanical union, but even their\nchemical combination. But heat is being radiated on all sides into\nspace, and the opposing force of gravitation is little by little\ngathering the particles toward the centre. At length a liquid nucleus\nis formed, while upon this are being precipitated showers of\ncondensing matter from the still vast atmosphere to add to its volume.\nAs this process advances, a new brilliancy is given to the feebly\nshining vapors by the incandescence of solid particles in the upper\nlayers of the atmosphere, and in this stage our earth would be a\nlittle sun, a miniature of that which now forms the centre of our\nsystem, and which still, by virtue of its greater mass, continues in\nthis state. But at length, by further cooling, this brilliancy is\nlost, and the still fluid globe is surrounded by a vast cloudy pall,\nin which condensing vapors gather in huge dark masses, and amid\nterrible electrical explosions, pour, in constantly increasing, acid,\ncorrosive rains, upon the heated nucleus, combining with its\nmaterials, or again flashing into vapors. Thus darkness dense and\ngross would settle upon the vaporous deep, and would continue for long\nages, until the atmosphere could be finally cleared of its superfluous\nvapors. In the mean time a crust of slag or cinder has been forming\nupon the molten nucleus. Broken again and again by the heaving of the\nseething mass, it at length sets permanently, and finally allows some\nportion of the liquid rain condensed upon it to remain as a boiling\nocean. Then began the reign of the waters, under which the first\nstratified rocks were laid down by the deposit of earthy and saline\nmatter suspended or dissolved in the heated sea. Such is the picture\nwhich science presents to us of the genesis of the earth, and so far\nas we can judge from his words, such must have been the picture\npresented to the mental vision of the ancient seer of creation; but he\ncould discern also that mysterious influence, the \"breath of Elohim,\"\nwhich moved on the face of the waters, and prepared for the evolution\nof land and of life from their bosom. He saw--\n\n  \"An earth--formless and void;\n  A vaporous abyss--dark at its very surface;\n  A universal ocean--the breath of God hovering over it.\"\n\nHow could such a scene be represented in words? since it presented\nnone of the familiar features of the actual world. Had he attempted to\ndilate upon it, he would, in the absence of the facts furnished by\nmodern science, have been obliged, like the writers of some of the\nless simple and primitive cosmogonies already quoted,[42] to adopt the\nfeeble expedient of enumerating the things not present. He wisely\ncontents himself with a few well-chosen words, which boldly sketch the\ncrude materials of a world hopeless and chaotic but for the animating\nbreath of the Almighty, who has created even that old chaos out of\nwhich is to be worked in the course of the six creative days all the\nvariety and beauty of a finished world.\n\nIn conclusion, the reader will perceive how this reticence of the\nauthor of Genesis strengthens the argument for the primitive age of\nthe document, and for the vision-theory as to its origin; and will\nalso observe that, in the conception of this ancient writer, the\n\"promise and potency\" of order and life reside not alone in the atoms\nof a vaporous world, but also in the will of its Creator.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nLIGHT AND CREATIVE DAYS.\n\n\n     \"And God said, Let light be, and light was; and God saw the\n     light that it was good, and separated the light from the\n     darkness; and God called the light Day; and the darkness he\n     called Night. And Evening was and Morning was--Day\n     one.\"--Genesis i., 3-5.\n\n\nLight is the first element of order and perfection introduced upon our\nplanet--the first innovation on the old regime of darkness and\ndesolation. There is a beautiful propriety in this, for the Hebrew\n_Aur_ (light) should be viewed as including heat and electricity as\nwell as light; and these three forces--if they are really distinct,\nand not merely various movements of one and the same ether--are in\nthemselves, or the proximate causes of their manifestation, the prime\nmovers of the machinery of nature, the vivifying forces without which\nthe primeval desolation would have been eternal. The statement\npresented here is, however, a bold one. Light without luminaries,\nwhich were afterward formed--independent light, so to speak, shining\nall around the earth--is an idea not likely to have occurred in the\ndays of Moses to the framer of a fictitious cosmogony, and yet it\ncorresponds in a remarkable manner with some of the theories which\nhave grown out of modern induction.\n\nI have said that the Hebrew word translated \"light\" includes the\nvibratory movements which we call heat and electricity as well. I make\nthis statement, not intending to assert that the Hebrews experimented\non these forces in the manner of modern science, and would therefore\nbe prepared to understand their laws or correlations as fully as we\ncan. I give the word this general sense simply because throughout the\nBible it is used to denote the solar light and heat, and also the\nelectric light of the thunder-cloud: \"the light of His cloud,\" \"the\nbright light which is in the clouds.\" The absence of \"_aur_,\"\ntherefore, in the primeval earth, is the absence of solar radiation,\nof the lightning's flash, and of volcanic fires. We shall in the\nsucceeding verses find additional reasons for excluding all these\nphenomena from the darkness of the primeval night.\n\nThe light of the first day can not reasonably be supposed to have been\nin any other than a visible and active state. Whether light be, as\nsupposed by the older physicists, luminous matter radiated with\nimmense velocity, or, as now appears more probable, merely the\nundulations of a universally diffused ether, its motion had already\ncommenced. The idea of the matter of light as distinct from its power\nof affecting the senses does not appear in the Scriptures any farther\nthan that the Hebrew name is probably radically identical with the\nword ether now used to express the undulating medium by which light is\npropagated; and if it did, the general creation of matter being stated\nin verse 1, and the notice of the separation of light and darkness\nbeing distinctly given in the present verse, there is no place left\nfor such a view here. For this reason, that explanation of these words\nwhich supposes that on the first day the _matter_ of light, or the\nether whose motions produce light, was created, and that on the fourth\nday, when luminaries were appointed, it became visible by beginning to\nundulate, must be abandoned; and the connection between these two\nstatements must be sought in some other group of facts than that\nconnected with the existence of the matter of light as distinct from\nits undulations.\n\nWhat, then, was the nature of the light which on the first day shone\nwithout the presence of any local luminary? It must have proceeded\nfrom luminous matter diffused through the whole space of the solar\nsystem, or surrounding our globe as with a mantle. It was \"clothed\nwith light as with a garment,\"\n\n  \"Sphered in a radiant cloud, for yet the sun was not.\"\n\nWe have already rejected the hypothesis that the primeval night\nproceeded from a temporary obscuration of the atmosphere; and the\nexpression, \"God said, Let light be,\" affords an additional reason,\nsince, in accordance with the strict precision of language which\neverywhere prevails in this ancient document, a mere restoration of\nlight would not be stated in such terms. If we wish to find a natural\nexplanation of the mode of illumination referred to, we must recur to\none or other of the suppositions mentioned above, that the luminous\nmatter formed a nebulous atmosphere, slowly concentrating itself\ntoward the centre of the solar system, or that it formed a special\nenvelope of our earth, which subsequently disappeared.\n\nWe may suppose this light-giving matter to be the same with that which\nnow surrounds the sun, and constitutes the stratum of luminous\nsubstance which, by its wondrous and unceasing power of emitting\nlight, gives him all his glory. To explain the division of the light\nfrom the darkness, we need only suppose that the luminous matter, in\nthe progress of its concentration, was at length all gathered within\nthe earth's orbit, and then, as one hemisphere only would be\nilluminated at a time, the separation of light from darkness, or of\nday from night, would be established. This hypothesis, suggested by\nthe words themselves, affords a simple and natural explanation of a\nstatement otherwise obscure.\n\nIt is an instructive circumstance that the probabilities respecting\nthe early state of our planet, thus deduced from the Scriptural\nnarrative, correspond very closely with the most ingenious and truly\nphilosophical speculation ever hazarded respecting the origin of our\nsolar system. I refer to the cosmical hypothesis of La Place, which\nwas certainly formed without any reference to the Bible; and by\npersons whose views of the Mosaic narrative are of that shallow\ncharacter which is too prevalent, has been suspected as of infidel\ntendency. La Place's theory is based on the following properties of\nthe solar system, which will be found referred to in this connection\nin many popular works on astronomy: 1. The orbits of the planets are\nnearly circular. 2. They revolve nearly in the plane of the sun's\nequator.[43] 3. They all revolve round the sun in one direction, which\nis also the direction of the sun's rotation. 4. They rotate on their\naxes also, as far as is known, in the same direction. 5. Their\nsatellites, with the exception of those of Uranus and Neptune, revolve\nin the same direction. Now all these coincidences can scarcely have\nbeen fortuitous, and yet they might have been otherwise without\naffecting the working of the system; and, farther, if not fortuitous,\nthey correspond precisely with the results which would flow from the\ncondensation of a revolving mass of nebulous matter. La Place,\ntherefore, conceived that in the beginning the matter of our system\nexisted in the condition of a mass of vaporous material, having a\ncentral nucleus more or less dense, and the whole rotating in a\nuniform direction. Such a mass must, \"in condensing by cold, leave in\nthe plane of its equator zones of vapor composed of substances which\nrequired an intense degree of cold to return to a liquid or solid\nstate. These zones must have begun by circulating round the sun in the\nform of concentric rings, the most volatile molecules of which must\nhave formed the superior part, and the most condensed the inferior\npart. If all the nebulous molecules of which these rings are composed\nhad continued to cool without disuniting, they would have ended by\nforming a liquid or solid ring. But the regular constitution which all\nparts of the ring would require for this, and which they would have\nneeded to preserve when cooling, would make this phenomenon extremely\nrare. Accordingly the solar system presents only one instance of\nit--that of the rings of Saturn. Generally the ring must have broken\ninto several parts which have continued to circulate round the sun,\nand with almost equal velocity, while at the same time, in consequence\nof their separation, they would acquire a rotatory motion round their\nrespective centres of gravity; and as the molecules of the superior\npart of the ring--that is to say, those farthest from the centre of\nthe sun--had necessarily an absolute velocity greater than the\nmolecules of the inferior part which is nearest it, the rotatory\nmotion common to all the fragments must always have been in the same\ndirection with the orbitual motion. However, if after their division\none of these fragments has been sufficiently superior to the others to\nunite them to it by its attraction, they will have formed only a mass\nof vapor, which, by the continual friction of all its parts, must have\nassumed the form of a spheroid, flattened at the poles and expanded in\nthe direction of its equator.\"[44] Here, then, are rings of vapor left\nby the successive retreats of the atmosphere of the sun, changed into\nso many planets in the condition of vapor, circulating round the\ncentral orb, and possessing a rotatory motion in the direction of\ntheir revolution, while the solar mass was gradually contracting\nitself round its centre and assuming its present organized form. Such\nis a general view of the hypothesis of La Place, which may also be\nfollowed out into all the known details of the solar system, and will\nbe found to account for them all. Into these details, however, we can\nnot now enter. Let us now compare this ingenious speculation with the\nScripture narrative. In both we have the raw material of the heavens\nand the earth created before it assumed its distinct forms. In both we\nhave that state of the planets characterized as without form and void,\nthe condensing nebulous mass of La Place's theory being in perfect\ncorrespondence with the Scriptural \"deep.\" In both it is implied that\nthe permanent mutual relations of the several bodies of the system\nmust have been perfected long after their origin. Lastly, supposing\nthe luminous atmosphere of our sun to have been of such a character as\nto concentrate itself wholly around the centre of the system, and that\nas it became concentrated it acquired its intense luminosity, we have\nin both the production of light from the same cause; and in both it\nwould follow that the concentration of this matter within the orbit of\nthe earth would effect the separation of day from night, by\nilluminating alternately the opposite sides of the earth. It is true\nthat the theory of La Place does not provide for any such special\ncondensation of luminous matter, nor for any precise stage of the\nprocess as that in which the arrangements of light and darkness should\nbe completed; but under his hypothesis it seems necessary to account\nin some such way for the sole luminosity of the sun; and the point of\nseparation of day and night must have been a marked epoch in the\nhistory of the process for each planet. The theory of accretion of\nmatter which has in modern times been associated with that of La Place\nwould equally well accord with the indications in our Mosaic\nrecord.[45]\n\nIt is further to be observed that so long as the material of the earth\nconstituted a part of the great vaporous mass, it would be encompassed\nwith its diffused light, and that after it had been left outside the\ncontracting solar envelope, it might still retain some independent\nluminosity in its atmosphere, a trace of which may still exist in the\nauroral displays of the upper strata of the air. The earth might thus\nat first be in total darkness. It might then be dimly lighted by the\nsurrounding nebulosity, or by a luminous envelope in its own\natmosphere. Then it might, as before explained, relapse into the\ndarkness of its misty mantle, and as this cleared away and the light\nof the sun increased and became condensed, the latter would gradually\nbe installed into his office as the sole orb of day. It is quite\nevident that we thus have a sufficient hypothetical explanation of the\nlight of the first of the creative aeons; and this is all that in the\npresent state of science we can expect. \"Where is the way where light\ndwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, that thou\nshouldest take it to the bound thereof, and know the way to the house\nthereof?\"\n\nFor the reasons above given, we must regard the hypothesis of the\ngreat French astronomer as a wonderful approximation to the grand and\nsimple plan of the construction of our system as revealed in\nScripture. Nor must we omit to notice that the telescope and the\nspectroscope reveal to us in the heavens gaseous nebular bodies which\nmay well be new systems in progress of formation, and in which the\nCreator is even now dividing the light from the darkness. Still\nanother thought in connection with this subject is that the theory of\na condensing system affords a measure of the aggregate time occupied\nin the work of creation. Sir William Thomson's well-known calculations\ngive us one hundred millions of years as the possible age of the earth\nas a planetary globe; but calculations of the sun's heat as produced\nby gravitation alone would give a much less time. We have, however, a\nright to assume an original heated condition of the vaporous mass from\nwhich the sun was formed. Still the date above given would seem to be\na maximum rather than a minimum age for the solar system.\n\n\"God saw the light that it was good,\" though it illuminated but a\nwaste of lifeless waters. It was good because beautiful in itself, and\nbecause God saw it in its relations to long trains of processes and\nwonderful organic structures on which it was to act as a vivifying\nagency. Throughout the Scriptures light is not only good, but an\nemblem of higher good. In Psalm civ. God is represented as \"clothing\nhimself with light as with a garment;\" and in many other parts of\nthese exquisite lyrics we have similar figures. \"The Lord is my light\nand salvation;\" \"Lift up the light of thy countenance upon me;\" \"The\nentrance of thy law giveth light;\" \"The path of the just is as a\nshining light.\" And the great spiritual Light of the world, the \"only\nbegotten of the Father,\" the mediator alike in creation and\nredemption, is himself the \"Sun of Righteousness.\" Perhaps the noblest\nScripture passage relating to the blessing of light is one in the\naddress of Jehovah to Job, which is unfortunately so imperfectly\ntranslated in the English version as to be almost unintelligible:\n\n  \"Hast thou in thy lifetime given law to the morning,\n  Or caused the dawn to know its place,\n  That it may enclose the horizon in its grasp,\n  And chase the robbers before it:\n  It rolls along as the seal over the clay,\n  Causing all things to stand forth in gorgeous apparel.\"[46]\n\n                                       Job xxxviii., 12.\n\n\nThe concluding words, \"Day one,\" bring us to the consideration of one\nof the most difficult problems in this history, and one on which its\nsignificance in a great measure depends--the meaning of the word\n_day_, and the length of the days of creation.\n\nIn pursuing this investigation, I shall refrain from noticing in\ndetail the views of the many able modern writers who, from Cuvier, De\nLuc, and Jameson, down to Hugh Miller, Donald McDonald, and Tayler\nLewis, have maintained the period theory, or those equally numerous\nand able writers who have supported the opposite view. I acknowledge\nobligations to them all, but prefer to direct my attention immediately\nto the record itself.\n\nThe first important fact that strikes us is one which has not\nreceived the attention it deserves, viz., that the word _day_ is\nevidently used in three senses in the record itself. We are told\n(verse 5th) that God called the _light_, that is, the diurnal\ncontinuance of light, day. We are also informed that the _evening_ and\nthe _morning_ were the first day. Day, therefore, in one of these\nclauses is the light as separated from the darkness, which we may call\nthe _natural day_; in the other it is the whole time occupied in the\ncreation of light and its separation from the darkness, whether that\nwas a _civil or astronomical day_ of twenty-four hours or some longer\nperiod. In other words, the daylight, to which God is represented as\nrestricting the use of the term day, is only a part of a day of\ncreation, which included both light and darkness, and which might be\neither a civil day or a longer period, but could not be the natural\nday intervening between sunrise and sunset, which is the _ordinary_\nday of Scripture phraseology. Again, in the 4th verse of chapter ii.,\nwhich begins the second part of the history, the whole creative week\nis called one day--\"In the day that Jehovah Elohim made the earth and\nthe heavens.\" Such an expression must surely in such a place imply\nmore than a mere inadvertence on the part of the writer or writers.\n\nTo pave the way for a right understanding of the day of creation, it\nmay be well to consider, in the first place, the manner in which the\n_shorter day_ is introduced. In the expression, \"God _called_ the\nlight day,\" we find for the first time the Creator naming his works,\nand we may infer that some important purpose was to be served by this.\nThe nature of this purpose we ascertain by comparison with other\ninstances of the same kind occurring in the chapter. God called the\ndarkness night, the firmament heaven, the dry land earth, the gathered\nwaters seas. In all these cases the purpose seems to have been one of\nverbal definition, perhaps along with an assertion of sovereignty. It\nwas necessary to distinguish the diurnal darkness from that unvaried\ndarkness which had been of old, and to discriminate between the\nlimited waters of an earth having dry land on its surface and those of\nthe ancient universal ocean. This is effected by introducing two new\nterms, night and seas. In like manner it was necessary to mark the new\napplication of the term earth to the dry land, and that of heaven to\nthe atmosphere, more especially as these were the senses in which the\nwords were to be popularly used. The intention, therefore, in all\nthese cases was to affix to certain things names different from those\nwhich they had previously borne in the narrative, and to certain terms\nnew senses differing from those in which they had been previously\nused. Applying this explanation here, it results that the probable\nreason for calling the light day is to point out that the word occurs\nin two senses, and that while it was to be the popular and proper term\nfor the natural day, this sense must be distinguished from its other\nmeaning as a day of creation. In short, we may take this as a plain\nand authoritative declaration _that the day of creation is not the day\nof popular speech_. We see in this a striking instance of the general\ntruth that in the simplicity of the structure of this record we find\nnot carelessness, but studied and severe precision, and are warned\nagainst the neglect of the smallest peculiarities in its diction.\n\nWhat, then, is the day of creation, as distinguished by Moses himself\nfrom the natural day. The general opinion, and that which at first\nsight appears most probable, is that it is merely the ordinary civil\nday of twenty-four hours. Those who adopt this view insist on the\nimpropriety of diverting the word from its usual sense. Unfortunately,\nhowever, for this argument, the word is not very frequently used in\nthe Scriptures for the whole twenty-four hours of the earth's\nrevolution. Its etymology gives it the sense of the time of glowing or\nwarmth, and in accordance with this the divine authority here limits\nits meaning to the daylight. Accordingly throughout the Hebrew\nScriptures _yom_ is generally the natural and not the civil day; and\nwhere the latter is intended, the compound terms \"day and night\" and\n\"evening and morning\" are frequently used. Any one who glances over\nthe word \"day\" in a good English concordance can satisfy himself of\nthis fact. But the sense of natural day from sunrise to sunset is\nexpressly excluded here by the context, as already shown; and all that\nwe can say in favor of the interpretation that limits the day of\ncreation to twenty-four hours, is that next to the use of the word for\nthe natural day, which is its true popular meaning, its use for the\ncivil day is perhaps the most frequent. It is therefore by no means a\nstatement of the whole truth to affirm, as many writers have done,\nthat the civil day is _the ordinary_ meaning of the term. At the same\ntime we may admit that this is _one_ of its ordinary meanings, and\ntherefore may be its meaning here. Another argument frequently urged\nis that the day of creation is said to have had an evening and\nmorning. We shall consider this more fully in the sequel, and in the\nmean time may observe that it appears rather hazardous to attribute an\nordinary evening and morning to a day which, on the face of the\nrecord, preceded the formation and arrangement of the luminaries which\nare \"for days and for years.\"[47]\n\nBut it may be affirmed that in the Bible long and undefined periods\nare indicated by the word \"day.\" In many of these cases the word is in\nthe plural: as Genesis iv., 3, \"And after days it came to pass,\"\nrendered in our version \"in process of time;\" Genesis xl., 4, \"days in\nward,\" rendered \"a season.\" Such instances as these are not applicable\nto the present question, since the plural may have the sense of\nindefinite time, merely by denoting an undetermined number of natural\ndays. Passages in which the singular occurs in this sense are those\nwhich strictly apply to the case in hand, and such are by no means\nrare. A very remarkable example is that in Genesis ii., 4, already\nmentioned, where we find, \"In the day when Jehovah Elohim made the\nearth and the heavens.\" This day must either mean the beginning, or\nmust include the whole six days; most probably the latter, since the\nword \"made\" refers not to the act of creation, properly so called, but\nto the elaborating processes of the creative week; and occurring as\nthis does immediately after the narrative of creation, it seems almost\nlike an intentional intimation of the wide import of the creative\ndays. It has been objected, however, that the expression \"in the day\"\nis properly a compound adverb, having the force of \"when\" or \"at the\ntime.\" But the learned and ingenious authors who urge this objection\nhave omitted to consider the relative probabilities as to whether the\nadverbial use had arisen while the word _yom_ meant simply a day, or\nwhether the use of the noun for long periods was the reason of the\nintroduction of such an adverbial expression. The probabilities are in\nfavor of the latter, for it is not likely that men would construct an\nadverb referring to indefinite time from a word denoting one of the\nmost precisely limited portions of time, unless that word had also a\nsecond and more unlimited sense. Admitting, therefore, that the phrase\nis an adverb of time, its use so early as the date of the composition\nof Genesis, to denote a period longer than a literal day, seems to\nimply that this indefinite use of the word was of high antiquity, and\nprobably preceded the invention of any term by which long periods\ncould be denoted.\n\nThis use of the word \"day\" is, however, not limited to cases of the\noccurrence of the formula \"in the day.\" The following are a few out of\nmany instances that might be quoted: Job xviii., 20, \"They that come\nafter him shall be astonished at his day;\" Job xv., 32, \"It shall be\naccomplished before his _time_;\" Judges xviii., 30, \"Until the day of\nthe captivity of the land;\" Deut. i., 39, \"And your children which in\nthat day had no knowledge of good and evil;\" Gen. xxxix., 10, \"And it\ncame to pass about that time\" (on that day). We find also abundance of\nsuch expressions as \"day of calamity,\" \"day of distress,\" \"day of\nwrath,\" \"day of God's power,\" \"day of prosperity.\" In such passages\nthe word is evidently used in the sense of era or period of time, and\nthis in prose as well as poetry.\n\nThere is a remarkable passage in the Psalms, which conveys the idea of\na day of God as distinct from human or terrestrial days:\n\n  \"Before the mountains were brought forth,\n  Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world,\n  Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.\n  Thou turnest man to destruction,\n  And sayest, Return, ye children of men;\n  For a thousand years are in thy sight as yesterday when it is past,\n  And as a watch in the night.\"[48]\n\nIt is a singular coincidence that the authorship of this Psalm is\nattributed to Moses, and that its style and language correspond with\nthe songs credited to him in Deuteronomy. It is farther to be observed\nthat the reference is to the long periods employed in creation as\ncontrasted with the limited space of years allotted to man. Its\nmeaning, too, is somewhat obscured by the inaccurate translation of\nthe third line. In the original it is, \"From _olam_ to _olam_ thou\nart, O El\"--that is, \"from age to age.\" These long ages of creation,\nconstituting a duration to us relatively eternal, were so protracted\nthat even a thousand years are but as a watch in the night. If this\nPsalm is rightly attributed to the author of the first chapter of\nGenesis, it seems absolutely certain that he understood his own\ncreative days as being _Olamim_ or aeons. The same thought occurs in\nthe Second Epistle of Peter: \"One day is with the Lord as a thousand\nyears, and a thousand years as one day.\"\n\nThat the other writers of the Old Testament understood the creative\ndays in this sense, might be inferred from the entire absence of any\nreference to the work of creation as short, since it occupied only six\ndays. Such reference we may find in modern writers, but never in the\nScriptures. On the contrary, we receive the impression of the creative\nwork as long continued. Thus the divine Wisdom says in Prov. viii.,\nThe Lord possessed me \"from the beginning of his way before his works\nof old, from everlasting, before the antiquities of the earth.\" So in\nPsalm cxlv., God's kingdom relatively to nature and providence is a\nkingdom \"of all ages.\" In Psalm civ., which is a poetical version of\nthe creative work, and the oldest extant commentary on Genesis i., it\nis evident that there was no idea in the mind of the writer of a short\ntime, but rather of long consecutive processes; and I may remark here\nthat the course of the narrative itself in Genesis i., implies time\nfor the replenishing of the earth with various forms of being in\npreparation for others, exactly as in Psalm civ.\n\nPerhaps one of the most conclusive arguments in favor of the length of\nthe creative days is that furnished by the seventh day and the\ninstitution of the Sabbath. In Genesis the seventh day is not said to\nhave had any evening or morning, nor is God said to have resumed his\nwork on any eighth day. Consequently the seventh day of creation must\nbe still current. Now in the fourth commandment the Israelites are\nenjoined to \"remember the Sabbath-day,\" because \"in six days God\ncreated the heavens and the earth.\" Observe here that the Sabbath is\nto be remembered as an institution already known. Observe farther that\nthe commandment is placed in the middle of the Decalogue, a solitary\npiece of apparently arbitrary ritual amid the plainest and most\nobvious moral duties. Observe also that the reason given--namely,\nGod's six days' work and seventh day's rest--seems at first sight both\nfar-fetched and trivial, as an argument for abstaining from work in a\nseventh part of our time. How is all this to be explained? Simply, I\nthink, on the supposition that the Lawgiver, and those for whom he\nlegislated, knew beforehand the history of creation and the fall, as\nwe have them recorded in Genesis, and knew that God's days are aeons.\nThe argument is not, \"God worked on six natural days, and rested on\nthe seventh; do you therefore the same.\" Such an argument could have\nno moral or religious force, more especially as it could not be\naffirmed that God habitually works and rests in this way. The argument\nreaches far deeper and higher. It is this. God created the world in\nsix of his days, and on the seventh rested, and invited man in Eden to\nenter on his rest as a perpetual Sabbath of happiness. But man fell,\nand lost God's Sabbath. Therefore a weekly Sabbath was prescribed to\nhim as a memorial of what he had lost, and a pledge of what God has\npromised in the renewal of life and happiness through our Saviour.\nThus the Sabbath is the central point of the moral law--the Gospel in\nthe Decalogue--the connection between God and man through the promise\nof redemption. It is this and this alone that gives it its true\nreligious significance, but is lost on the natural-day theory. It\nwould farther seem that this view of the law was that of our Lord\nhimself, and was known to the Jews of his time, for, when blamed for\nhealing a man on the Sabbath, he says, \"My Father worketh hitherto,\nand I work\"--an argument whose force depended on the fact that God\ncontinues to work in his providence throughout his long Sabbath, which\nhas never been broken except by man. Farther, the writer of the\nEpistle to the Hebrews takes this view in arguing as to the rest or\nSabbatism that remains to the people of God. His argument (chap. iv.,\n4) may be stated thus: God finished his work and entered into his\nrest. Man, in consequence of the fall, failed to do so. He has made\nseveral attempts since, but unsuccessfully. Now Christ has finished\nhis work, and has entered into his Sabbath, and through him we may\nenter into that rest of God which otherwise we can not attain to. This\ndoes not, it is true, refer to the keeping of a Sabbath-day; but it\nimplies an understanding of the reference to God's olamic Sabbath,\nand also implies that Christ, having entered into his Sabbatism in\nheaven, gives us a warrant for the Christian Sabbath or Lord's day,\nwhich has the same relation to Christ's present Sabbatism in heaven\nthat the old Sabbath had to God's rest from his work of creation.[49]\n\nWe may add to these considerations the use of the Greek term _Ai[=o]n_\nin the New Testament, for what may be called time-worlds as\ndistinguished from space-worlds. For example, take the expression in\nHeb. i., 2: \"His Son, by whom he made the worlds,\" or, literally,\n\"constituted the aeons\"--the long time-worlds of the creation. For\nGod's worlds must exist in time as well as in space, and both may to\nour minds alike appear as infinities. If, then, we find that Moses\nhimself seems to have understood his creative days as aeons, that the\nsucceeding Old Testament writers favor the same view, that this view\nis essential to the true significance of the Sabbath and the Lord's\nday, and that it is sustained by Christ and his apostles, there is\nsurely no need for our clinging to a mediaeval notion which has no\ntheological value, and is in opposition to the facts of nature. On the\ncontrary, should not even children be taught these grand truths, and\nled to contemplate the great work of Him who is from aeon to aeon, and\nto think of that Sabbatism which he prepared for us, and which he\nstill offers to us in the future, in connection with the succession of\nworlds in time revealed by geology, and which rivals in grandeur and\nperhaps exceeds in interest the extension of worlds in space revealed\nby astronomy. In truth, we should bear in mind that the great\nrevelations of astronomy have too much habituated us to think of\nspace-worlds rather than time-worlds, while the latter idea was\nevidently dominant with the Biblical writers as it is also with modern\ngeologists. Viewed as aeons--divine days, or time-worlds--the days of\ncreation are thus a reality for all ages; and connect themselves with\nthe highest moral teachings of the Bible in relation to the fall of\nman and God's plan for his restoration, begun in this seventh aeon of\nthe world's long history, and to be completed in that second divine\nSabbatism, secured by the work of redemption, the final \"rest\" of the\n\"new heavens and new earth,\" which remains for the people of God.\n\nBut supposing that the inspired writer intended to say that the world\nwas formed in six long periods of time, could not he have used some\nother word than _yom_ that would have been liable to fewer doubts.\nThere are words which might have been used, as, for instance, _eth_,\ntime, season, or _olam_, age, ancient time, eternity. The former,\nhowever, has about it a want of precision as to its beginning and end\nwhich unfits it for this use; the latter we have already seen is used\nas equivalent to the creative _yom_. On the whole, I am unable to\nfind any instance which would justify me in affirming that, on the\nsupposition that Moses intended long periods, he could have better\nexpressed the idea than by the use of the word _yom_, more especially\nif he and those to whom he wrote were familiar with the thought,\npreserved to us in the mythology of the Hindoos and Persians, and\nprobably widely diffused in ancient Asia, that a working day of the\nCreator immeasurably transcends a working day of man.[50]\n\nMany objections to the view which I have thus endeavored to support\nfrom internal evidence will at once occur to every intelligent reader\nfamiliar with the literature of this subject. I shall now attempt to\ngive the principal of these objections a candid consideration.\n\n(1.) It is objected that the time occupied in the work of creation is\ngiven as a reason for the observance of the seventh day as a Sabbath;\nand that this requires us to view the days of creation as literal\ndays. \"For in six days Jehovah made the heaven and the earth, the sea\nand all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; therefore\nJehovah blessed the Sabbath-day and sanctified it.\" The argument used\nhere is, however, as we have already seen, one of analogy. Because God\nrested on his seventh day, he blessed and sanctified it, and required\nmen in like manner to sanctify their seventh day.[51] Now, if it\nshould appear that the working day of God is not the same with the\nworking day of man, and that the Sabbath of God is of proportionate\nlength to his working day, the analogy is not weakened; more\nespecially as we find the same analogy extended to the seventh year.\nIf it should be said, God worked in the creation of the world in six\nlong ages, and rested on the seventh, therefore man, in commemoration\nof this fact, and of his own loss of an interest in God's rest by the\nfall, shall sanctify the seventh of his working days, the argument is\nstronger, the example more intelligible, than on the common\nsupposition. This objection is, in fact, a piece of pedantic\nhyperorthodoxy which has too long been handed about without\ninvestigation. I may add to what has been already said in reference to\nit, the following vigorous thrust by Hugh Miller:[52]\n\n\"I can not avoid thinking that many of our theologians attach a too\nnarrow meaning to the remarkable reason attached to the fourth\ncommandment by the divine Lawgiver. \"God rested on the seventh day,\"\nsays the text, \"from all his work which he had created and made; and\nGod blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.\" And such is the reason\ngiven in the Decalogue why man should rest on the Sabbath-day. God\nrested on the Sabbath-day and sanctified it; and therefore man ought\nalso to rest on the Sabbath and keep it holy. But I know not where we\nshall find grounds for the belief that the Sabbath-day during which\nGod rested was merely commensurate with one of the Sabbaths of\nshort-lived man--a brief period measured by a single revolution of the\nearth on its axis. We have not, as has been shown, a shadow of\nevidence that he resumed his work of creation on the morrow; the\ngeologist finds no trace of post-Adamic creation; the theologian can\ntell us of none. God's Sabbath of rest may still exist; the work of\nredemption may be the work of his Sabbath-day. That elevatory process\nthrough successive acts of creation, which engaged him during myriads\nof ages, was of an ordinary week-day character; but when the term of\nhis moral government began, the elevatory process peculiar to it\nassumed the divine character of the Sabbath. This special view appears\nto lend peculiar emphasis to the reason embodied in the commandment.\nThe collation of the passage with the geologic record seems, as if by\na species of retranslation, to make it enunciate as its injunction,\n\"Keep this day, not merely as a day of memorial related to a past\nfact, but also as a day of co-operation with God in the work of\nelevation, in relation both to a present fact and a future purpose.\"\n\"God keeps his Sabbath,\" it says, \"in order that he may save; keep\nyours also that ye may be saved.\" It serves besides to throw light on\nthe prominence of the Sabbatical command, in a digest of law of which\nno jot or tittle can pass away until the fulfillment of all things.\nDuring the present dynasty of probation and trial, that special work\nof both God and man on which the character of the future dynasty\ndepends is the Sabbath-day work of saving and being saved.\n\n\"The common objection to that special view which regards the days of\ncreation as immensely protracted periods of time, furnishes a\nspecimen, if not of reasoning in a circle, at least of reasoning from\na mere assumption. It first takes for granted that the Sabbath-day\nduring which God rested was a day of but twenty-four hours, and then\nargues from the supposition that, in order to keep up the proportion\nbetween the six previous working days and the seventh day of rest,\nwhich the reason annexed to the fourth commandment demands, these\nprevious days must also have been twenty-four hours each. It would, I\nhave begun to suspect, square better with the ascertained facts, and\nbe at least equally in accordance with Scripture, to reverse the\nprocess, and argue that because God's working days were immensely\nprotracted periods, his Sabbath also must be an immensely protracted\nperiod. The reason attached to the law of the Sabbath seems to be\nsimply a reason of proportion: the objection to which I refer is an\nobjection palpably founded on considerations of proportion, and\ncertainly were the reason to be divested of proportion, it would be\ndivested also of its distinctive character as a reason. Were it as\nfollows, it could not be at all understood: \"Six days shalt thou\nlabor, etc.; but on the seventh day shalt thou do no labor, etc.; for\nin six immensely protracted periods of several thousand years each did\nthe Lord make the heavens and the earth, etc.; and then rested during\na brief day of twenty-four hours; therefore the Lord blessed the brief\nday of twenty-four hours and hallowed it.\" This, I repeat, would not\nbe reason. All, however, that seems necessary to the integrity of the\nreason, in its character as such, is that the proportion of six parts\nto seven should be maintained. God's periods may be periods expressed\nalgebraically by letters symbolical of unknown quantities, and man's\nperiods by letters symbolical of quantities well known; but if God's\nSabbath be equal to one of his six working days, and man's Sabbath\nequal to one of his six working days, the integrity of proportion is\nmaintained.\"\n\nNot only does this view of the case entirely remove the objection,\nbut, as we have already seen, it throws a new light on the nature and\nreason of the Sabbath. No good reason, except that of setting an\nexample, can be assigned for God's resting for a literal day. But if\nGod's Sabbath of rest from natural creation is still in progress, and\nif our short Sabbaths are symbolical of the work of that great Sabbath\nin its present gray morning and in its coming glorious noon, then may\nthe Christian thank this question, incidentally raised by geology and\nits long periods, for a ray of light which shines along the whole\ncourse of Scripture history, from the first Sabbath up to that final\n\"rest which remaineth for the people of God.\"[53]\n\n(2.) It is objected that evening and morning are ascribed to the first\nday. This has been already noticed; it may here be considered more\nfully. The word evening in the original is literally the darkening,\nthe sunset, the dusk. Morning is the _opening_ or _breaking forth_ of\nlight--the daybreak. It must not be denied that the explanation of\nthese terms is attended with some difficulty, but this is not at all\nlessened by narrowing the day to twenty-four hours. The first\noperation of the first day was the creation of light; next we have the\nCreator contemplating his work and pronouncing it to be good; then we\nhave the separation of the light and darkness, previously, it is to be\npresumed, intermixed; and all this without the presence of a sun or\nother luminary. Which of these operations occupied the evening, and\nwhich the morning, if the day consisted of but twenty-four hours,\nbeginning, according to Hebrew custom, in the evening? Was the old\nprimeval darkness the evening or night, and the first breaking forth\nof light morning? This is almost the only view compatible with the\nHebrew civil day beginning at evening, but it would at once lengthen\nthe day beyond twenty-four hours, and contradict the terms of the\nrecord. Again, were the separated light and darkness the morning and\nevening? If so, why is the evening mentioned first, contrary to the\nsupposed facts of the case? why, indeed, are the evening and morning\nmentioned at all, since on that supposition this is merely a\nrepetition? Lastly, shall we adopt the ingenious expedient of dividing\nthe evening and morning between two days, and maintaining that the\nevening belongs to the first and the morning to the second day, which\nwould deprive the first day of a morning, and render the creative\ndays, whatever their length, altogether different from Hebrew natural\nor civil days? It is unnecessary to pursue such inquiries farther,\nsince it is evident that the terms of the record will not agree with\nthe supposition of natural evening and morning. This is of itself a\nstrong presumption against the hypothesis of civil days, since the\nwriter was under no necessity so to word these verses that they would\nnot give any rational or connected sense on the supposition of natural\nevening and morning, unless he wished to be otherwise understood.\n\nBut what is the meaning of evening and morning, if these days were\nlong periods? Here fewer difficulties meet us. First: It is readily\nconceivable that the beginning and end of a period named a day should\nbe called evening and morning. But what made the use of these\ndivisions necessary or appropriate? I answer that nature and\nrevelation both give grounds at least to suspect that the evening, or\nearlier part of each period, was a time of comparative inaction,\nsometimes even of retrogression, and that the latter part of each\nperiod was that of its greatest activity and perfection. Thus, on the\nviews stated in a former chapter, in the first day there was a time\nwhen luminous matter, either gradually concentrating itself toward the\nsun, or surrounding the earth itself, shed a dim but slowly increasing\nlight; then there were day and night, the light increasing in\nintensity as, toward the end of the period, the luminous matter became\nmore and more concentrated around the sun. So in our own seventh day,\nthe earlier part was a time of deplorable retrogression, and though\nthe Sun of Righteousness has arisen, we have seen as yet only a dim\nand cloudy morning. On the theory of days of vision, as expounded by\nHugh Miller, in the \"Testimony of the Rocks,\" in one of his noblest\npassages, the evening and night fall on each picture presented to the\nseer like the curtain of a stage. Secondly: Though the explanation\nstated above is the most probable, the hypothesis of long periods\nadmits of another, namely, that the writer means to inform us that\nevening and morning, once established by the separation of light from\ndarkness, continued without cessation throughout the remainder of the\nperiod--rolling from this time uninterruptedly around our planet, like\nthe seal cylinder over the clay.[54] This explanation is, however,\nless applicable to the following days than to the first. Nor does this\naccord with the curious fact that the seventh day, which, on the\nhypothesis of long periods, is still in progress, is not said to have\nhad an evening or morning.\n\n(3.) It is objected that the first chapter of Genesis \"is not a poem\nnor a piece of oratorical diction,\" but a simple prosaic narrative,\nand consequently that its terms must be taken in a literal sense. In\nanswer to this, I urge that the most truly literal sense of the word,\nnamely, the _natural_ day, is excluded by the terms of the narrative;\nand that the word may be received as a literal day of the Creator, in\nthe sense of one of his working periods, without involving the use of\npoetical diction, and in harmony with the wording of plain prosaic\npassages in other parts of the Bible. Examples of this have already\nbeen given. It is, however, true that, though the first chapter of\nGenesis is not strictly poetical, it is thrown into a metrical form\nwhich admits of some approach to a figurative expression in the case\nof a term of this kind.\n\n(4.) It has been urged that in cases where day is used to denote\nperiod, as in the expressions \"day of calamity,\" etc., the adjuncts\nplainly show that it can not mean an ordinary day. In answer to this,\nI merely refer to the internal evidence already adduced, and to the\ndeliberate character of the statements, in the manner rather of the\ndescription of processes than of acts. The difficulties attending the\nexplanation of the evening and the morning, and the successive\ncreation of herbivorous and carnivorous animals, are also strong\nindications which should serve here to mark the sense, just as the\ncontext does in the cases above referred to.\n\n(5.) In Professor Hitchcock's valuable and popular \"Religion of\nGeology,\" I find some additional objections, which deserve notice as\nspecimens of the learned trifles which pass current among writers on\nthis subject, much to the detriment of sound Scriptural literature. I\ngive them in the words of the author. 1. \"From Genesis ii., 5 compared\nwith Genesis i., 11 and 12, it seems that it had not rained on the\nearth till the third day; a fact altogether probable if the days were\nof twenty-four hours, but absurd if they were long periods.\" It\nstrikes us that the absurdity here is all on the side of the short\ndays. Why should any prominence be given to a fact so common as the\nlapse of two ordinary days without rain, more especially if a region\nof the earth and not the whole is referred to, and in a document\nprepared for a people residing in climates such as those of Egypt and\nPalestine. But what could be more instructive and confirmatory of the\ntruth of the narrative than the fact that in the two long periods\nwhich preceded the formation and clearing up of the atmosphere or\nfirmament, on which rain depends, and the elevation of the dry land,\nwhich so greatly modifies its distribution, there had been no rain\nsuch as now occurs. This is a most important fact, and one of the\nmarked coincidences of the record with scientific truth. The\nobjection, therefore, merely shows that the ordinary day hypothesis\ntends to convert one of the finest internal harmonies of this\nwonderful history into an empty and, in some respects, absurd\ncommonplace. 2. \"This hypothesis (that days are long periods) assumes\nthat Moses describes the creation of all the animals and plants that\nhave ever lived on our globe. But geology decides that the species now\nliving, since they are not found in the rocks any lower than man\nis,[55] could not have been contemporaneous with those in the rocks,\nbut must have been created when man was--that is, in the sixth day. Of\nsuch a creation no mention is made in Genesis; the inference is that\nMoses does not describe the creation of the existing races, but only\nof those that lived thousands of years earlier, and whose existence\nwas scarcely suspected till modern times. Who will admit such an\nabsurdity?\" In answer to this objection, I remark that it is based on\na false assumption. The hypothesis of long periods does not require us\nto assume that Moses notices all the animals and plants that have ever\nlived, but on the contrary that he informs us only of the _first\nappearance_ of each great natural type in the animal and vegetable\nkingdoms; just as he informs us of the first appearance of dry land on\nthe third day, but says nothing of the changes which it underwent on\nsubsequent days. Thus plants were created on the third day, and though\nthey may have been several times destroyed and renewed as to genera\nand species, we infer that they continued to exist in all the\nsucceeding days, though the inspired historian does not inform us of\nthe fact. So also many tribes of animals were created in the early\npart of the fifth day, and it is quite unnecessary for us to be\ninformed that these tribes continued to exist through the sixth day.\nIf the days were long periods, the inspired writer could not have\nadopted any other course, unless he had been instructed to write a\ntreatise on Palaeontology, and to describe the fauna and flora of each\nsuccessive period with their characteristic differences. 3. \"Though\nthere is a general resemblance between the order of creation as\ndescribed in Genesis and by geology, yet when we look at the details\nof the creation of the organic world, as required by this hypothesis,\nwe find manifest discrepancy. Thus the Bible represents plants only to\nhave been created on the third day, and animals not till the fifth;\nand hence at least the lower half of the fossiliferous rocks ought to\ncontain nothing but vegetables. Whereas in fact the lower half of\nthese rocks, all below the carboniferous, although abounding in\nanimals, contain scarcely any plants, and these in the lowest strata\nfucoids or sea-weeds. But the Mosaic account evidently describes\nflowering and seed-bearing plants, not flowerless and seedless algae.\nAgain, reptiles are described in Genesis as created on the fifth day;\nbut reptilia and batrachians existed as early as the time when the\nlower carboniferous and even old red sandstone were in course of\ndeposition, as their tracks on those rocks in Nova Scotia and\nPennsylvania evince.[56] In short, if we maintain that Moses describes\nfossils as well as living species, we find discrepancy instead of\ncorrespondence between his order of creation and that of geology.\" In\nthis objection it is assumed that the geological history of the earth\ngoes back to the third day of creation, or, in other words, to the\ndawn of organic life. None of the greater authorities in geology\nwould, however, now venture to make such an assertion, and the\nprogress of geology is rapidly making the contrary more and more\nprobable. The fact is that, on the supposition that the days of\ncreation are long periods, the whole series of the fossiliferous rocks\nbelongs to the fifth and sixth days; and that for the early plant\ncreation of the third day, and the great physical changes of the\nfourth, geology has nothing as yet to show, except a mass of\nmetamorphosed eozoic rocks which have hitherto yielded no fossils\nexcept a few Protozoa; but which contain vast quantities of carbon in\nthe form of graphite, which may be the remains of plants.\n\nI have much pleasure in quoting, as a further answer to these\nobjections, the following from Professor Dana:[57]\n\n\"Accepting the account in Genesis as true, the seeming discrepancy\nbetween it and geology rests mainly here: Geology holds, and has held\nfrom the first, that the progress of creation was mainly through\nsecondary causes; for the existence of the science presupposes this.\nMoses, on the contrary, was thought to sustain the idea of a simple\nfiat for each step. Grant this first point to science, and what\nfarther conflict is there? _The question of the length of time_, it is\nreplied. But not so; for if we may take the record as allowing more\nthan six days of twenty-four hours, the Bible then places no limit to\ntime. _The question of the days and periods_, it is replied again. But\nthis is of little moment in comparison with the first principle\ngranted. Those who admit the length of time and stand upon days of\ntwenty-four hours have to place geological time _before_ the six days,\nand then assume a chaos and reordering of creation, on the six-day and\nfiat principle, after a previous creation that had operated for a long\nperiod through secondary causes. Others take days as periods, and thus\nallow the required time, admitting that creation was one in progress,\na grand whole, instead of a _first_ creation excepting man by one\nmethod, and a _second_ with man by the other. This is now the\nremaining question between the theologians and geologists; for all the\nminor points, as to the exact interpretation of each day, do not\naffect the general concordance or discordance of the Bible and\nscience.\n\n\"On this point geology is now explicit in its decision, and indeed has\nlong been so. It proves that there was no return to chaos, no great\nrevolution, that creation was beyond doubt one in its progress. We\nknow that some geologists have taken the other view. But it is only in\nthe capacity of theologians, and not as geologists. The Rev. Dr.\nBuckland, in placing the great events of geology between the first and\nsecond verses of the Mosaic account, did not pretend that there was a\ngeological basis for such an hypothesis; and no writer since has ever\nbrought forward the first fact in geology to support the idea of a\nrearrangement just before man; not one solitary fact has ever been\nappealed to. The conclusion was on Biblical grounds, and not in any\nsense on geological. The best that Buckland could say, when he wrote\ntwenty-five years since, was that geology did not absolutely disprove\nsuch an hypothesis; and that can not be said now.\n\n\"It is often asserted, in order to unsettle confidence in these\nparticular teachings of geology, that geology is a changing science.\nIn this connection the remark conveys an erroneous impression. Geology\nis a progressive science; and all its progress tends to establish more\nfirmly these two principles: (1) The slow progress of creation through\nsecondary causes, as explained; and (2) the progress by periods\nanalogous to the days of Genesis.\"\n\nI have, I trust, shown that the principal objections to the\nlengthening of the Mosaic days into great cosmical periods are of a\ncharacter too light and superficial to deserve any regard. I shall now\nendeavor to add to the internal evidence previously given some\nconsiderations of an external character which support this view.\n\n1. The fact that the creation was progressive, that it proceeded from\nthe formation of the raw material of the universe, through successive\nstages, to the perfection of living organisms, if we regard the\nanalogy of God's operations as disclosed in the geological history of\nthe earth and in the present course of nature, must impress us with a\nsuspicion that long periods were employed in the work. God might have\nprepared the earth for man in an instant. He did not choose to do so,\nbut on the contrary proceeded step by step; and the record he has\ngiven us does not receive its full significance nor attain its full\nharmony with the course of geological history, unless we can\nunderstand each day of the creative week as including a long\nsuccession of ages.\n\n2. We have, as already explained, reason to believe that the seventh\nday at least has been of long duration. At the close of the sixth, God\nrested from all his work of material creation, and we have as yet no\nevidence that he has resumed it. Neither theologians nor evolutionists\nwill, I presume, desire to maintain that any strictly creative acts\nhave occurred in the modern period of geology. We know that the\npresent day, if it is the seventh, has lasted already for at least six\nthousand years, and, if we may judge from the testimony of prophecy,\nhas yet a long space to run, before it merges in that \"new heaven and\nnew earth\" for which all believers look, and which will constitute the\nfirst day of an endless sabbatism.\n\n3. The philosophical and religious systems of many ancient nations\nafford intimations of the somewhat extensive prevalence in ancient\ntimes of the notion of long creative periods, corresponding to the\nMosaic days. These notions, in so far as they are based on truth, are\nprobably derived from the Mosaic narrative itself, or from the\nprimitive patriarchal documents which may have formed the basis of\nthat narrative. They are, no doubt, all more or less garbled versions,\nand can not be regarded as of any authority, but they serve to show\nwhat was the interpretation of the document in a very remote\nantiquity. I have collected from a variety of sources the following\nexamples:\n\nThe ancient mythology of Persia appears to have had six creative\nperiods, each apparently of a thousand years, and corresponding very\nnearly with the Mosaic days.[58] The Chaldeans had a similar system,\nto which in a previous chapter we have already referred. The Etruscans\npossessed a history of the creation, somewhat resembling that of the\nBible, and representing the creation as occupying six periods of a\nthousand years each.[59]\n\nThe Egyptians believed that the world had been subject to a series of\ndestructions and renewals, the intervals between which amounted to\n120,000 years, or, according to other authorities, to 300,000 or\n360,000 years. This system of destruction and renewal the Egyptian\npriests appear to have wrought out into considerable detail, but\nthough important truths may be concealed under their mysterious\ndogmas, it will not repay us to dwell on the fragments that remain of\nthem. There can be no doubt, however, that at least the basis of the\nEgyptian cosmogony must have been the common property of all the\nHamite nations, of which Egypt was the greatest and most permanent;\nand therefore in all probability derived from the ideas of creation\nwhich were current not long after the Deluge. The Egyptians appear\nalso, as already stated, to have had a physical cosmogony, beginning\nwith a chaos in which heaven and earth were mingled, and from which\nwere evolved fiery matters which ascended into the heavens, and moist\nearthy matters which formed the earth and the sea; and from these were\nproduced, by the agency of solar heat, the various animals. The terms\nof this cosmogony, as it is given by Diodorus Siculus, indicate the\nbelief of long formative periods.[60]\n\nThe Hindoos have a somewhat extended, though, according to the\ntranslations, a not very intelligible cosmogony. It plainly, however,\nasserts long periods of creative work, and is interesting as an\nancient cosmogony preserved entire and without transmission through\nsecondary channels. The following is a summary, in so far as I have\nbeen able to gather it, from the translation of the Institutes of Menu\nby Sir W. Jones.[61]\n\nThe introduction to the Institutes represents Menu as questioned by\nthe \"divine sages\" respecting the laws that should regulate all\nclasses or castes. He proceeds to detail the course of creation,\nstating that the \"Self-existing Power,[62] undiscovered, but making\nthis world discernible, He whom the mind alone can perceive, whose\nessence eludes the external senses, who has no visible parts, who\nexists from eternity, even the soul of all being, whom no being can\ncomprehend, shone forth in person.\"\n\nAfter giving this exalted view of the Creator, the writer proceeds to\nstate that the Self-existent created the waters, and then an egg, from\nwhich he himself comes forth as Brahma the forefather of spirits. \"The\nwaters are called Nara because they are the production of _Nara_, the\nspirit of God, and since they were his first _Ayana_, or place of\nmotion, he thence is named _Narayana_, or moving on the waters. In the\negg Brahma remained a year, and caused the egg to divide, forming the\nheaven above and the earth beneath, and the subtile ether, the eight\nregions, and the receptacle of waters between. He then drew forth from\nthe supreme soul mind with all its powers and properties.\" The rest of\nthe account appears to be very confused, and I confess to a great\nextent unintelligible to me. There follows, however, a continuation\nof the narrative, stating that there is a succession of seven Menus,\neach of whom produces and supports the earth during his reign. It is\nin the account of these successive Menus that the following statement\nrespecting the days and years of Brahma occurs:\n\n\"A day of the Gods is equal to a year. Four thousand years of the Gods\nare called a Critya or Satya age. Four ages are an age of the Gods.\n_One thousand divine ages (equal to more than four millions of human\nyears) are a day of Brahma the Creator._ Seventy-two divine ages are\none manwantara. * * * The aggregate of four ages they call a divine\nage, and believe that in every thousand such ages, or in every day of\nBrahma, fourteen Menus are successively invested with the sovereignty\nof the earth. Each Menu they suppose transmits his authority to his\nsons and grandsons during a period of seventy-two divine ages, and\nsuch a period they call a manwantara. Thirty such days (of the\nCreator), or calpas, constitute a month of Brahma; twelve such months\none of his years, and 100 such years his age, of which they assert\nthat fifty years have elapsed. We are thus, according to the Hindoos,\nin the first day or calpa of the fifty-first year of Brahma's life,\nand in the twenty-eighth divine age of the _seventh manwantara_ of\nthat day. In the present day of Brahma the first Menu was named the\nSon of the Self-existent, and by him the institutes of religion and\ncivil duties are said to have been delivered. In his time occurred a\nnew creation called the _Lotos_ creation.\" Of five Menus who succeeded\nhim, Sir William could find little but the names, but the accounts of\nthe seventh are very full, and it appears that in his reign the earth\nwas destroyed by a flood. Sir William suggests that the first Menu may\nrepresent the creation, and that the seventh may be Noah. The name\nMenu or Manu is equivalent to \"man,\" and signifies \"the\nintelligent.\"[63]\n\nIn this Hindoo cosmogony we have many points of correspondence with\nthe Scripture narrative: for instance, the Self-existent Creator; the\nagency of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit; the absolute creation of\nmatter; the hovering of the Spirit over the primeval waters; the\nsevenfold division of the creative process; and the idea of days of\nthe Creator of immense duration. If we suppose the day of Brahma in\nthe Hindoo cosmogony to represent the Mosaic day, then it amounts to\nno less than 4,320,000 years; or if, with Sir W. Jones, we suppose the\nmanwantara to represent the Mosaic day, its duration will be 308,571\nyears; and the total antiquity of the earth, without counting the\nundefined \"beginning,\" will be either more than twenty-five or than\ntwo millions of years. It would be folly, however, to suppose that\nthese Hindoo numbers, which are probably purely conjectural, or based\non astronomical cycles, make any near approximation to the facts of\nthe case. The Institutes of Menu are probably in their present form\nnot of great antiquity, but there are other Hindoo documents of\ngreater age which maintain similar views, and it is probable that the\naccount of the creation in the Institutes is at least an imperfect\nversion of the original narrative as it existed among the earliest\ncolonists of India.[64] It corresponds in many points with the oldest\nnotions on these subjects that remain to us in the wrecks of the\nmythology of Egypt and other ancient nations, and it aids in proving\nthat the fabulous ages of gods and demigods in the ancient mythologies\n_are really pre-Adamite_; and belong not to human history, but to the\nwork of creation. It also shows that the idea of long creative periods\nas equivalents of the Mosaic days must, in the infancy of the\npostdiluvian world, have been very widely diffused. Such evidence is,\nno doubt, of small authority in the interpretation of Scripture; but\nit must be admitted that serious consideration is due to a method of\ninterpretation which thus tends to bring the Mosaic account into\nharmony with the facts of modern science, and with the belief of\nalmost universal antiquity, and at the same time gives it its fullest\nsignificance and most perfect internal symmetry of parts. It is also\nvery interesting to note the wide diffusion among the most ancient\nnations of cosmological views identical in their main features with\nthose of the Bible, proving, almost beyond doubt, that these views had\nsome common and very ancient source, and commanded universal belief\namong the primitive tribes of men.\n\nI have hitherto in this part of the discussion avoided detailed\nreference to what may be regarded as the \"prophetic day\" view of the\nnarrative of creation. This may be shortly stated as follows: In the\nprophetical parts of Scripture the prophet sees in vision, as in a\npicture or acted scene, the events that are to come to pass, and in\nconsequence represents years or longer periods by days of vision. Now\nthe revelation of the pre-Adamite past is in its nature akin to that\nof the unknown future; and Moses may have seen these wondrous events\nin vision--in visions of successive days--under the guise of which he\npresents geological time. Some things in the form of the narrative\nfavor this view, and it certainly affords the most clearly\nintelligible theory as to the mode in which such a revelation may have\nbeen made to man. It is advocated by Kurtz, by the author of an\nexcellent little work, the \"Harmony of the Mosaic and Geological\nRecords,\" by Hugh Miller, and more recently by Tayler Lewis. To these\nwriters I must refer for its more full illustration, and for the grand\npictorial view which it gives of the vision of the creative week.\n\nIn reviewing the somewhat lengthy train of reasoning into which the\nterm \"day\" has led us, it appears that from internal evidence alone it\ncan be rendered probable that the day of creation is neither the\nnatural nor the civil day. It also appears that the objections urged\nagainst the doctrine of day-periods are of no weight when properly\nscrutinized, and that it harmonizes with the progressive nature of the\nwork, the evidence of geology, and the cosmological notions of ancient\nnations. I do not suppose that this position has been incontrovertibly\nestablished; but I believe that every serious difficulty has been\nremoved from its acceptance; and with this, for the present, I remain\nsatisfied. Every step of our subsequent progress will afford new\ncriteria of its truth or fallacy.\n\nOne further question of some interest is--What, according to the\ntheory of long creative days and the testimony of geology, would be\nthe length and precise cosmical nature of these days? With regard to\nthe first part of the question, we do not know the actual value of our\ngeological ages in time; but it is probable that each great creative\naeon may have extended through millions of years. As to the nature of\nthe days, this may have been determined by direct volitions of the\nCreator, or indirectly by some of those great astronomical cycles\nwhich arise from the varying eccentricity of the earth's orbit, or the\ndiminution of the velocity of its rotation, or by its gradual cooling.\n\nWith reference to these points, science has as yet little information\nto give. Sir William Thomson has, indeed, indicated for the time since\nthe earth's crust first began to form a period of between one and two\nhundred millions of years; but Professor Guthrie Tait, on the other\nhand, argues that ten or fifteen millions of years are probably\nsufficient,[65] and Lockyer has suggested an hypothesis of successive\nrekindlings of the solar heat which might give a more protracted time\nthan that of Thomson. Some of the hypotheses of derivation current,\nbut which are based rather on philosophical speculation than on\nscientific fact, would also require a longer time than that allowed by\nThomson; and it is to be regretted that some geologists, by giving\ncredence to such hypotheses of derivation, and by loose reasoning on\nthe time required for the denudation and deposition of rocks, have\nbeen induced to commit themselves to very extravagant estimates as to\ngeological time. On the whole, it is evident that only the most vague\nguesses can at present be based on the facts in our possession, though\nthe whole time required has unquestionably been very great, the\ndeposition of the series of stratified rocks probably requiring at\nleast the greater part of the minimum time allowed by Thomson.[66]\n\nAs to the cosmical nature of the periods, while some geologists appear\nto regard the whole of geological time as a continuous evolution\nwithout any breaks, it is evidently more in accordance with facts to\nhold that there have been cycles of repose and activity succeeding\neach other, and that these have been of different grades. In the\nsuccession of deposits it is plain that periods of depression and\nupheaval common to all the continental masses have succeeded each\nother at somewhat regular intervals, and that within these periods\nthere have been alternations of colder and warmer climates. These,\nhowever, are not equal to the creative days of our record, for they\nare greatly more numerous. They are but the vastly protracted hours of\nthese almost endless days. Beyond and above these there is another\ngrade of geological period, marked not by mere gradual elevation and\ndepression of the continental areas, but by vast crumplings of the\nearth's crust and enormous changes of level. Such a great movement\nunquestionably closed the Eozoic period of geology. Another of less\nmagnitude occurred in what is termed the Permian age at the end of the\nPalaeozoic. A third terminated the Mesozoic age, and introduced the\nTertiary or Kainozoic. Perhaps we should reckon the glacial age,\nthough characterized by far less physical change than the others, as a\nfourth. The possible physical causes which have been suggested for\nsuch greater disturbances are the collapses of the crust in equatorial\nregions, which may be supposed to have resulted at long intervals of\ntime, from the gradual retardation of the earth's rotation caused by\nthe tides, or the similar collapses and other changes due to the\nshrinkages of the earth's interior caused by its gradual cooling, and\nto the unequal deposition of material by water on different parts of\nits surface.[67] The more full discussion of these points belongs,\nhowever, to a future chapter.\n\nThese greater movements of the crust, would, as already stated,\ncoincide to some extent with the later creative days in the manner\nindicated below:\n\n  ==================================================================\n  Collapse of crust at close of   | Close of Fourth AEon,\n  Eozoic Time,                    | and beginning of Fifth.\n  ------------------------------------------------------------------\n  Collapse in Permian Period and  | Middle of Fifth AEon.\n  end of Palaeozoic Time,          |\n  ------------------------------------------------------------------\n  Great subsidence and collapse   | Close of Fifth AEon, and beginning\n  at close of Mesozoic Age,       | of Sixth.\n  ------------------------------------------------------------------\n  Great subsidence of the         | End of Sixth AEon.\n  Pleistocene or Glacial Age,     |\n  ==================================================================\n\nThe question recurs--Why are God's days so long? He is not like us, a\nbeing of yesterday. He is \"from Olam to Olam,\" and even in human\nhistory one day is with him as a thousand years; and we who live in\nthese later days of the world know full well how slow the march of his\nplan has been even in human history. We shall know in the endless ages\nof a future eternity that even to us these long creative days may at\nlast become but as watches in the night.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE ATMOSPHERE.\n\n\n     \"And God said, Let there be an expanse between the waters;\n     and let it separate the waters from the waters. And God made\n     the expanse, and separated the waters which are under the\n     expanse from the waters which are over the expanse: and it\n     was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And the evening\n     and the morning were the second day.\"--Genesis i. 6-8.\n\n\nAt the opening of the period to which we are now introduced the earth\nwas covered by the waters, and these were in such a condition that\nthere was no distinction between the seas and the clouds. No\natmosphere separated them, or, in other words, dense fogs and mists\neverywhere rested on the surface of the primeval ocean. To understand\nas far as possible the precise condition of the earth's surface at\nthis period, it will be necessary to notice the present constitution\nof the atmosphere, especially in its relations to aqueous vapor.\n\nThe regular and constant constituents of the atmosphere are the\nelements oxygen and nitrogen, which, at the temperature and pressure\nexisting on the surface of our globe, are permanently aeriform or\ngaseous. Beside these gases, the air always contains a quantity of the\nvapor of water in a perfectly aeriform and transparent condition. This\nvapor is not, however, permanently gaseous. At all temperatures below\n212 degrees it tends to the liquid state; and its elastic force, which\npreserves its particles in the separated state of vapor, increases or\ndiminishes at a more rapid rate than the increase or diminution of\ntemperature. Hence the quantity of vapor that can be suspended in\nclear air depends on the temperature of the air itself. As the\ntemperature of the air rises, its power of sustaining vapor increases\nmore rapidly than its temperature; and as the temperature of the air\nfalls, the elastic force of its contained vapor diminishes in a\ngreater ratio, until it can exist as an invisible vapor no longer, but\nbecomes condensed into minute bubbles or globules, forming cloud,\nmist, or rain. Two other circumstances operate along with these\nproperties of air and vapor. The heat radiated from the earth's\nsurface causes the lower strata of air to be, in ordinary\ncircumstances, warmer than the higher; and, on the other hand, warm\nair, being lighter than that which is colder, the warm layer of air at\nthe surface continually tends to rise through and above the colder\ncurrents immediately over it. Let us consider the operation of the\ncauses thus roughly sketched in a column of calm air. The lower\nportion becomes warmed, and if in contact with water takes up a\nquantity of its vapor proportioned to the temperature, or in ordinary\ncircumstances somewhat less than this proportion. It then tends to\nascend, and as it rises and becomes mixed with colder air it gradually\nloses its power of sustaining moisture, and at a height proportioned\nto the diminution of temperature and the quantity of vapor originally\ncontained in the air, it begins to part with water, which becomes\ncondensed in the form of mist or cloud; and the surface at which this\nprecipitation takes place is often still more distinctly marked when\ntwo masses or layers of air at different temperatures become\nintermixed; in which case, on the principle already stated, the mean\ntemperature produced is unable to sustain the vapor proper to the two\nextremes, and moisture is precipitated. It thus happens that layers\nof cloud accumulate in the atmosphere, while between them and the\nsurface there is a stratum of clear air. Fogs and mists are in the\npresent state of nature exceptional appearances, depending generally\non local causes, and showing what the world might be but for that\nbalancing of temperature and the elastic force of vapor which\nconstitutes the atmospheric firmament.[68]\n\nThe quantity of water thus suspended over the earth is enormous. \"When\nwe see a cloud resolve itself into rain, and pour out thousands of\ngallons of water, we can not comprehend how it can float in the\natmosphere.\"[69] The explanation is--1st, the extreme levity of the\nminute globules, which causes them to fall very slowly; 2d, they are\nsupported by currents of air, especially by the ascending currents\ndeveloped both in still air and in storms; 3dly, clouds are often\ndissolving on one side and forming on another. A cloud gradually\ndescending may be dissolving away by evaporation at the base as fast\nas new matter is being added above. On the other hand, an ascending\nwarm current of air may be constantly depositing moisture at the base\nof the cloud, and this may be evaporating under the solar rays above.\nIn this case a cloud is \"merely the visible form of an aerial space,\nin which certain processes are at the moment in equilibrium, and all\nthe particles in a state of upward movement.\"[70] But so soon as\ncondensation markedly exceeds evaporation, rain falls, and the\natmosphere discharges its vast load of water--how vast we may gather\nfrom the fact that the waters of all the rivers are but a part of the\noverflowings of the great atmospheric reservoir. \"God binds up the\nwaters in his thick cloud, and the cloud is not rent under them.\" It\nis thus that the terrestrial waters are divided into those above and\nthose below that expanse of clear air in which we live and move,\nexempt from the dense, dark mists of the earth's earlier state, yet\nenjoying the benefits of the cloudy curtain that veils the burning\nsun, and of the cloudy reservoirs that drop down rain to nourish every\ngreen thing.\n\nWe have no reason to suppose that the laws which regulate mixtures of\ngases and vapors did not prevail in the period in question. It is\nprobable that these laws are as old as the creation of matter; but the\ncondition of our earth up to the second day must have been such as\nprevented them from operating as at present. Such a condition might\npossibly be the result of an excessive evaporation occasioned by\ninternal heat. The interior of the earth still remains in a heated\nstate, and includes large subterranean reservoirs of melted rock, as\nis proved by the increase of temperature in deep mines and borings,\nand by the widely extended phenomena of hot springs and volcanic\naction. At the period in question the internal temperature of the\nearth was probably vastly greater than at present, and perhaps the\nwhole interior of the globe may have been in a state of igneous\nfluidity. At the same time the external solid crust may have been\nthin, and it was not fractured and thickened in places by the upheaval\nof mountain chains or the deposition of great and unequal sheets of\nsediment; for, as I may again remind the reader, the primitive chaos\ndid not consist of a confused accumulation of rocky masses, but the\nearth's crust must then have been more smooth and unbroken than at any\nsubsequent period. This being the internal condition of the earth, it\nis quite conceivable, without any violation of the existing laws of\nnature, that the waters of the ocean, warmed by internal heat, may\nhave sent up a sufficient quantity of vapor to keep the lower strata\nof air in a constant state of saturation, and to occasion an equally\nconstant precipitation of moisture from the colder strata above. This\nwould merely be the universal operation of a cause similar to that\nwhich now produces fogs at the northern limit of the Atlantic Gulf\nStream, and in other localities where currents of warm water flow\nunder or near to cooler air. Such a state of things is more\nconceivable in a globe covered with water, and consequently destitute\nof the dry and powerfully radiating surfaces which land presents, and\nreceiving from without the rays, not of a solar orb, but of a\ncomparatively feeble and diffused luminous ether. The continued action\nof these causes would gradually cool the earth's crust and its\nincumbent waters, until the heat from without preponderated over that\nfrom within, when the result stated in the text would be effected.\n\nThe statements of our primitive authority for this condition of the\nearth might also be accounted for on the supposition that the\npermanently gaseous part of the atmosphere did not at the period in\nquestion exist in its present state, but that it was on the second day\nactually elaborated and caused to take its place in separating the\natmospheric from the oceanic waters. The first is by far the more\nprobable view; but we may still apply to such speculations the words\nof Elihu, the friend of Job:\n\n  \"Stand still and consider the wonderful works of God.\n  Dost thou know when God disposes them,\n  And the lightning of his cloud shines forth?\n  Dost thou know the poising of the dark clouds,\n  The wonderful works of the Perfect in knowledge?\"\n\nWe may now consider the words in which this great improvement in the\ncondition of the earth is recorded. The Hebrew term for the atmosphere\nis _Rakiah_, literally, something expanded or beaten out--an expanse.\nIt is rendered in our version \"firmament,\" a word conveying the notion\nof support and fixity, and in the Septuagint \"_Stereoma_,\" a word\nhaving a similar meaning. The idea conveyed by the Hebrew word is not,\nhowever, that of _strength_, but of _extent_; or as Milton--the most\naccurate of expositors of these words--has it:\n\n  \"The firmament, expanse of liquid, pure,\n  Transparent, elemental air, diffused\n  In circuit to the uttermost convex\n  Of this great round.\"\n\nThat this was really the way in which this word was understood by the\nHebrews appears from several passages of the Bible. Job says of God,\n\"Who alone _spreadeth_ out the heavens.\"[71] David, in the 104th\nPsalm, which is a poetical paraphrase of the history of creation,\nspeaks of the Creator as \"_stretching_ out the heavens as a curtain.\"\nIn later writers, as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, similar expressions\noccur. The notion of a solid or arched firmament was probably\naltogether remote from the minds of these writers. Such beliefs may\nhave prevailed at the time when the Septuagint translation was made,\nbut I have no hesitation in affirming that no trace of them can be\nfound in the Old Testament. In proof of this, I may refer to some of\nthe passages which have been cited as affording the strongest\ninstances of this kind of \"accommodation.\" In Exodus xxiv., 10, we\nare told, \"And they saw the God of Israel, and under his feet as it\nwere a paved work of sapphire, and as it were the heaven itself in its\nclearness.\" This is evidently a comparison of the pavement seen under\nthe feet of Jehovah to a sapphire in its color, and to the heavens in\nits transparency. The intention of the writer is not to give\ninformation respecting the heavens, or to liken them either to a\npavement or a sapphire; all that we can infer is that he believed the\nheavens to be clear or transparent. Job mentions the \"pillars of\nheaven,\" but the connection shows that this is merely a poetical\nexpression for lofty mountains. The earthquake causes these pillars of\nheaven to \"tremble.\" We are informed in the book of Job that God \"ties\nup his waters in his thick cloud, and the cloud is not rent under\nthem.\" We are also told of the \"treasures of snow and the treasures of\nhail,\" and rain is called the \"bottles of heaven,\" and is said to be\npoured out of the \"lattices of heaven.\" I recognize in all these mere\npoetical figures, not intended to be literally understood. Some\nlearned writers wish us to believe that the intention of the Bible in\nthese places is actually to teach that the clouds are contained in\nskin bottles, or something similar, and that they are emptied through\nhatches in a solid firmament. To found such a belief, however, on a\nfew figurative statements, seems ridiculous, especially when we\nconsider that the writers of the Scriptures show themselves to be well\nacquainted with nature, and would not be likely on any account to\ndeviate so far from the ordinary testimony of the senses; more\nespecially as by doing so they would enable every unlettered man who\nhas seen a cloud gather on a mountain's brow or dissolve away before\nincreasing heat to oppose the evidence of his senses to their\nstatements, and perhaps to reject them with scorn as a barefaced\nimposture. But, lastly, we are triumphantly directed to the question\nof Elihu in his address to Job:\n\n  \"Hast thou with him stretched out the sky,\n  Which is firm and like a molten mirror?\"\n\nBut the word translated sky here is not \"_rakiah_,\" or \"_shamayim_,\"\nbut another signifying the _clouds_, so that we should regard Elihu as\nspeaking of the apparent firmness or stability, and the beautiful\nreflected tints of the clouds. His words may be paraphrased thus:\n\"Hast thou aided Him in spreading out those clouds, which appear so\nstable and self-sustaining, and so beautifully reflect the\nsunlight?\"[72] The above passages form the only authority which I can\nfind in the Scriptures for the doctrine of a solid firmament, which\nmay therefore be characterized as a modern figment of men more learned\nin books but less acquainted with nature than the Scripture writers.\nAs a contrast to all such doctrines I may quote the sublime opening of\nthe poetical account of creation in Psalm civ., which we may also take\nhere as elsewhere as the oldest and most authoritative commentary on\nthe first chapter of Genesis:\n\n  \"Bless the Lord, O my soul!\n  O Lord, my God, thou art very great:\n  Thou art clothed with honor and majesty,\n  Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment,\n  Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain (of a tent),\n  _Who layest the beams of thy chambers in the waters,\n  Who makest the clouds thy chariots,\n  Who walkest upon the wings of the wind_.\"\n\nThe waters here are those above the firmament, the whole of this part\nof the Psalm being occupied with the heavens; and there is no place\nleft for the solid firmament, of which the writer evidently knew\nnothing. He represents God as laying his chambers on the waters,\ninstead of on the supposed firmament, and as careering in cloudy\nchariots on the wings of the wind, instead of over a solid arch. For\nall the above reasons, we conclude that the \"expanse\" of the verses\nunder consideration was understood by the writers of the book of God\nto be _aerial_, not _solid_; and the \"establishment of the clouds\nabove,\" as it is finely called in Proverbs, is the effect of those\nmeteorological laws to which I have already referred, and which were\nnow for the first time brought into operation by the divine\nLegislator. The Hebrew theology was not of a kind to require such\nexpedients as that of solid heavenly arches; it recurred at once to\nthe will--the decree--of Jehovah; and was content to believe that\nthrough this efficient cause the \"rivers run into the sea, yet the sea\nis not full,\" for \"to the place whence the rivers came, thither they\nreturn again,\" through the agency of those floating clouds, \"the\nwaters above the heavens,\" which \"pour down rain according to the\nvapor thereof.\"\n\nGod called the expanse \"Heaven.\" In former chapters we have noticed\nthat heaven in the popular speech of the Hebrews, as in our own, had\ndifferent meanings, applying alike to the cloudy, the astral, and the\nspiritual heavens. The Creator here sanctions its application to the\naerial expanse; and accordingly throughout the Scriptures it is used\nin this way; _rakiah_ occurs very rarely, as if it had become nearly\nobsolete, or was perhaps regarded as a merely technical or descriptive\nterm. The divine sanction for the use of the term heaven for the\natmosphere is, as already explained, to indicate that this popular\nuse is not to interfere with its application to the whole universe\nbeyond our earth in verse 1st.\n\nThe poetical parts of the Bible, and especially the book of Job, which\nis probably the most ancient of the whole, abound in references to the\natmosphere and its phenomena. I may quote a few of these passages, to\nenable us to understand the views of these subjects given in the\nBible, and the meaning attached to the creation of the atmosphere, in\nvery ancient periods. In Job, 38th chapter, we have the following:\n\n  \"In what way is the lightning distributed,\n  And how is the east wind spread abroad over the earth?\n  Who hath opened a channel for the pouring rain,\n  Or a way for the thunder-flash?\n  To cause it to rain on the land where no man is,\n  In the desert where no one dwells;\n  To saturate the desolate and waste ground,\n  And to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth.\"\n\nHere we have the unequal and unforeseen distribution of\nthunder-storms, beyond the knowledge and power of man, but under the\nabsolute control of God, and designed by him for beneficent purposes.\nEqually fine are some of the following lines:\n\n  \"Dost thou lift up thy voice to the clouds,\n  That abundance of waters may cover thee?\n  Dost thou send forth the lightnings, and they go,\n  And say unto thee, Here are we?\n  Who can number the clouds by wisdom,\n  Or cause the bottles of heaven to empty themselves?\n  When the dust groweth into mire,\n  And the clods cleave fast together?\"\n\nIn the 36th and 37th chapters of the same book we have a grand\ndescription of atmospheric changes in their relation to man and his\nworks. The speaker is Elihu, who in this ancient book most favorably\nrepresents the knowledge of nature that existed at a time probably\nanterior to the age of Moses--a knowledge far superior to that which\nwe find in the works of many modern poets and expositors, and\naccompanied by an intense appreciation of the grandeur and beauty of\nnatural objects:\n\n  \"For he draweth up the drops of water,\n  Rain is condensed[73] from his vapor,\n  Which the clouds do drop,\n  And distill upon man abundantly.\n  Yea, can any understand the distribution of the clouds\n  Or the thundering of his tabernacle.[74]\n  Behold he spreadeth his lightning upon it,\n  He covereth it as with the depths of the sea.[75]\n  By these he executes judgment on the people,\n  By these also he giveth food in abundance;\n  His hands he covers with the lightning,\n  And commands it (against the enemy) in its striking;\n  He uttereth to it his decree,[76]\n  Concerning the herd as well as proud man.\n  At this also my heart trembles,\n  And bounds out of its place;\n  Hear attentively the thunder of his voice,\n  And the loud sound that goes from his mouth.\n  He directs it under the whole heavens,\n  And his lightning to the ends of the earth.\n  After it his voice roareth,\n  He thundereth with the voice of his majesty;\n  And delays not (the tempest) when his voice is heard.\n  God thundereth marvellously with his voice,\n  He doeth wonders which we can not comprehend;\n  For he saith to the snow, Be thou on the earth.\n  Also to the pouring rain, even the great rain of his might.\n  He sealeth up the hand of every man,\n  That all men may know his work.\n  Then the beasts go to their dens,\n  And remain in their caverns.\n  Out of the south cometh the whirlwind\n  And cold out of the north,\n  By the breath of God the frost is produced\n  And the breadth of waters becomes bound;\n  With moisture he loads the thick cloud,\n  He spreads the cloud of his lightning,\n  And it is turned about by his direction,\n  To execute his pleasure on the face of the world;\n  Whether for correction, for his land, or for mercy,\n  He causeth it to come.\n  Hearken unto this, O Job,\n  Stand still and consider the wonderful works of God.\n  Dost thou know when God disposes these things,\n  And the lightning of his cloud flashes forth?\n  Dost thou know the poising of the clouds,\n  The wonderful work of the Perfect in knowledge?\n  When thy garments become warm\n  When he quieteth the earth by the south wind;\n  Hast thou with him spread out the clouds\n  Firm and like a molten mirror?\"[77]\n\nIt would not be easy to find, in the poetry of any nation or time, a\ndescription of so many natural phenomena, so fine in feeling or\ntruthful in delineation. It should go far to dispel the too prevalent\nideas of early Oriental ignorance, and should lead to a more full\nappreciation of these noble pictures of nature, unsurpassed in the\nliterature of any people or time. I trust that the previous\nillustrations are sufficient to show, not only that the _stereoma_, or\nsolid firmament of the Septuagint, is not to be found in Scripture,\nbut that the positive doctrine of the Bible on the subject is of a\nvery different character. For instance, in the above extract from the\nbook of Job, Elihu speaks of the poising or suspension of the clouds\nas inscrutable, and tells us that God draws up water into the clouds,\nand pours down rain according to the vapor thereof; he also speaks of\nthe clouds as being scattered before the brightness of the sun; and\nnotices, in truthful as well as exalted language, the nature and\nsuccession of the lightning's flash, the thunder, and the\nprecipitation of rain that follows. Solomon also informs us that the\n\"establishment of the clouds above\" is due to the law or will of\nJehovah. Finally, in this connection, the divine sanction given to the\nuse of the term heaven for the atmosphere may in itself be regarded as\nan intimation that no definite barrier separates our film of\natmosphere from the boundless abyss of heaven without.\n\nOf this period natural science gives us no intimation. In the earliest\ngeological epochs organic life, dry land, and an atmosphere already\nexisted. At the period now under consideration the two former had not\nbeen called into existence, and the latter was in process of\nelaboration from the materials of the primeval deep. If the formation\nof the atmosphere in its existing conditions was, as already hinted, a\nresult of the gradual cooling of the earth, then this period must have\nbeen of great length, and the action of the heated waters on the crust\nof the globe may have produced thick layers of detrital matter\ndestined to form the first soils of the succeeding aeon. We know\nnothing, however, of these primitive strata, and most of them must\nhave been removed by denuding agencies in succeeding periods, or\nrestored by subterranean heat to the crystalline state. The events and\nresults of this day may be summed up as follows:\n\n\"At the commencement of the period the earth was enveloped by a misty\nor vaporous mantle. In its progress those relations of air and vapor\nwhich cause the separation of the clouds from the earth by a layer of\nclear air, and the varied alternations of sunshine and rain, were\nestablished. At the close of the period the newly formed atmosphere\ncovered a universal ocean; and there was probably a very regular and\nuniform condition of the atmospheric currents, and of the processes of\nevaporation and condensation.\"\n\nBut while we must affirm that no idea of a solid atmospheric vault can\nbe detected in the Bible, and while we may also affirm that such an idea\nwould have been altogether foreign to its tone, which invariably refers\nall things not to secondary machinery, but to the will and fiat of the\nSupreme, we must not forget that a most important moral purpose was to\nbe served by the assertion of the establishment of the atmospheric\nexpanse. Among all nations the phenomena of the atmosphere have had\nimportant theological and mythological relations. The ever-changing and\napparently capricious aspects of the atmosphere and its clouds, the\nterrible effects of storms, and the balmy influence of sunshine and\ncalm, deeply impress the minds of simple and superstitious men, and\nthis all the more that in their daily life and expeditions they are\nconstantly subjected to the effects of atmospheric vicissitudes. Hence\nthe greatest gods of all the ancient nations are weather-gods--rulers of\nthe atmospheric heavens--displaying their anger in the thunder-storm and\ntornado. It is likely that in most cases, as in many barbarous tribes of\nmodern times, these weather-gods were malevolent beings contending\nagainst the genial influences of the heavenly Sun-god; but in nearly\nevery case their supposed practical importance has elevated them, as in\nthe case of the Olympian Zeus, the Scandinavian Thor, and the American\nHurakon, to the place of supreme divinity. This was one of the\nsuperstitions which the Hebrew monotheism had to overcome. Hence the\natmosphere is affirmed to be under Jehovah's law, and all its phenomena\nare attributed to his power. The value of this as cutting at the root of\nthe most widespread superstitions it is easy to understand, and it has a\nfarther value in teaching that even the apparently unstable and\ncapricious air is a thing established from the first and amenable to the\nordinance of God. How difficult it has been to eradicate superstitious\nviews of the atmosphere may be learned from the fact that St. Paul, in\nwriting to the enlightened citizens of Ephesus, could speak of the power\nwhich the heathen worshipped as the \"Prince of the powers of the air,\"\nand it is also evidenced by the abundant notions of this kind which have\nsurvived from the Middle Ages among the more ignorant part of the people\neven in lands called Christian.\n\nWhile, however, the Bible affirms the atmosphere to be subject to law,\nit does not carry this into the domain of physical necessity, and\naffirm with some modern materialistic philosophers that it is useless\nto pray for rain. It is God who gives rain from heaven and fruitful\nseasons, and what he gives he can withhold. Perhaps no part of our\nsubject can better than this illustrate the rational distinction\nbetween a mere physical fatalism, or a mere superstitious fear of\ncapricious nature, and that belief in a divine Lawgiver which lies\nbetween these extremes. Modern science may smile at the poor Indian,\nwho in his fear invokes Hurakon or Tlaloc or the terrible\nThunder-bird, and may even despise that nobler worship of the great\nPhoenician Sun-god, the source and fountain of all light and life;\nagainst which, though it was the grandest of all the old idolatries,\nElijah waged war to the death. But may it not equally deride the faith\nof Elijah himself, when, after three years of drought, he prayed in\nthe sight of assembled Israel for rain? It may do so if physical law\namounts to an invariable necessity, and if there is no supreme Will\nbehind it. But if natural laws are the expression of the divine will,\nif these laws are multiform and complicated in their relations, and\nregulate vastly varied causes interacting with each other, and if the\naction and welfare of man come within the scope of these laws, then\nthere is nothing irrational in the supposition that God, without any\ncapricious or miraculous intervention, may have so correlated the\nmyriad adjustments of his creation as that, while it is his usual rule\nthat rain falls alike on the evil and on the good, he may make its\ndescent at particular times and places to depend on the needs and\nrequests of his own children. In truth the belief in law is essential\nto the philosophical conception of prayer. If the universe were a mere\nchaos of chances, or if it were a result of absolute necessity, there\nwould be no place for intelligent prayer; but if it is under the\ncontrol of a Lawgiver, wise and merciful, not a mere manager of\nmaterial machinery, but a true Father of all, then we can go to such\na being with our requests, not in the belief that we can change his\ngreat plans, or that any advantage could result from this if it were\npossible, but that these plans may be made in his boundless wisdom and\nlove to meet our necessities. There is also in the Bible the farther\npromise that, if we are truly the children of God, regulating our\nconduct by his will and enlightened by his spirit, we shall know how\nto pray for what is in accordance with his divine purpose, and how to\nreceive with gladness whatever he sees fit to give. While, therefore,\nthe Biblical doctrine as to natural law emancipates us from fears of\nangry storm-demons, it draws us near to a heavenly Father, whose power\nis above all the tempests of earth, and who, while ruling by law, has\nregulated all things in conformity with the higher law of love. When\nGod had made the atmosphere, he saw that it was good, and the highest\nsignificance is given to this by the consideration that God is love.\nThe position of the Bible is thus the true mean between superstitions\nat once unhappy and debasing, and a materialistic infidelity that\nwould reduce the universe to a dead, remorseless machine, in which we\nmust struggle for a precarious existence till we are crushed between\nits wheels.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE DRY LAND AND THE FIRST PLANTS.\n\n\n     \"And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered\n     into one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.\n     And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of\n     waters called he seas; and God saw that it was good.\n\n     \"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the springing herb,\n     the herb bearing seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit,\n     after its kind, whose seed is in it on the earth: and it was\n     so. And the earth brought forth the tender herb, the herb\n     yielding seed, and the tree bearing fruit whose seed is in\n     it, after its kind; and God saw that it was good.\"--Genesis\n     i., 10, 11.\n\nThese are events sufficiently simple and intelligible in their general\ncharacter. Geology shows us that the emergence of the dry land must\nhave resulted from the elevation of parts of the bed of the ancient\nuniversal ocean, and that the agent employed in such changes is the\nbending and crumpling of the outer crust of the earth, caused by\nlateral pressure, and operating either in a slow and regular manner or\nby sudden paroxysms. It farther informs us that the existing\ncontinents consist of stratified or bedded masses, more or less\ninclined, fissured and irregularly elevated, and usually supported by\ncrystalline rocks which have been produced among them, or forced up\nbeneath or through them by internal agencies, and which truly\nconstitute the pillars and foundations of the earth. These elevations,\nit is true, were successive, and belong to different periods; but the\nappearance of the first dry land is that intended here.\n\nThe elevation of the dry land is more frequently referred to in\nScripture than any other cosmological fact; and while all have been\nmisapprehended, the statements on this subject have been even more\nunjustly dealt with than others. In the text, the word \"earth\"\n(_aretz_[78]) is, by divine sanction, narrowed in meaning to the dry\nland; but while some expositors are quite willing to restrict it to\nthis, or even a more limited sense, in the first and second verses of\nthis chapter, almost the only verses in the Bible where the terms of\nthe narrative make such a restriction inadmissible, they are equally\nready to understand it as meaning the whole globe in places where the\nexplanatory clause in the verse now under consideration teaches us\nthat we should understand the land only, as distinguished from the\nsea. I may quote some of these passages, and note the views they give;\nalways bearing in mind that, after the intimation here given, we must\nunderstand the term \"earth\" as applying _only to the continents_ or\n_dry land_, unless where the context otherwise fixes the meaning. We\nmay first turn to Psalm civ.:\n\n  \"Thou laidst the foundations of the earth,\n  That it should never be removed;\n  Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment;\n  The waters stood above the mountains;\n  At thy rebuke they fled;\n  At the sound of thy thunder they hasted away;\n  Mountains ascended, valleys descended\n  To the place thou hast appointed for them:\n  Thou hast appointed them bounds that they may not pass,\n  That they return not again to cover the earth.\"\n\nThe position of these verses in this \"the hymn of creation\" leaves no\ndoubt that they refer to the events we are now considering. I have\ngiven above the literal reading of the line that refers to the\nelevation of mountains and subsidence of valleys; admitting, however,\nthat the grammatical construction gives an air of probability to the\nrendering in our version, \"they go up by the mountains, they go down\nby the valleys,\" which, on the other hand, is rendered very improbable\nby the sense. In whichever sense we understand this line, the picture\npresented to us by the Psalmist includes the elevation of the\nmountains and continents, the subsidence of the waters into their\ndepressed basins, and the firm establishment of the dry land on its\nrocky foundations, the whole accompanied by a feature not noticed in\nGenesis--the voice of God's thunder--or, in other words, electrical\nand volcanic explosions. The following quotations refer to the same\nsubject:\n\n  \"Before the mountains were settled,\n  Before the hills was I (the Wisdom of God) brought forth;\n  While as yet he had not made the earth,\n  Nor the plains, nor the higher parts of the habitable world.\n  When he gave the sea his decree\n  That the waters should not pass his limits,\n  When he determined the foundations of the earth.\"\n\n  --Proverbs viii., 25.\n\n  \"Thou hast established the earth, and it endureth,\n  According to thy decrees they continue this day,\n  For all are thy servants.\"\n\n  --Psalm cxix., 90.\n\n  \"Who shaketh the earth out of its place,\n  And its pillars tremble.\"\n\n  --Job ix., 6.\n\n  \"Where wast thou when I founded the earth?\n  Declare, if thou hast knowledge.\n  Who hath fixed the proportion thereof, if thou knowest?\n  Who stretched the line upon it?\n  Upon what are its foundations settled?\n  Or who laid its corner-stone,\n  When the morning stars sang together,\n  And all the sons of God shouted for joy?\n  Who shut up the sea with doors\n  In its bursting forth as from the womb?\n  When I made the cloud its garment,\n  And swathed it in thick darkness,\n  I measured out for it my limit,\n  And fixed its bars and doors;\n  And said, Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther,\n  And here shall thy proud waves be stayed.\"\n\n  --Job xxxviii., 4.\n\nIn these passages the foundation of the earth at first, as well as the\nshaking of its pillars by the earthquake, are connected with what we\nusually call natural law--the decree of the Almighty--the unchanging\narrangements of an unchangeable Creator, whose \"hands formed the dry\nland.\"[79] This is the ultimate cause not only of the elevation of the\nland, but of all other natural things and processes. The naturalist\ndoes not require to be informed that the details, in so far as they\nare referred to in the above passages, are perfectly in accordance\nwith what we know of the nature and support of continental masses.\nGeological observation and mathematical calculation have in our day\ncombined their powers to give clear views of the manner in which the\nfractured strata of the earth are wedged and arched together, and\nsupported by internal igneous masses upheaved from beneath, and\nsubsequently cooled and hardened. A general view of these facts which\nwe have learned from scientific inquiry, the Hebrews gleaned with\nnearly as much precision from the short account of the elevation of\nthe land in Genesis, and from the later comments of their inspired\npoets. From the same source our own great poet, Milton, learned these\ncosmical facts, before the rise of geology, and expressed them in\nunexceptionable terms:\n\n            \"The mountains huge appear\n  Emergent, and their broad bare backs upheave\n  Into the clouds, their tops ascend the sky.\n  So high as heaved the tumid hills, so low\n  Down sunk a hollow bottom, broad and deep,\n  Capacious bed of waters.\"\n\nIn further illustration of the opinions of the Scripture writers\nrespecting the nature of the earth, and the disturbances to which it\nis liable, I quote the following passages. The first is from the\nmagnificent description of Jehovah descending to succor his people\namid the terrors of the earthquake, the volcano, and the\nthunder-storm, in Psalm xviii.:\n\n  \"Then shook and trembled the earth,\n  The foundations of the hills moved and were shaken,\n  Because he was angry.\n  Smoke went up from his nostrils,\n  Fire from his mouth devoured,\n  Coals were kindled by it.\n  Then were seen the channels of the waters,\n  And the foundations of the world were discovered,\n  At thy rebuke--O Jehovah--\n  At the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.\"\n\nIn another place in the Psalms we find volcanic action thus tersely\nsketched:\n\n  \"He looketh on the earth and it trembleth,\n  He toucheth the hills and they smoke.\"\n\n  --Psalm civ., 32.\n\nPerhaps the most remarkable discourse on this subject in the whole\nBible is that in Job xxviii., in which mining operations are\nintroduced as an illustration of the difficulty of obtaining true\nwisdom. This passage is interesting both from its extreme antiquity,\nand the advancement in knowledge and practical skill which it\nindicates. It presents, however, many difficulties; and its details\nhave almost entirely lost their true significance in our common\nEnglish version:\n\n  \"Surely there is a vein for silver,\n  And a place for the gold which men refine;\n  Iron is taken from the earth,\n  And copper is molten from the ore.\n  To the end of darkness and to all extremes man searcheth,\n  For the stones of darkness and the shadow of death.\n  He opens a passage [shaft] from where men dwell,\n  Unsupported by the foot, they hang down and swing to and fro.[80]\n  The earth--out of it cometh bread;\n  And beneath, it is overturned as by fire.[81]\n  Its stones are the place of sapphires,\n  And it hath lumps[82] of gold.\n  The path (thereto) the bird of prey hath not known,\n  The vulture's eye hath not seen it.[83]\n  The wild beasts' whelps have not trodden it,\n  The lion hath not passed over it.\n  Man layeth his hand on the hard rock,\n  He turneth up the mountains from their roots,\n  He cutteth channels [_adits_] in the rocks,\n  His eye seeth every precious thing.\n  He restraineth the streams from trickling,\n  And bringeth the hidden thing to light.\n  But where shall wisdom be found,\n  And where is the place of understanding?\"\n\nThis passage, incidentally introduced, gives us a glimpse of the\nknowledge of the interior of the earth and its products, as it existed\nin an age probably anterior to that of Moses. It brings before us the\nrepositories of the valuable metals and gems--the mining operations,\napparently of some magnitude and difficulty, undertaken in extracting\nthem--and the wonderful structure of the earth itself, green and\nproductive at the surface, rich in precious metals beneath, and deeper\nstill the abode of intense subterranean fires. The only thing wanting\nto give completeness to the picture is some mention of the fossil\nremains buried in the earth; and, as the main thought is the eager and\nsuccessful search for useful minerals, this can hardly be regarded as\na defect. The application of all this is finer than almost any thing\nelse in didactic poetry. Man can explore depths of the earth\ninaccessible to all other creatures, and extract thence treasures of\ninestimable value; yet, after thus exhausting all the natural riches\nof the earth, he too often lacks that highest wisdom which alone can\nfit him for the true ends of his spiritual being. How true is all\nthis, even in our own wonder-working days! A poet of to-day could\nscarcely say more of subterranean wonders, or say it more truthfully\nand beautifully; nor could he arrive at a conclusion more pregnant\nwith the highest philosophy than the closing words:\n\n  \"The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom;\n  And to depart from evil is understanding.\"\n\nThe emergence of the dry land is followed by a repetition of the\napproval of the Creator. \"God saw that it was good.\" To our view that\nprimeval dry land would scarcely have seemed good. It was a world of\nbare, rocky peaks, and verdureless valleys--here active volcanoes,\nwith their heaps of scoriae and scarcely cooled lava currents--there\nvast mudflats, recently upheaved from the bottom of the\nwaters--nowhere even a blade of grass or a clinging lichen. Yet it was\ngood in the view of its Maker, who could see it in relation to the\nuses for which he had made it, and as a fit preparatory step to the\nnew wonders he was soon to introduce. Then too, as we are informed in\nJob xxxviii., \"The morning stars sang together, and all the sons of\nGod shouted for joy.\" We also, when we think of the beautiful variety\nof the terrestrial surface, the character and composition of its\nsoils, the variety of climate and exposure resulting from its degrees\nof elevation, the arrangements for the continuance of springs and\nstreams, and many other beneficial provisions connected with the\nmerely mechanical arrangements of the dry land, may well join in the\ntribute of praise to the All-wise Creator. There is, however, a\nfarther thought suggested by the approval of the great Artificer. In\nthis wondrous progress of creation, it seems as if every thing at\nfirst was in its best estate. No succeeding state could parallel the\nunbroken symmetry of the earth in the fluid and vaporous condition of\nthe \"deep.\" Before the elevation of the land, the atmospheric currents\nand the deposition of moisture must have been surpassingly regular.\nThe first dry land may have presented crags and peaks and ravines and\nvolcanic cones in a more marvellous and perfect manner than any\nsucceeding continents--even as the dry and barren moon now, in this\nrespect, far surpasses the earths. In the progress of organic life,\ngeology gives similar indications, in the variety and magnitude of\nmany animal types on their first introduction; so that this may very\npossibly be a law of creation.\n\nDuring the emergence of the first dry land, large quantities of\ndetrital matter must have been deposited in the waters, and in part\nelevated into land. All of these beds would, probably, be destitute of\norganic remains; but if such beds were formed and still remain, they\nare probably unknown to us, for the oldest formations that we\nknow--those of the Eozoic age--contain traces of such remains. It has,\nindeed, been suggested that these most ancient organisms are, as it\nwere, overlooked in the history of creation, or regarded as equivalent\nto those shapeless monsters and animals of the darkness that are\nreferred to in the older Turanian versions of this story of creation.\nI doubt very much, however, if this is a fair interpretation of our\nancient record; but we shall be in a better position to discuss it\nwhen we come to the actual introduction of animals.\n\nModern analogy would induce us to believe that the land was not\nelevated suddenly; but either by a series of small paroxysms, as in\nthe case of Chili, or by a gradual and imperceptible movement, as in\nthe case of Sweden--two of the most remarkable modern instances of\nelevation of land--accompanied, however, in the case of the last by\nlocal subsidence.[84] In either of these ways the seas and rivers\nwould have time to smooth the more rugged inequalities, to widen the\nravines into valleys, and to spread out sediment in the lower grounds;\nthus fitting the surface for the habitation of plants and animals. We\nmust not suppose, however, that the dry land had any close resemblance\nto that now existing in its form or distribution. Geology amply\nproves that since the first appearance of dry land, its contour has\nfrequently been changed, and probably also its position. Hence nearly\nall our present land consists of rocks which have been formed under\nthe waters, long after the period now under consideration, and have\nbeen subsequently hardened and elevated; and since all the existing\nhigh mountain ranges are of a comparatively late age, it is probable\nthat this primeval dry land was low, as well as, in the earlier part\nof the period at least, of comparatively small extent. It is, however,\nby no means certain that there may not have been a greater expanse of\nland toward the close of this period than that which afterwards\nexisted in those older periods of animal life to which the earliest\nfossiliferous rocks of the geologist carry us back; since, as already\nhinted, it seems to be a rule in creation that each new object shall\nbe highly developed of its kind at its first appearance, and since\nthere have been in geological time many great subsidences as well as\nelevations. Neither must we forget that the oldest land has been\nsubjected throughout geological time to wearing and degrading\nagencies, and that from its waste the later formations have been\nmainly derived.\n\nIt would be wrong, however, to omit to state that, though we may know\nat present no remains of the first dry land, we are not ignorant of\nits general distribution; for the present continents show, in the\narrangement of their formations and mountain chains, evidence that\nthey are parts of a plan sketched out from the beginning. It has often\nbeen remarked by physical geographers that the great lines of coast\nand mountain ranges are generally in directions approaching to\nnortheast and southwest, or northwest and southeast, and that where\nthey run in other directions, as in the case of the south of Europe\nand Asia, they are much broken by salient and re-entering angles,\nformed by lines having these directions. Professor R. Owen, of\nTennessee, and Professor Pierce, of Harvard College, were, I believe,\nthe first to point out that these lines are in reality parts of great\ncircles tangent to the polar circles, and the latter to suggest a\ntheory of their origin, based on the action of solar heat and the\nseasons on a cooling earth. This has been more fully stated by Mr. W.\nLowthian Green in his curious book, \"Vestiges of the Molten\nGlobe.\"[85] It would appear that the great circles in question are in\nreality at right angles to the line of direction of the attraction of\nthe sun and moon at the period of either solstice, and when they\nhappen to be in conjunction or opposition at these periods; and that\nsuch circles would be the lines on which the thin crust of a cooling\nglobe would be most likely to be ruptured by its internal tidal-wave.\nWhatever the cause of the phenomenon, it is evident that in the\nformation of its surface inequalities the earth has cracked--so to\nspeak--along two series of great circles tangent to the polar circles;\nand that these, with certain subordinate lines of fracture running\nnorth and south and east and west, have determined the forms of the\ncontinents from their origin.\n\nM. Elie de Beaumont, and after him most other geologists, have\nattributed the elevation of the continents and the upheaval and\nplication of mountain chains to the secular refrigeration of the\nearth, causing its outer shell to become too capacious for its\ncontracting interior mass, and thus to break or bend, and to settle\ntoward the centre. This view would well accord with the terms in which\nthe elevation of the land is mentioned throughout the Bible, and\nespecially with the general progress of the work as we have gleaned\nit from the Mosaic narrative; since from the period of the desolate\nvoid and aeriform deep to that now before us secular refrigeration\nmust have been steadily in progress. Let us also observe here that the\nearliest fractures of the crust would determine the first coast lines,\nand the first slopes along which sedimentary matter would descend from\nthe land and be deposited in the sea. They would also modify the\ndirection of the ocean currents. Thus the deposition of new formations\nwould be directed by these old lines, as would also to some extent the\ncourse of all subsequent fractures and plications. Thus it happens\nthat the lines of outcrop of the oldest rocks first raised out of the\nwaters already marked out the forms of the continents, and that the\nlater formations appear rather as fillings-up and extensions of the\nskeleton established by the first dry land. Farther, the lines of\nplication first established along the borders of the continents formed\nresisting walls along which, in the continued contraction of the\nearth, pressure was exerted from the ocean bed, widening and elevating\nthese lines of upheaval, and still farther fixing the general forms of\nthe continents, and giving variety to their surfaces. In the progress\nof geological time there have also been successive depressions and\nre-elevations of the continental plateaus, subjecting them alternately\nto the wearing and disintegrating action of the atmosphere and its\nwaters, and to the influence of waves and ocean currents, and\nespecially to that of the deep-seated polar currents which have\nthroughout geological ages been loading the submerged areas of the\nearth's surface with the products of the waste caused by frost and ice\nin the polar regions. These causes again have been progressively\nincreasing the oblateness of the earth's figure, and, along with the\nslackening of its rotation, preparing the way for those periodical\ncollapses in the equatorial and temperate regions which form the\nboundaries of some of our most important geological periods.[86]\nThroughout all these changes the great general plan of the continents,\nfirst sketched out when the \"foundations of the earth\" were laid,\nbefore Eozoic time, was being elaborated.\n\nThe same creative period that witnessed the first appearance of dry\nland saw it also clothed with vegetation; and it is quite likely that\nthis is intended to teach that no time was lost in clothing the earth\nwith plants--that the first emerging portions received their vegetable\ntenants as they became fitted for them--and that each additional\nregion, as it rose above the surface of the waters, in like manner\nreceived the species of plants for which it was adapted. What was the\nnature of this earliest vegetation? The sacred writer specifies three\ndescriptions of plants as included in it; and, by considering the\nterms which he uses, some information on this subject may be gained.\n\n_Deshe_, translated \"grass\" in our version, is derived from a verb\nsignifying to spring up or bud forth; the same verb, indeed, used in\nthis verse to denote \"bringing forth,\" literally causing to spring up.\nIts radical meaning is, therefore, vegetation in the act of sprouting\nor springing forth; or, as connected with this, young and delicate\nherbage. Thus, in Job xxxviii., \"To satisfy the desolate and waste\nground, and to cause the bud of the _young herbage_ to spring forth.\"\nHere the reference is, no doubt, to the bulbous and tuberous rooted\nplants of the desert plains, which, fading away in the summer drought,\nburst forth with magical rapidity on the setting-in of rain. The\nfollowing passages are similar: Psalm xxiii., \"He maketh me to lie\ndown in green pastures\" (literally, young or _tender herbage_);\nDeuteronomy xxiii., \"Small rain upon the _tender herb_;\" Isaiah\nxxxvii., \"_Grass_ on the house-tops.\" The word is also used for\nherbage such as can be eaten by cattle or cut down for fodder, though\neven in these cases the idea of young and tender herbage is evidently\nincluded; \"Fat as a heifer at _grass_\" (Jer. xiv.)--that is, feeding\non young succulent grass, not that which is dry and parched. \"Cut down\nas the grass, or wither as the green herb,\" like the soft, tender\ngrass, soon cut down and quickly withering. With respect to the use of\nthe word in this place, I may remark: 1. It is not here correctly\ntranslated by the word \"grass;\" for grass bears seed, and is,\nconsequently, a member of the second class of plants mentioned. Even\nif we set aside all idea of inspiration, it is obviously impossible\nthat any one living among a pastoral or agricultural people could have\nbeen ignorant of this fact. 2. It can scarcely be a general term,\nincluding all plants when in a young or tender state. The idea of\ntheir springing up is included in the verb, and this was but a very\ntemporary condition. Besides, this word does not appear to be employed\nfor the young state of shrubs or trees. 3. We thus appear to be shut\nup to the conclusion that _deshe_ here means those plants, mostly\nsmall and herbaceous, which bear no proper seeds;[87] in other words,\nthe Cryptogamia--as fungi, mosses, lichens, ferns, etc. The remaining\nwords are translated with sufficient accuracy in our version. They\ndenote seed-bearing or phoenogamous herbs and trees. The special\nmention of the fructification of plants is probably intended not only\nfor distinction, but also to indicate the new power of organic\nreproduction now first introduced on the surface of our planet, and to\nmark its difference from the creative act itself. That this new and\nwondrous phenomenon should be so stated is thus in strict scientific\npropriety, and it is precisely the point that would be seized by an\nintelligent spectator of the visions of creation, who had previously\nwitnessed only the accretion and disintegration of mineral substances,\nand to whom this marvellous power of organic reproduction would be in\nevery respect a new creation.\n\nThe arrangement of plants in the three great classes of cryptogams,\nseed-bearing herbs, and fruit-bearing trees differs in one important\npoint--viz., the separation of herbaceous plants from trees--from\nmodern botanical classification. It is, however, sufficiently natural\nfor the purposes of a general description like this, and perhaps gives\nmore precise ideas of the meaning intended than any other arrangement\nequally concise and popular. It is also probable that the object of\nthe writer was not so much a natural-history classification as an\naccount of the _order_ of creation, and that he wishes to affirm that\nthe introduction of these three classes of plants on the earth\ncorresponded with the order here stated. This view renders it\nunnecessary to vindicate the accuracy of the arrangement on botanical\ngrounds, since the historical order was evidently better suited to the\npurpose in view, and in so far as the earlier appearance of\ncryptogamous plants is concerned, it is in strict accordance with\ngeological fact.\n\nA very important truth is contained in the expression \"after its\nkind\"--that is, after its _species_; for the Hebrew \"_min_,\" used\nhere, has strictly this sense, and, like the Greek _idea_ and the\nLatin _species_, conveys the notion of form as well as that of kind.\nIt is used to denote species of animals, in Leviticus i., 14, and in\nDeuteronomy xiv., 15. We are taught by this statement that plants were\ncreated each kind by itself; and that creation was not a sort of\nslump-work to be perfected by the operation of a law of development,\nas fancied by some modern speculators. In this assertion of the\ndistinctness of species, and the production of each as a distinct part\nof the creative plan, revelation tallies perfectly with the\nconclusions of natural science, which lead us to believe that each\nspecies, as observed by us, is permanently reproductive, variable\nwithin narrow limits, and incapable of permanent intermixture with\nother species; and though hypotheses of modification by descent, and\nof the production of new species by such modification, may be formed,\nthey are not in accordance with experience, and are still among the\nunproved speculations which haunt the outskirts of true science. We\nshall be better prepared, however, to weigh the relations of such\nhypotheses to our revelation of origins when we shall have reached the\nperiod of the introduction of animal life.\n\nSome additional facts contained in the recapitulation of the creative\nwork in Chapter II. may very properly be considered here, as they seem\nto refer to the climatal conditions of the earth during the growth of\nthe most ancient vegetation, and before the final adjustment of the\nastronomical relations of the earth on the fourth day. \"And every\nshrub of the land before it was on the earth, and every herb of the\nland before it sprung up. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain\non the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; but a mist\nascended from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.\"\nThis has been supposed to be a description of the state of the earth\nduring the whole period anterior to the fall of man. There is,\nhowever, no Scripture evidence of this; and geology informs us that\nrain fell as at present far back in the Palaeozoic period, countless\nages before the creation of man or the existing animals. Although,\nhowever, such a condition of the earth as that stated in these verses\nhas not been known in any geological period, yet it is not\ninconceivable, but in reality corresponds with the other conditions of\nnature likely to have prevailed on the third day, as described in\nGenesis. The land of this period, we may suppose, was not very\nextensive nor very elevated. Hence the temperature would be uniform\nand the air moist. The luminous and calorific matter connected with\nthe sun still occupied a large space, and therefore diffused heat and\nlight more uniformly than at present. The internal heat of the earth\nmay still have produced an effect in warming the oceanic waters. The\ncombined operation of these causes, of which we, perhaps, have some\ntraces as late as the Carboniferous period, might well produce a state\nof things in which the earth was watered, not by showers of rain, but\nby the gentle and continued precipitation of finely divided moisture,\nin the manner now observed in those climates in which vegetation is\nnourished for a considerable part of the year by nocturnal mists and\ncopious dews. The atmosphere, in short, as yet partook in some slight\ndegree of the same moist and misty character which prevailed before\nthe \"establishment of the clouds above\"--the airy firmament of the\nsecond day. The introduction of these explanatory particulars by the\nsacred historian furnishes an additional argument for the theory of\nlong periods. That vegetation should exist for two or three natural\ndays without rain or the irrigation which is given in culture, was, as\nalready stated, a circumstance altogether unworthy of notice; but the\ngrowth during a long period of a varied and highly organized flora,\nwithout this advantage, and by the aid of a special natural provision\nafterward discontinued, was in all respects so remarkable and so\nhighly illustrative of the expedients of the divine wisdom that it\ndeserved a prominent place.\n\nIt is evident that the words of the inspired writer include plants\nbelonging to all the great subdivisions of the vegetable kingdom. This\nearliest vegetation was not rude or incomplete, or restricted to the\nlower forms of life. It was not even, like that of the coal period,\nsolely or mainly cryptogamous or gymnospermous. It included trees\nbearing fruit, as well as lichens and mosses, and it received the same\nstamp of approbation bestowed on other portions of the work--\"it was\ngood.\" We have a good right to assume that its excellence had\nreference not only to its own period, but to subsequent conditions of\nthe earth. Vegetation is the great assimilating power, the converter\nof inorganic into organic matter suitable for the sustenance of\nanimals. In like manner the lower tribes of plants prepare the way for\nthe higher. We should therefore have expected _a priori_ that\nvegetation would have clothed the earth before the creation of\nanimals, and a sufficient time before it to allow soils to be\naccumulated, and surplus stores of organic matter to be prepared in\nadvance: this consideration alone would also induce us to assign a\nconsiderable duration to the third day. After the elevation of land,\nand the draining off from it of the saline matter with which it would\nbe saturated, a process often very tedious, especially in low tracts\nof ground, the soil would still consist only of mineral matter, and\nmust have been for a long period occupied by plants suited to this\ncondition of things, in order that sufficient organic matter might be\naccumulated for the growth of a more varied vegetation; a\nconsideration which perhaps illustrates the order of the plants in the\nnarrative.\n\nIt may be objected to the above views that, however accordant with\nchemical and physiological probabilities, they do not harmonize with\nthe facts of geology; since the earliest fossiliferous formations\ncontain almost exclusively the remains of animals, which must\ntherefore have preceded, or at least been coeval with, the earliest\nforms of terrestrial vegetation. This objection is founded on\nwell-ascertained facts, but facts which may have no connection with\nthe third day of creation when regarded as a long period. The oldest\ngeological formations are of marine origin, and contain remains of\nmarine animals, with those of plants supposed to be allied to the\nexisting algae or sea-weeds. Geology can not, however, assure us either\nthat no land plants existed contemporaneously with these earliest\nanimals, or that no land flora preceded them. These oldest\nfossiliferous rocks may mark the commencement of animal life, but they\ntestify nothing as to the existence or non-existence of a previous\nperiod of vegetation alone. Farther, the rocks which contain the\noldest remains of life exist as far as yet known in a condition so\nhighly metamorphic as almost to preclude the possibility of their\ncontaining any distinguishable vegetable fossils; yet they contain\nvast deposits of carbon in the form of graphite, and if this, like\nmore modern coaly matter, was accumulated by vegetable growth, it must\nindicate an exuberance of plants in these earliest geological periods,\nbut of plants as yet altogether unknown to us. It is possible,\ntherefore, that in these Eozoic rocks we may have remnants of the\nformations of the third Mosaic day; and if we should ever be so\nfortunate as to find any portion of them containing vegetable fossils,\nand these of species differing from any hitherto known, either in a\nfossil state or recent, and rising higher, in elevation and complexity\nof type, than the flora of the succeeding Silurian and Carboniferous\neras, we may then suppose that we have penetrated to the monuments of\nthis third creative aeon. The only other alternative by which these\nverses can be reconciled with geology is that adopted by the late Hugh\nMiller, who supposes that the plants of the third day are those of the\nCarboniferous period; but, besides the apparent anachronism involved\nin this, we now know that the coal flora consisted mainly of\ncryptogams allied to ferns and club-mosses, and of gymnosperms allied\nto the pines and cycads, the higher orders of plants being almost\nentirely wanting. For these reasons we are shut up to the conclusion\nthat this flora of the third day must have its place before the\nPalaeozoic period of geology.\n\nTo those who are familiar with the vast lapse of time required by the\ngeological history of the earth, it may be startling to ascribe the\nwhole of it to three or four of the creative days. If, however, it be\nadmitted that these days were periods of unknown duration, no reason\nremains for limiting their length any farther than the facts of the\ncase require. If in the strata of the earth which are accessible to us\nwe can detect the evidence of its existence for myriads of years, why\nmay not its Creator be able to carry our view back for myriads more.\nIt may be humbling to our pride of knowledge, but it is not on any\nscientific ground improbable, that the oldest animal remains known to\ngeology belong to the middle period of the earth's history, and were\npreceded by an enormous lapse of ages in which the earth was being\nprepared for animal existence, but of which no records remain, except\nthose contained in the inspired history.\n\nIt would be quite unphilosophical for geology to affirm either that\nanimal life must always have existed, or that its earliest animals are\nnecessarily the earliest organic beings. To use, with a slight\nmodification, the words of an able thinker on these subjects,[88]\n\"For ages the prejudice prevailed that the historical period, or that\nwhich is coeval with the life of man, exhausted the whole history of\nthe globe. Geologists removed that prejudice,\" but must not substitute\n\"another in its place, viz., that geological time is coeval with the\nglobe itself, or that organic life always existed on its surface.\"\n\nA second doubt as to the existence of this primitive flora may be\nbased on the statement that it included the highest forms of plants.\nHad it consisted only of low and imperfect vegetables, there might\nhave been much less difficulty in admitting its probability. Farther,\nwe find that even in the Carboniferous period scarcely any plants of\nthe higher orders flourished, and there was a preponderance of the\nlower forms of the vegetable kingdom. We have, however, in geological\nchronology, many illustrations of the fact that the progress of\nimprovement has not been continuous or uninterrupted, and that the\npreservation of the flora and fauna of many geological periods has\nbeen very imperfect. Hence the occurrence in one particular stratum or\ngroup of strata of few or low representatives of animal and vegetable\nlife affords no proof that a better state of things may not have\nexisted previously. We also find, in the case of animals, that each\ntribe attained to its highest development at the time when, in the\nprogress of creation, it occupied the summit of the scale of life.\nAnalogy would thus lead us to believe that when plants alone existed,\nthey may have assumed nobler forms than any now existing, or that\ntribes now represented by few and humble species may at that time have\nbeen so great in numbers and development as to fill all the offices of\nour present complicated flora, as well as, perhaps, some of those now\noccupied by animals. We have this principle exemplified in the\nCarboniferous flora, by the magnitude of its arborescent club-mosses,\nand the vast variety of its gymnosperms. For this reason we may\nanticipate that if any remains of this early plant-creation should be\ndisinterred, they will prove to be among the most wonderful and\ninteresting geological relics ever discovered, and will enlarge our\nviews of the compass and capabilities of the vegetable kingdom, and\nespecially of its lower forms.\n\nA farther objection is the uselessness of the existence of plants for\na long period, without any animals to subsist on or enjoy them, and\neven without forming any accumulation of fossil fuel or other products\nuseful to man. The only direct answer to this has already been given.\nThe previous existence of plants may have been, and probably was,\nessential to the comfort and subsistence of the animals afterwards\nintroduced. Independently of this, however, we have an analogous case\nin the geological history of animals, which prevents this fact from\nstanding alone. Why was the earth tenanted so long by the inferior\nraces of animals, and why were so much skill and contrivance expended\non their structures, and even on their external ornament, when there\nwas no intelligent mind on earth to appreciate their beauties. Even in\nthe present world we may as well ask why the uninhabited islands of\nthe ocean are found to be replete with luxuriant vegetable life, why\nGod causes it to rain in the desert where human foot never treads, or\nwhy he clothes with a marvellous exuberance of beautiful animal and\nplant forms the depths of the sea. We can but say that these things\nseemed and seem good to the Creator, and may serve uses unknown to us;\nand this is precisely what we must be content to say respecting the\nplant-creation of the Eozoic period.\n\nSome writers[89] on this subject have suggested that the cosmical use\nof this plant-creation was the abstraction from the atmosphere of an\nexcess of carbonic acid unfavorable to the animal life subsequently to\nbe introduced. This use it may have served, and when its effects had\nbeen gradually lost through metamorphism and decay, that second great\nwithdrawal of carbon which took place in the Carboniferous period may\nhave been rendered necessary. The reasons afforded by natural history\nfor supposing that plants preceded animals are thus stated by\nProfessor Dana:\n\n\"The proof from science of the existence of plants before animals is\ninferential, and still may be deemed satisfactory. Distinct fossils\nhave not been found, all that ever existed in the azoic[90] rocks\nhaving been obliterated. The arguments in the affirmative are as\nfollows:\n\n\"1. The existence of limestone rocks among the other beds, similar\nlimestones in later ages having been of organic origin; also the\noccurrence of carbon in the shape of graphite, graphite being, in\nknown cases in rocks, a result of the alteration of the carbon of\nplants.\n\n\"2. The fact that the cooling earth would have been fitted for\nvegetable life for a long age before animals could have existed; the\nprinciple being exemplified everywhere that the earth was occupied at\neach period with the highest kinds of life the conditions allowed.\n\n\"3. The fact that vegetation subserved an important purpose in the\ncoal-period in ridding the atmosphere of carbonic acid for the\nsubsequent introduction of land animals, suggests a valid reason for\nbelieving that the same great purpose, the true purpose of vegetation,\nwas effected through the ocean before the _waters_ were fitted for\nanimal life.\n\n\"4. Vegetation being directly or mediately the food of animals, it\nmust have had a previous existence. The latter part of the azoic age\nin geology we therefore regard as the age when the plant kingdom was\ninstituted, the latter half of the third day in Genesis. However short\nor long the epoch, it was one of the great steps of progress.\"\n\nIn concluding the examination of the work of the third day, I must\nagain remind the reader that, on the theory of long creative periods,\nthe words under consideration must refer to the first introduction of\nvegetation, in forms that have long since ceased to exist. Geology\ninforms us that in the period of which it is cognizant the vegetation\nof the earth has been several times renewed, and that no plants of the\nolder and middle geological periods now exist. We may therefore rest\nassured that the vegetable species, and probably also many of the\ngeneric and family forms of the vegetation of the third day, have long\nsince perished, and been replaced by others suited to the changed\ncondition of the earth. It is indeed probable that during the third\nand fourth days themselves there might be many removals and renewals\nof the terrestrial flora, so that perhaps every species created at the\ncommencement of the introduction of plants may have been extinct\nbefore the close of the period. Nevertheless it was marked by the\nintroduction of vegetation, which in one or another set of forms has\never since clothed the earth.\n\nAt the commencement of the third day the earth was still covered by\nthe waters. As time advanced islands and mountain-peaks arose from\nthe ocean, vomiting forth the molten and igneous materials of the\ninterior of the earth's crust. Plains and valleys were then spread\naround, rivers traced out their beds, and the ocean was limited by\ncoasts and divided by far-stretching continents. At the command of the\nCreator plants sprung from the soil--the earliest of organized\nstructures--at first probably few and small, and fitted to contend\nagainst the disadvantages of soils impregnated with saline particles\nand destitute of organic matter; but as the day advanced increasing in\nnumber, magnitude, and elevation, until at length the earth was\nclothed with a luxuriant and varied vegetation, worthy the approval of\nthe Creator, and the admiring song of the angelic \"sons of God.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nLUMINARIES.\n\n\n     \"And God said, Let there be luminaries in the expanse of\n     heaven, to divide the day from the night; and let them be\n     for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years. And\n     let them be for luminaries in the expanse of heaven, to give\n     light on the earth: and it was so.\n\n     \"And God made two great luminaries, the greater luminary to\n     preside over the day, the lesser luminary to preside over\n     the night. He made the stars also. And God placed them in\n     the expanse of heaven to give light on the earth, and to\n     preside over the day and over the night, and to separate the\n     light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And\n     the evening and the morning were the fourth day.\"--Genesis\n     i., 14-19.\n\n\nAfter so long a sojourn on the earth, we are in these verses again\ncarried to the heavens. Every scientific reader is struck with the\nposition of this remarkable statement, interrupting as it does the\nprogress of the organic creation, and constituting a break in the\nmidst of the terrestrial history which is the immediate subject of the\nnarrative; thus, in effect, as has often been remarked, dividing the\ncreative week into two portions. Why was the completion of the\nheavenly bodies so long delayed? Why were light and vegetation\nintroduced previously? If we can not fully answer these questions, we\nmay at least suppose that the position of these verses is not\naccidental, though certainly not that which would have been chosen for\nits own sake by any fabricator of systems ancient or modern. Let us\ninquire, however, what are the precise terms of the record.\n\n1. The word here used to denote the objects produced clearly\ndistinguishes them from the product of the first day's creation. Then\nGod said, \"Let _light_ be;\" he now says, \"Let _luminaries_ or\nlight-bearers be.\" We have already seen that the light of the first\nday may have emanated from an extended luminous mass, at first\noccupying the whole extent of the solar system, and more or less\nattached to the several planetary bodies, and afterwards concentrated\nwithin the earth's orbit. The verses now under consideration inform us\nthat the process of concentration was now complete, that our great\ncentral luminary had attained to its perfect state. This process of\nconcentration may have been proceeding during the whole of the\nintervening time, or it may have been completed at once by some more\nrapid process of the nature of a direct interposition of creative\npower.\n\n2. The division of light from darkness is expressed by the same terms,\nand is of the same nature with that on the first day. This separation\nwas now produced in its full extent by the perfect condensation of the\nluminiferous matters around the sun.\n\n3. The heavenly bodies are said to be intended for _signs_--that is,\nfor marks or indications--either of the seasons, days, and years\nafterwards mentioned, or of the majesty and power of the true God, as\nthe Creator of objects so grand and elevated as to become to the\nignorant heathen objects of idolatrous worship; or perhaps of the\nearthly events they are supposed to influence. The arrangements now\nperfected for the first time enabled natural days, seasons, and years\nto have their limits accurately marked. Previously to this period\nthere had been no distinctly marked seasons, and consequently no\nnatural separation of years, nor were the limits of days at all\naccurately defined.\n\n4. The terms _expanse_ and _heaven_, previously applied to the\natmosphere, are here combined to denote the more distant starry and\nplanetary heavens. There is no ambiguity involved in this, since the\nwriter must have well known that no one could so far mistake as to\nsuppose that the heavenly bodies are placed in that atmospheric\nexpanse which supports the clouds.\n\n5. The luminaries were _made_ or appointed to their office on the\nfourth day. They are not said to have been created, being included in\nthe creation of the beginning. They were now completed, and fully\nfitted for their work. An important part of this fitting seems to have\nbeen the setting or placing them in the heavens, conveying to us the\nimpression that the mutual relations and regular motions of the\nheavenly bodies were now for the first time perfected.\n\n6. The stars are introduced in a parenthetical manner, which leaves it\ndoubtful whether we are merely informed in general terms that they are\nworks of God, as well as those heavenly bodies which are of more\nimportance to us, or that they were arranged as heavenly luminaries\nuseful to our earth on the fourth day. The term includes the fixed\nstars, and it is by no means probable that these were in any way\naffected by the work referred to the fourth day, any farther than\ntheir appearance from our earth is concerned. This view is confirmed\nby the language of the 104th Psalm, which in this part of the work\nmentions the sun and moon alone, without the fixed stars or planets.\n\nIt is evident that the changes referred to this period related to the\nwhole solar system, and resulted in the completion of that system in\nthe form which it now bears, or at least in the final adjustment of\nthe motions and relations of the earth; and we have reason to believe\nthat the condensation of the luminous envelope around the sun was one\nof the most important of these changes. On the hypothesis of La Place,\nalready referred to as most in accordance with the earlier stages of\nthe work, there seems to be no especial reason why the completion of\nthe process of elaboration of the sun and planets should be\naccelerated at this particular stage. We can easily understand,\nhowever, that those closing steps which brought the solar system into\na state of permanent and final equilibrium would form a marked epoch\nin the work; and we can also understand that now, on the eve of the\nintroduction of animal life, there is a certain propriety in the\nrepresentation of the Creator interfering to close up the merely\ninorganic part of his great work, and bring this department at least\nto its final perfection. The fourth day, then, in geological language,\nmarks _the complete introduction of \"existing causes\" in inorganic\nnature_, and we henceforth find no more creative interference, except\nin the domain of organization. This accords admirably with the\ndeductions of modern geology, and especially with that great principle\nso well expounded by Sir Charles Lyell, and which forms the true basis\nof modern geological reasonings--that we should seek in existing\ncauses of change for the explanation of the appearances of the rocks\nof the earth's crust. Geology probably carries us back to the\nintroduction of animal life; and shows us that since that time land,\nsea, and atmosphere, summer and winter, day and night--all the great\ninorganic conditions affecting animal life--have existed as at\npresent, and have been subject to modifications the same in kind with\nthose which they now experience, though perhaps different in degree.\nIn this ancient record we find in like manner that the period\nimmediately preceding the creation of animals witnessed the completion\nof all the great general arrangements on which these phenomena\ndepend. The Bible, therefore, and science agree in the truth that\nexisting causes have been in full force since the creation of animals;\nand that since that period the exercise of creative power has been\nlimited to the organic world. This has a curious bearing, not often\nthought of, on modern theories of evolution as compared with the\nteaching of the Bible. In one important sense, absolute creation, in\nso far as the inorganic universe is concerned, is in our Mosaic\nnarrative limited to the production of matter and force at first. All\nelse is called making, forming, or appointing. Thus the production of\nall the arrangements of the waters, the atmosphere, the earth, and the\nheavens, in the work of the first four days, and even the introduction\nof plants, may be correctly termed an evolution or development from\npreformed materials, with the single exception that the reproductive\npower and specific diversities of plants are recognized as entirely\nnew facts. Creation is properly resumed when animal life is\nintroduced. Hence, in so far as a comparison with the terms of Genesis\nis concerned, hypotheses as to the evolution of animal life from\ninorganic matter are in a different position from hypotheses as to the\nprevious evolution of the parts of inorganic nature; and still more so\nfrom statements as to the progress of inorganic nature subsequent to\nthe introduction of animals; since within that period, which really\nincludes the whole of geological time, absolutely no creation whatever\nin the domain of inanimate nature is affirmed in the Biblical record\nto have taken place. On the contrary, all the arrangements of\ninorganic nature are represented as finally completed before the\ncreation of animals.\n\nThe obliquity of the earth's axis, which gives us the changes of the\nseasons, is apparently included in the arrangements of the fourth\ncreative day. The cause of this obliquity, and the time when it may\nhave attained to its present amount, have been fertile themes of\ndiscussion. It is clear, however, that if this obliquity was\nestablished, as appears to be stated here, before the introduction of\nanimal life, it can have no bearing on the changes of climate of which\nwe have evidence in geological time since the dawn of animal life,\nunless, indeed, it is capable of greater variation than astronomers\nadmit; and the same remark applies to supposed changes in the position\nof the poles themselves. There is, however, nothing in this record to\noppose the idea of any secular changes in these arrangements under the\nlaws appointed in the fourth creative period.\n\nThe record relating to the fourth day is silent respecting the mundane\nhistory of the period; and geology gives no very certain information\nconcerning it. If, however, we assume that any of the Eozoic or\npre-eozoic rocks are deposits of this or the preceding period, we may\ninfer from the disturbances and alteration which these have suffered,\nprior to the deposition of the Cambrian and Silurian, that during or\ntoward the close of this day the crust of the earth was affected by\ngreat movements. There is another consideration also leading to\nimportant conclusions in relation to this period. In the earliest\nfossiliferous rocks there seems to be good evidence that the dry land\ncontemporary with the seas in which they were formed was of very small\nextent. Now, since on the third day a very plentiful and highly\ndeveloped vegetation was produced, we may infer that during that\nperiod the extent of dry land was considerable, and was probably\ngradually increasing. If, then, the Cambrian and Silurian systems, so\nrich in marine organic remains, belong to the commencement of the\nfifth day, we must conclude that during the fourth much of the land\npreviously existing had been again submerged. In other words, during\nthe third day the extent of terrestrial surface was increasing, on the\nfourth day it diminished, and on the fifth it again increased, and\nprobably has on the whole continued to increase up to the present\ntime. One most important geological consequence of this is that the\nmarine animals of the fifth day probably commenced their existence on\nsea bottoms which were the old soil surfaces of submerged continents\npreviously clothed with vegetation, and which consequently contained\nmuch organic matter fitted to form a basis of support for the newly\ncreated animals.\n\nI shall close my remarks on the fourth day by a few quotations from\nthose passages of Scripture which refer to the objects of this day's\nwork. I have already referred to that beautiful passage in Deuteronomy\nwhere the Israelites are warned against the crime of worshipping those\nheavenly bodies which the Lord God hath \"divided to every nation under\nthe whole heaven.\" In the book of Job also we find that the heavenly\nbodies were in his day regarded as signal manifestations of the power\nof God, and that several of the principal constellations had received\nnames:\n\n  \"He commandeth the sun, and it shineth not;\n  He sealeth up the stars;[91]\n  He alone spreadeth out the heavens,\n  And walketh on the high waves of the sea;[92]\n  He maketh Arcturus, Orion,\n  The Pleiades, and the hidden chambers of the south;\n  Who doeth great things past finding out;\n  Yea, marvellous things beyond number.\"\n\n  --Job ix., 9.\n\n  \"Canst thou tighten the bonds of the Pleiades,[93]\n  Or loose the bands of Orion?\n  Canst thou bring forth the Mazzaroth in their season,\n  Or lead forth Arcturus and its sons?\n  Knowest thou the laws of the heavens,\n  Or hast thou appointed their dominion over the earth?\"\n\n  --Job xxxviii., 31.\n\nI may merely remark on these passages that the chambers of the south\nare supposed to be those parts of the southern heavens invisible in\nthe latitude in which Job resided. The bonds of Pleiades and of Orion\nprobably refer to the apparently close union of the stars of the\nformer group, and the wide separation of those of the latter; a\ndifference which, to the thoughtful observer of the heavens, is more\nstriking than most instances of that irregular grouping of the stars\nwhich still forms a question in astronomy, from the uncertainty\nwhether it is real, or only an optical deception arising from stars at\ndifferent distances coming nearly into a line with each other. I have\nseen in some recent astronomical work this very instance of the\nPleiades and Orion taken as a marked illustration of this\nproblematical fact in astronomy. _Mazzaroth_ are supposed by modern\nexpositors to be the signs of the Zodiac.\n\nOn the whole, the Hebrew books give us little information as to the\nastronomical theories of the time when they were written. They are\nentirely non-committal as to the nature of the connections and\nrevolutions of the heavenly bodies; and indeed regard these as matters\nin their time beyond the grasp of the human mind, though well known to\nthe Creator and regulated by his laws. From other sources we have\nfacts leading to the belief that even in the time of Moses, and\ncertainly in that of the later Biblical writers, there was not a\nlittle practical astronomy in the East, and some good theory. The\nHindoo astronomy professes to have observations from 3000 B.C., and\nthe arguments of Baily and others, founded on internal evidence, give\nsome color of truth to the claim. The Chaldeans at a very early period\nhad ascertained the principal circles of the sphere, the position of\nthe poles, and the nature of the apparent motions of the heavens as\nthe results of revolution on an inclined axis. The Egyptian astronomy\nwe know mainly from what the Greeks borrowed from it. Thales, 640\nB.C., taught that the moon is lighted by the sun, and that the earth\nis spherical, and the position of its five zones. Pythagoras, 580\nB.C., knew, in addition to the sphericity of the earth, the obliquity\nof the ecliptic, the identity of the evening and morning star, and\nthat the earth revolves round the sun. This Greek astronomy appears\nimmediately after the opening of Egypt to the Greeks; and both these\nphilosophers studied in that country. Such knowledge, and more of the\nsame character, may therefore have existed in Egypt at a much earlier\nperiod.\n\nThe Psalms abound in beautiful references to the creation of the\nfourth day:\n\n  \"When I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers,\n  The moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;\n  What is man, that thou art mindful of him?\n  Or the son of man, that thou visitest him?\"\n                               --Psalm viii.\n\n\n  \"Who telleth the number of the stars,\n  Who calleth them all by their names.\n  Great is our Lord, and of great praise;\n  His understanding is infinite.\n  The Lord lifteth up the meek;\n  He casteth the wicked to the ground.\"\n                               --Psalm cxlvii.\n\n\n  \"The heavens declare the glory of God,\n  The firmament showeth his handiwork;\n  Day unto day uttereth speech,\n  Night unto night showeth knowledge.\n  They have no speech nor language,\n  Their voice is not heard;\n  Yet their line is gone out to all the earth,\n  And their words to the end of the world.\n  In them hath he set a pavilion for the sun,\n  Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,\n  And rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.\n  Its going forth is from the end of the heavens,\n  And its circuit unto the end of them.\n  And there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.\"\n                              --Psalm xix.\n\nThese are excellent illustrations of the truth of the Scripture mode\nof treating natural objects, in connection with their Maker. It is but\na barren and fruitless philosophy which sees the work and not its\nauthor--a narrow piety which loves God but despises his works. The\nBible holds forth the golden mean between these extremes, in a strain\nof lofty poetry and acute perception of the great and beautiful,\nwhether seen in the Creator or reflected from his works.\n\nThe work of this day opens up a wide field for astronomical\nillustration, more especially in relation to the wisdom and\nbenevolence of the Creator as displayed in the heavens; but it would\nbe foreign to our present purpose to enter into these.\n\nIt may be well, however, to think for a moment of the importance of\nthe facts suggested by the writer of Genesis in mentioning the use of\nthe heavenly bodies as signs of time. To what extent civilization or\neven the continued existence of man as an intelligent being would have\nbeen possible without the marks of subdivision of time given by the\ngreat astronomical clock of the universe, it is almost impossible for\nus to imagine. Without such marks of time, in any case, the whole\nfabric of human culture must have been different from what it is.\nFarther, in connection with this, it is a grand thought of our early\nrevelation that all these heavenly bodies, however magnificent, and\nhowever they might seem to the heathen to be objects of worship, are\nbut marks on God's clock, parts of a mere machine which keeps time for\nus, and is therefore our servant, as the children of the great\nArtificer, and not our ruler. The idea has been termed an astrological\none; but astrology as a means of divination has no place in the\nrecord. The heavenly bodies are under the law of the Creator, and\ntheir function relatively to us is to give light and to give time.\nAstrological divination is an outgrowth of the Sabaean idolatry, and\nheld in abomination by the monotheistic author of Genesis. His object\nmay be summed up in the following general statements:\n\n1. The heavenly hosts and their arrangements are the work of Jehovah,\nand are regulated wholly by his laws or ordinances; a striking\nillustration of the recognition by the Hebrew writer both of creative\ninterference, and that stable, natural law which too often withdraws\nthe mind of the philosopher from the ideas of creation and of\nprovidence.\n\n2. The heavenly bodies have a relation to the earth--are parts of the\nsame plan, and, whatever other uses they were made to serve, were made\nfor the benefit of man.\n\n3. The general physical arrangements of the solar system were\nperfected before the introduction of animals on our planet.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE LOWER ANIMALS.\n\n\n     \"And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarming living\n     creatures, and let birds fly on the surface of the expanse\n     of heaven. And God created great reptiles, and every living\n     moving thing, which the waters brought forth abundantly,\n     after their kind, and every bird after its kind; and God saw\n     that it was good.\n\n     \"And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and\n     fill the waters of the seas, and let the flying creatures\n     multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were\n     the fifth day.\"--Genesis i., 20-23.\n\n\nIn these words, so full of busy, active, thronging life, we now enter\non that part of the earth's history which has been most fully\nelucidated by geology, and we have thus an additional reason for\ncarefully weighing the terms of the narrative, which here, as in other\nplaces, contain large and important truths couched in language of the\nsimplest character.\n\n1. In accordance with the views now entertained by the best\nlexicographers, the word translated in our version \"creeping things\"\nhas been rendered \"prolific or swarming creatures.\" The Hebrew is\n_Sheretz_, a noun derived from the verb used in this verse to denote\nbringing forth abundantly. It is loosely translated in the Septuagint\n_Erpeta_, reptiles; and this view our English translators appear to\nhave adopted, without, perhaps, any very clear notions of the\ncreatures intended. The manner in which it is used in other passages\nplaces its true meaning beyond doubt. I select as illustrations of\nthe most apposite character those verses in Leviticus in which clean\nand unclean animals are specified, and in which we have a right to\nexpect the most precise zoological nomenclature that the Hebrew can\nafford. In Leviticus xi., 20-23, _insects_ are defined to be _flying\nsheretzim_, and in verse 29, etc., under the designation \"_sheretzim\nof the land_,\" we have animals named in our version the weasel, mouse,\ntortoise, ferret, chameleon, lizard, snail, and mole. The first of\nthese animals is believed to have been a burrowing creature, perhaps a\nmole; the second, from the meaning of its name, \"ravager of fields,\"\nis thought to have been a mouse. Some doubt, however, attends both of\nthese identifications, but it appears certain that the remaining six\nspecies are small reptiles, principally lizards. We learn, therefore,\nthat the smaller reptiles, and _perhaps_ also a few small mammals, are\n_sheretzim_. In verses 41 and 42 we are introduced to other tribes.\n\"And every _sheretz_ that swarmeth on the earth shall be an\nabomination unto you; it shall not be eaten; whatsoever goeth upon the\nbelly (serpents, worms, snails, etc.), and whatsoever hath more feet\n(than four) (insects, arachnidans, myriapods).\" In verses 9 and 10 of\nthe same chapter we have an enumeration of the _sheretzim_ of the\nwaters: \"Whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas\nand in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and\nscales in the seas and the rivers, of all that swarm in the waters\n(all the _sheretzim_ of the waters), they shall be an abomination unto\nyou.\" Here the general term _sheretz_ includes all the fishes and the\ninvertebrate animals of the waters. From the whole of the above\npassages we learn that this is a general term for all the invertebrate\nanimals and the two lower classes of vertebrates, or, in other words,\nfor the whole animal kingdom except the mammalia and birds. To all\nthese creatures the name is particularly appropriate, all of them\nbeing oviparous or ovoviviparous, and consequently producing great\nnumbers of young and multiplying very rapidly. The only other\ncreatures which can be included under the term are the two doubtful\nspecies of small mammals already mentioned. Nothing can be more fair\nand obvious than this explanation of the term, based both on etymology\nand on the precise nomenclature of the ceremonial law. We conclude,\ntherefore, that the prolific animals of the fifth day's creation\nbelonged to the three Cuvierian sub-kingdoms of the Radiata,\nArticulata, and Mollusca, and to the classes of Fish and Reptiles\namong the vertebrata.\n\n2. One peculiar group of _sheretzim_ is especially distinguished by\nname--the _tanninim_, or \"great whales\" of our version. It would be\namusing, had we time, to notice the variety of conjectures to which\nthis word has given rise, and the perplexities of commentators in\nreference to it. In our version and the Septuagint it is usually\nrendered dragon; but in this place the seventy have thought proper to\nput _Ketos_ (whale), and our translators have followed them.\nSubsequent translators and commentators have laid under contribution\nall sorts of marine monsters, including the sea-serpent, in their\nendeavors to attach a precise meaning to the word; while others have\nbeen content to admit that it may signify any kind or all kinds of\nlarge aquatic animals. The greater part of the difficulty appears to\nhave arisen from confounding two distinct words, _tannin_ and _tan_,\nboth names of animals; and the confusion has been increased by the\ncircumstance that in two places the words have been interchanged,\nprobably by errors of transcribers. _Tan_ occurs in twelve places, and\nfrom these we can gather that it inhabits ruined cities, deserts, and\nplaces to which ostriches resort, that it suckles its young, is of\npredaceous and shy habits, utters a wailing cry, and is not of large\nsize, nor formidable to man. The most probable conjecture as to the\nanimal intended is that of Gesenius, who supposes it to be the jackal.\nThe other word (_tannin_), which is that used in the text, is applied\nas an emblem of Egypt and its kings, and also of the conquering kings\nof Babylon. It is spoken of as furious when enraged, and formidable to\nman, and is said to be an inhabitant of rivers and of the sea, but\nmore especially of the Nile. In short, it is the crocodile of the\nNile. We can easily understand the perplexity of those writers who\nsuppose these two words to be identical, and endeavor to combine all\nthe characters above mentioned in one animal or tribe of animals. As a\nfarther illustration of the marked difference in the meanings of the\ntwo words, we may compare the 34th and 37th verses of the fifty-first\nchapter of Jeremiah. In the first of these verses the King of Babylon\nis represented as a \"dragon\" (_tannin_), which had swallowed up\nIsrael. In the second it is predicted that Babylon itself shall become\nheaps, a dwelling-place for \"dragons\" (_tanim_). There can be no doubt\nthat the animals intended here are quite different. The devouring\n_tannin_ is a huge predaceous river reptile, a fit emblem of the\nBabylonian monarch; the _tan_ is the jackal that will soon howl in his\nruined palaces. It is interesting to know that philologists trace a\nconnection between _tannin_ and the Greek _teino_, Latin _tendo_, and\nsimilar words, signifying to stretch or extend, in the Sanscrit,\nGothic, and other languages, leading to the inference that the Hebrew\nword primarily denotes a lengthened or extended creature, which\ncorresponds well with its application to the crocodile. Taking all the\nabove facts in connection, we are quite safe in concluding that the\ncreatures referred to by the word under consideration are literally\nlarge reptilian animals; and, from the special mention made of them,\nwe may infer that, in their day, they were the lords of creation.[94]\n\n3. In verse 21 the remainder of the _sheretzim_, besides the larger\nreptiles, are included in the general expression, \"Living creature\nthat moveth.\" The term \"living creature\" is, literally, \"creature\nhaving the breath of life;\" the power of respiration being apparently\nin Hebrew the distinctive character of the animal. The word moveth\n(_ramash_), in its more general sense, expresses the power of\nvoluntary motion, as exhibited in animals in general. In a few places,\nhowever, it has a more precise meaning, as in 1 Kings iv., 33, where\nthe vertebrated animals are included in the four classes of \"beasts,\nfowl, _creeping things_ (or reptiles, _remes_), and fishes.\" In the\npresent connection it probably has its most general sense; unless,\nindeed, the apparent repetition in this verse relates to the\namphibious or semi-terrestrial creatures associated with the great\nreptiles; and, in that case, the humbler reptilian animals alone may\nbe meant.\n\n4. We may again note that the introduction of animal life is marked by\nthe use of the word \"create,\" for the first time since the general\ncreation of the heavens and the earth. We may also note that the\nanimal, as well as the plant, was created \"after its kind,\" or\n\"species by species.\" The animals are grouped under three great\nclasses--the Remes, the Tanninim, and the Birds; but, lest any\nmisconception should arise as to the relations of species to these\ngroups, we are expressly informed that the species is here the true\nunit of the creative work. It is worth while, therefore, to note that\nthis most ancient authority on this much controverted topic connects\nspecies on the one hand with the creative fiat, and on the other with\nthe power of continuous reproduction.\n\n5. In addition to the great mass of _sheretzim_, so accurately\ncharacterized by Milton as\n\n  \"----Reptile with spawn abundant,\"\n\nthe creation of the fifth day included a higher tribe of oviparous\nanimals--the birds, the fowl or winged creature of the text. Birds\nalone, we think, must be meant here, as we have already seen that\ninsects are included under the general term _sheretzim_.\n\n6. It is farther to be observed that _the waters_ give origin to the\nfirst animals--an interesting point when we consider the contrast here\nwith the creation of plants and of the higher animals, both of which\nproceed from the earth.\n\n7. It can not fail to be observed that we have in these verses two\ndifferent arrangements of the animals created, neither corresponding\nexactly with what modern science teaches us to regard as the true\ngrouping of the animal kingdom, according to its affinities. The order\nin the first enumeration should, from the analogy of the chapter,\nindicate that of successive creation. The order of the second list\nmay, perhaps, be that of the relative importance of the animals, as it\nappeared to the writer. Or there may have been a twofold division of\nthe period--the earlier commencing with the creation of the humbler\ninvertebrates, the later characterized by the great reptiles--which is\nthe actual state of the case as disclosed by geology.\n\n8. The Creator recognizes the introduction of sentient existence and\nvolition by _blessing_ this new work of his hands, and inviting the\nswarms of the newly peopled world to enjoy that happiness for which\nthey were fitted, and to increase and fill the earth, inaugurating\nthus a new power destined to still higher developments.\n\nWhen we inquire what information geology affords respecting the period\nunder consideration, the answer may be full and explicit. Geological\ndiscovery has carried us back to an epoch corresponding with the\nbeginning of this day, and has disclosed a long and varied series of\nliving beings, extending from this early period up to the introduction\nof the higher races of animals. To enter on the geological details of\nthese changes, and on descriptions of the creatures which succeeded\neach other on the earth, would swell this volume into a treatise on\npalaeontology, and would be quite unnecessary, as so many excellent\npopular works on this subject already exist. I shall, therefore,\nconfine myself to a few general statements, and to marking the points\nin which Scripture and geology coincide in their respective histories\nof this long period, which appears to include the whole of the\nPalaeozoic and Mesozoic epochs of geology, with their grand and varied\nsuccession of rock formations and living beings.\n\nIn the Primordial or oldest fossiliferous rocks next in succession to\nthose great Eozoic formations in which protozoa alone have been\ndiscovered, we find the remains of crustaceans, mollusks, and\nradiates--such as shrimps, shell-fish, and starfishes--which appear to\nhave inhabited the bottom of a shallow ocean. Among these were some\ngenera belonging to the higher forms of invertebrate life, but\napparently as yet no vertebrated animals. Fishes were then introduced,\nand have left their remains in the upper Silurian rocks, and very\nabundantly in the Devonian and Carboniferous, in the latter of which\nalso the first reptiles occur, but are principally members of that\nlower group to which the frogs and newts and their allies belong. The\nanimal kingdom appears to have reached no higher than the reptiles in\nthe Palaeozoic or primary period of geology, and its reptiles are\ncomparatively small and few; though fishes had attained to a point of\nperfection which they have not since exceeded. There was also,\nespecially in the Carboniferous age, an abundant and luxuriant\nvegetation. The Mesozoic period is, however, emphatically the age of\nreptiles. This class then reached its climax, in the number,\nperfection, and magnitude of its species, which filled all those\nstations in the economy of nature now assigned to the mammalia. Birds\nalso belong to this era, though apparently much less numerous and\nimportant than at present. Only a few species of small mammals, of the\nlowest or marsupial type, appear as a presage of the mammalian\ncreation of the succeeding tertiary era. In these two geological\nperiods, then--the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic--we find, first, the lower\n_sheretzim_ represented by the invertebrata and the fishes, then the\ngreat reptiles and the birds; and it can not be denied that, if we\nadmit that the Mosaic day under consideration corresponds with these\ngeological periods, it would be impossible better to characterize\ntheir creations in so few words adapted to popular comprehension. I\nmay add that all the species whose remains are found in the Palaeozoic\nand Mesozoic rocks are extinct, and known to us only as fossils; and\ntheir connection with the present system of nature consists only in\ntheir forming with it a more perfect series than our present fauna\nalone could afford, unless, indeed, we should find reason to believe\nthat any modern animals are their modified descendants. They belong to\nthe same system of types, but are parts of it which have served their\npurpose and have been laid aside. The coincidences above noted between\ngeology and Scripture may be summed up as follows:\n\n1. According to both records, the causes which at present regulate the\ndistribution of light, heat, and moisture, and of land and water,\nwere, during the whole of this period, much the same as at present.\nThe eyes of the trilobite of the old Silurian rocks are fitted for the\nsame conditions with respect to light with those of existing animals\nof the same class. The coniferous trees of the coal measures show\nannual rings of growth. Impressions of rain-marks have been found in\nthe shales of the coal measures and Devonian system. Hills and\nvalleys, swamps and lagoons, rivers, bays, seas, coral reefs and shell\nbeds, have all left indubitable evidence of their existence in the\ngeological record. On the other hand, the Bible affirms that all the\nearth's physical features were perfected on the fourth day, and\nimmediately before the creation of animals. The land and the water\nhave undergone during this long lapse of ages many minor changes.\nWhole tribes of animals and plants have been swept away and replaced\nby others, but the general aspect of inorganic nature has remained the\nsame.\n\n2. Both records show the existence of vegetation during this period;\nthough the geologic record, if taken alone, would, from its want of\ninformation respecting the third day, lead us to infer that plants are\nno older than animals, while the Bible does not speak of the nature of\nthe vegetation that may have existed on the fifth day.\n\n3. Both records inform us that reptiles and birds were the higher and\nleading forms of animals, and that all the lower forms of animals\nco-existed with them. In both we have especial notice of the gigantic\nSaurian reptiles of the latter part of the period; and if we have the\nremains of a few small species of mammals in the Mesozoic rocks,\nthese, like a few similar creatures apparently included under the word\n_sheretz_ in Leviticus, are not sufficiently important to negative\nthe general fact of the reign of reptiles.[95]\n\n4. It accords with both records that the work of creation in this\nperiod was gradually progressive. Species after species was locally\nintroduced, extended itself, and, after having served its purpose,\ngradually became extinct. And thus each successive rock formation\npresents new groups of species, each rising in numbers and perfection\nabove the last, and marking a gradual assimilation of the general\nconditions of our planet to their present state, yet without any\nconvulsions or general catastrophes affecting the whole earth at once.\n\n5. In both records the time between the creation of the first animals\nand the introduction of the mammalia as a dominant class forms a\nwell-marked period. I would not too positively assert that the close\nof the fifth day accords precisely with that of the Mesozoic or\nsecondary period. The well-marked line of separation, however, in many\nparts of the world, between this and the earlier tertiary rocks\nsucceeding to it, points to this as extremely probable.\n\nIt thus appears that Scripture and geology so far concur respecting\nthe events of this period as to establish, even without any other\nevidence, a probability that the fifth day corresponds with the\ngeological ages with which I have endeavored to identify it. Geology,\nhowever, gives us no means of measuring precisely the length of this\nday; but it gives us the impression that it occupied an enormous\nlength of time, compared with which the whole human period is quite\ninsignificant; and rivalling those mythical \"days of the Creator\"\nwhich we have noticed as forming a part of the Hindoo mythology.\n\nWhy was the earth thus occupied for countless ages by an animal\npopulation whose highest members were reptiles and birds? The fact can\nnot be doubted, since geology and Scripture, the research of man and\nthe Word of God, concur in affirming it. We know that the lowest of\nthese creatures was, in its own place, no less worthy of the Creator\nthan those which we regard as the highest in the scale of\norganization, and that the animals of the ancient, equally with those\nof the modern world, abounded in proofs of the wisdom, power, and\ngoodness of their Maker. Comparative anatomy has shown that these\nextinct animals, though often varying much from their modern\nrepresentatives, are in no respect rude or imperfect; that they have\nthe same appearance of careful planning and elaborate execution, the\nsame combination of ornament and utility, the same nice adaptation to\nthe conditions of their existence, which we observe in modern\ncreatures. In addition to this, the many new and wonderful\ncontrivances and combinations which they present, and their relations\nto existing objects, have greatly enlarged our views of the variety\nand harmony of the whole system of nature. They are, therefore, in\nthese respects, not without their use as manifestations of the\nCreator, in this our later age.\n\nThere is another reason, hinted at by Buckland, Miller, and other\nwriters on this subject, which weighs much with my mind. All animals\nand plants are constructed on a few leading types or patterns, which\nare again divided into subordinate types, just as in architecture we\nhave certain leading styles, and these again may admit of several\norders, and these of farther modifications. Types are farther modified\nto suit a great variety of minor adaptations. Now we know that the\nearth is, at any one time, inadequate to display all the modifications\nof all the types. Hence our existing system of organic nature, though\nprobably more complete than any that preceded it, is still only\nfragmentary. It is like what architecture would be, if all memorials\nof all buildings more than a century old were swept away. But, from\nthe beginning to the end of the creative work, there has been, or will\nbe, room for the whole plan. Hence fossils are little by little\ncompleting our system of nature; and, if all were known, would perhaps\nwholly do so. The great plan must be progressive, and all its parts\nmust be perishable, except its last culminating-point and archetype,\nman. Tennyson expresses this truth in the following lines:\n\n  \"The wish that of the living whole\n      No life may fail beyond the grave;\n      Derives it not from what we have\n  The likest God within the soul?\n\n  Are God and Nature then at strife,\n      That Nature lends such evil dreams?\n      So careful of the type she seems,\n  So careless of the single life.\n\n  'So careful of the type?' but no.\n      From scarped cliff and quarried stone\n      She cries, 'a thousand types are gone;\n  I care for nothing, all shall go.\n\n  'Thou makest thine appeal to me:\n      I bring to life, I bring to death:\n      The spirit does but mean the breath:\n  I know no more.' And he, shall he,\n\n  Man, her last work, who seem'd so fair,\n      Such splendid purpose in his eyes,\n      Who roll'd the psalm to wintry skies,\n  Who built him fanes of fruitless prayer,\n\n  Who trusted God was love indeed,\n      And love Creation's final law--\n      Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw,\n  With ravine, shriek'd against his creed--\n\n  Who loved, who suffer'd countless ills,\n      Who battled for the True, the Just,\n      Be blown about the desert dust,\n  Or seal'd within the iron hills?\n\n  No more? A monster, then, a dream,\n      A discord. Dragons of the prime,\n      That tare each other in their slime,\n  Were mellow music match'd with him.\n\n  O life as futile, then, as frail!\n      O for thy voice to soothe and bless!\n      What hope of answer, or redress?\n  Behind the veil, behind the veil.\"\n\nThe farther explanation given by evolutionists that those ancient\nforms of life may be the actual ancestors of the present animals, and\nthat through all the ages the Creator was gradually perfecting his\nwork by a series of descents with modification, was probably not\nbefore the mind of our ancient Hebrew authority, nor need we attach\nmuch value to it till some proof of the process has been obtained from\nNature. A farther reason, however, which was intelligible to the\nauthor of Genesis, and which is fondly dwelt on in succeeding books of\nthe Bible, depends on the idea that the Creator himself is not\nindifferent to the marvellous structures, instincts, and powers which\nhe has bestowed upon the lower races of animals. Witness the answer\nof the Almighty to Job, when he spake out of the whirlwind to\nvindicate his own plans in creation and providence; and brought before\nthe patriarch a long train of animals, explaining and dwelling on the\nstructure and powers of each, in contrast with the puny efforts and\nrude artificial contrivances of man. Witness also the preservation, in\nthe rocks, of the fossil remains of extinct creatures, as if he who\nmade them was unwilling that the evidence of their existence should\nperish, and purposely treasured them through all the revolutions of\nthe earth, that through them men might magnify his name. The Psalmist\nwould almost appear to have had all these thoughts before his mind\nwhen he poured out his wonder in the 104th Psalm:\n\n  \"O Lord, how manifold are thy works!\n  In wisdom hast thou made them all.\n  The earth is full of thy riches;\n  So is this wide and great sea,\n  Wherein are moving things innumerable,\n  Creatures both small and great.\n  There go the ships [or \"floating animals\"];\n  There is leviathan, which thou hast formed to sport therein:\n  That thou givest them they gather.\n  Thou openest thy hand, they are filled with good;\n  Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled;\n  Thou takest away their breath, they return to their dust.\n  Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created,\n  And thou renewest the face of the earth.\"\n\nThere are, however, good reasons to believe that, in the plans of\ndivine wisdom, the long periods in which the earth was occupied by the\ninferior races were necessary to its subsequent adaptation to the\nresidence of man. To these periods our present continents gradually\ngrew up in all their variety and beauty. The materials of old rocks\nwere comminuted and mixed to form fertile soils,[96] and stores of\nmineral products were accumulated to enable man to earn his\nsubsistence and the blessings of civilization by the sweat of his\nbrow. If it pleased the Almighty during these preparatory stages to\nreplenish the land and sea with living things full of life and beauty\nand happiness, who shall venture to criticise his procedure, or to say\nto Him, \"What doest thou?\"\n\nIt would be decidedly wrong, in the present state of that which is\npopularly called science, to omit to inquire here what relation to the\nwork of the fifth creative day those theories of development and\nevolution which have obtained so great currency may bear. The long\ntime employed in the introduction of the lower animals, the use of the\nterms \"make\" and \"form,\" instead of \"create,\" and the expression \"let\nthe waters bring forth,\" may well be understood as countenancing some\nform of mediate creation, or of \"creation by law,\" or \"theistic\nevolution,\" as it has been termed; but they give no countenance to the\nidea either of the spontaneous evolution of living beings under the\ninfluence of merely physical causes and without creative intervention,\nor of the transmutation of one kind of animal into another. Still,\nwith reference to this last idea, it is plain that revelation gives us\nno definition of species as distinguished from varieties or races, so\nthat there is nothing to prevent the supposition that, within certain\nlimits indicated by the expression \"after its kind,\" animals or plants\nmay have been so constituted as to vary greatly in the progress of\ngeological time.\n\nIf we ask whether any thing is known to science which can give even a\ndecided probability to the notion that living beings are parts of an\nundirected evolution proceeding under merely dead insentient forces,\nand without intention, the answer must be emphatically no.\n\nI have elsewhere fully discussed these questions, and may here make\nsome general statements as to certain scientific facts which at\npresent bar the way against the hypothesis of evolution as applied to\nlife, and especially against that form of it to which Darwin and his\ndisciples have given so great prominence.\n\n1. The albuminous or protoplasmic material, which seems to be\nnecessary to the existence of every living being, is known to us as a\nproduct only of the action of previously living protoplasm. Though it\nis often stated that the production of albumen from its elements is a\nprocess not differing from the formation of water or any other\ninorganic material from its elements, this statement is false in fact,\nsince, though many so-called organic substances have been produced by\nchemical processes, no particle of either living or non-living\norganizable matter of the nature of protoplasm has ever been so\nproduced. The origin, therefore, of this albuminous matter is as much\na mystery to us at present as that of any of the chemical elements.\n\n2. Though some animals and plants are very simple in their visible\nstructure, they all present vital properties not to be found in dead\nalbuminous matter, and no mode is known whereby the properties of life\ncan be communicated to dead matter. All the experiments hitherto made,\nand very eminently those recently performed by Pasteur, Tyndall, and\nDallinger, lead to the conclusion that even the simplest living beings\ncan be produced only from germs originating in previously living\norganisms of similar structure. The simplest living organisms are\nthus to science ultimate facts, for which it can not account except\nconjecturally.\n\n3. No case is certainly known in human experience where any species of\nanimal or plant has been so changed as to assume all the characters of\na new species. Species are thus practically to science unchangeable\nunits, the origin of which we have as yet no means of tracing.\n\n4. Though the general history of animal life in time bears a certain\nresemblance to the development of the individual animal from the\nembryo, there is no reason whatever to believe that this is more than\na mere relation of analogy, arising from the fact that in both cases\nthe law of procedure is to pass from the simpler forms to the more\ncomplex, and from the more generalized to the more specialized. The\nexternal conditions and details of the two kinds of series are\naltogether different, and become more so the more they are\ninvestigated. This shows that the causes can not have been similar.\n\n5. In tracing back animals and groups of animals in geological time,\nwe find that they always end without any link of connection with\nprevious beings, and in circumstances which render any such\nconnections improbable. In the work of our next creative day, the\nseries of animals preceding the modern horse has been cited as a good\ninstance of probable evolution; but not only are the members of the\nseries so widely separated in space and time that no connection can be\ntraced, but the earliest of them, the _Orohippus_, would require, on\nthe theory, to have been preceded by a previous series extending so\nfar back that it is impossible, under any supposition of the\nimperfection of our present knowledge, to consider such extension\nprobable. The same difficulty applies to every case of tracing back\nany specific form either of animal or plant. This general result\nproves, as I have elsewhere attempted to show,[97] that the\nintroduction of the various animal types must have been abrupt, and\nunder some influence quite different from that of evolution.\n\nThese are what I would term the five fatal objections to evolution as\nat present held, as a means of accounting for the introduction and\nsuccession of animals. To what extent they may be weakened or\nstrengthened by the future progress of science it is impossible to\nsay, but so long as they exist it is mere folly and presumption to\naffirm that modern science supports the doctrine of evolution. There\ncan be no doubt, however, that the Bible leaves us perfectly free to\ninquire as to the plan and method of the Creator, and that, whatever\ndiscoveries we may make, we shall find that his plans are orderly,\nmethodical, and continuous, and not of the nature of an arbitrary\npatchwork.\n\nThough science as yet gives us no certain laws for the introduction of\nnew specific types, it indicates certain possible modes of the\norigination of varieties, races, and sub-species of previously\nexisting types. One of these is that struggle for existence against\nadverse external conditions, which, however, has been harped upon too\nexclusively by the Darwinian school, and which will give chiefly\ndepauperated and degraded forms. Another is that expansion under\nexceptionally favorable conditions which arises where species are\nadmitted to wider new areas of geographical range and more abundant\nand varied means of sustenance. Land animals and plants must have\nexperienced this in times of continental elevation; marine animals and\nplants in times of continental depression. Another is the tendency to\nwhat has been called reproductive retardation and acceleration which\nspecies undergo under conditions exceptionally unfavorable or\nfavorable, and which in some modern aquatic animals produces\ndifferences so great that members of the same species have sometimes\nbeen placed in different genera. Lastly, it is conceivable that\nspecies may have been so constructed that after a certain number of\ngenerations they may spontaneously undergo either abrupt or gradual\nchanges, similar to those which the individual undergoes at certain\nstages of growth. This last furnishes the only true analogy possible\nbetween embryology and geological succession.\n\nWhile, however, science is silent as to the production of new specific\ntypes, and only gives us indications as to the origin of varieties and\nraces, it is curious that the Bible suggests three methods in which\nnew organisms may be, and according to it have been introduced by the\nCreator. The first is that of immediate and direct creation, as when\nGod created the great Tanninim. The second is that of mediate\ncreation, through the materials previously existing, as when he said,\n\"Let the land bring forth plants,\" or \"Let the waters bring forth\nanimals.\" The third is that of production from a previous organism by\npower other than that of ordinary reproduction, as in the origination\nof Eve from Adam, and the miraculous conception of Jesus. These are\nthe only points in which its teachings approach the limits of\nspeculations as to evolution, and they certainly leave scope enough\nfor the legitimate inquiries of science.[98]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE HIGHER ANIMALS AND MAN.\n\n\n     \"And God said, Let the land bring forth animals after their\n     kinds; the herbivora, the reptiles, and the carnivora, after\n     their kinds; and it was so. And God made carnivorous mammals\n     after their kinds, and herbivorous mammals after their\n     kinds, and every reptile of the land after its kind; and God\n     saw that it was good.\n\n     \"And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our\n     likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the\n     birds of the air, and over the herbivora and over all the\n     land. So God created man in his own image, in the image of\n     God created he him; male and female created he them. And God\n     blessed them; and God said, Be fruitful and multiply, and\n     replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over\n     the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air, and over\n     every living thing that moveth upon the earth.\n\n     \"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing\n     seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree\n     in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it\n     shall be for food, and to every beast of the earth and to\n     every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon\n     the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green\n     herb for meat; and it was so. And God saw every thing that\n     he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And evening and\n     morning were the sixth day.\"--Genesis i., 24-31.\n\n\nThe creation of animals, unlike that of plants, occupies two days.\nHere our attention is restricted to the inhabitants of the _land_, and\nchiefly to their higher forms. Several new names are introduced to our\nnotice, which I have endeavored to translate as literally as possible\nby introducing zoological terms where those in common use were\ndeficient.\n\n1. The first tribe of animals noticed here is named _Bhemah_, \"cattle\"\nin our version; and in the Septuagint \"quadrupeds\" in one of the\nverses, and \"cattle\" in the other. Both of these senses are of common\noccurrence in the Scriptures, cattle or domesticated animals being\nusually designated by this word; while in other passages, as in 1\nKings iv., 33, where Solomon is said to have written a treatise on\n\"_beasts_, fowls, creeping things, and fishes,\" it appears to include\nall the mammalia. Notwithstanding this wide range of meaning, however,\nthere are passages, and these of the greatest authority in reference\nto our present subject, in which it strictly means the herbivorous\nmammals, and which show that when it was necessary to distinguish\nthese from the predaceous or carnivorous tribes this term was\nspecially employed. In Leviticus xi., 22-27, we have a specification\nof all the Bhemoth that might and might not be used for food. It\nincludes all the true ruminants, with the coney, the hare, and the\nhog, animals of the rodent and pachydermatous orders. The carnivorous\nquadrupeds are designated by a different generic term. In this chapter\nof Leviticus, therefore, which contains the only approach to a system\nin natural history to be found in the Bible, _bhemah_ is strictly a\nsynonym of _herbivora_, including especially ungulates and rodents.\nThat this is its proper meaning here is confirmed by the\nconsiderations that in this place it can denote but a part of the land\nquadrupeds, and that the idea of cattle or domesticated animals would\nbe an anachronism. At the same time there need be no objection to the\nview that the especial capacity of ruminants and other herbivora for\ndomestication is connected with the use of the word in this place.\n\n2. The word _remes_, \"creeping things\" in our version, as we have\nalready shown, is a very general term, referring to the power of\nmotion possessed by animals, especially on the surface of the ground.\nIt here in all probability refers to the additional types of\nterrestrial reptiles, and other creatures lower than the mammals,\nintroduced in this period.\n\n3. The compound term (_hay'th-eretz_) which I have ventured to render\n\"carnivora,\" is literally animal of the land; but though thus general\nin its meaning, it is here evidently intended to denote a particular\ntribe of animals inhabiting the land, and not included in the scope of\nthe two words already noticed. In other parts of Scripture this term\nis used in the sense of a \"wild beast.\" In a few places, like the\nother terms already noticed, it is used of all kinds of animals, but\nthat above stated is its general meaning, and perfectly accords with\nthe requirements of the passage.\n\nThe creation of the sixth day therefore includes--1st, the herbivorous\nmammalia; 2d, a variety of terrestrial reptilia, and other lower forms\nnot included in the work of the previous day; 3d, the carnivorous\nmammalia. It will be observed that the order in the two verses is\ndifferent. In verse 24th it is herbivora, \"creeping things,\" and\ncarnivora. In verse 25th it is carnivora, herbivora, and \"creeping\nthings.\" One of these may, as in the account of the fifth day,\nindicate the order of _time_ in the creation, and the other the order\nof _rank_ in the animals made, or there may have been two divisions of\nthe work, in the earlier of which herbivorous animals took the lead,\nand in the later those that are carnivorous. In either case we may\ninfer that the herbivora predominated in the earlier creations of the\nperiod.\n\nIt is almost unnecessary to say this period corresponds with the\nTertiary or Cainozoic era of geologists. The coincidences are very\nmarked and striking. As already stated, though in the later secondary\nperiod there were great facilities for the preservation of mammals in\nthe strata then being deposited, only a few small species of the\nhumblest order have been found; and the occurrence of the higher\norders of this class is to some extent precluded by the fact that the\nplace in nature now occupied by the mammals was then provided for by\nthe vast development of the reptile tribes. At the very beginning of\nthe tertiary period all this was changed; most of the gigantic\nreptiles had disappeared, and terrestrial mammals of large size and\nhigh organization had taken their place. Perhaps no geological change\nis more striking and remarkable than the sudden disappearance of the\nreptilian fauna at the close of the mesozoic, and the equally abrupt\nappearance of numerous species of large mammals, and this not in one\nregion only, but over both the great continents, and not only where a\nsudden break occurs in the series of formations, but also where, as in\nWestern America, they pass gradually into each other. During the whole\ntertiary period this predominance of the mammalia continued; and as\nthe mesozoic was the period of giant reptiles, so the tertiary was\nthat of great mammals. It is a singular and perhaps not accidental\ncoincidence that so many of the early tertiary mammals known to us are\nlarge herbivora, such as would be included in the Hebrew word\n_bhemah_; and that in the book of Job the hippopotamus is called\n_behemoth_, the plural form being apparently used to denote that this\nanimal is the chief of the creatures known under the general term\n_bhemah_, while geology informs us that the prevailing order of\nmammals in the older tertiary period was that of the ungulates, and\nthat many of the extinct creatures of this group are very closely\nallied to the hippopotamus. Behemoth thus figures in the book of Job,\nnot only as at the time a marked illustration of creative power, but\nto our farther knowledge also as a singular remnant of an extinct\ngigantic race. It is at least curious that while in the fifth day\ngreat reptiles like those of the secondary rocks form the burden of\nthe work, in the sixth we have a term which so directly reminds us of\nthose gigantic pachyderms which figure so largely in the tertiary\nperiod. Large carnivora also occur in the tertiary formations, and\nthere are some forms of reptile life, as, for example, the serpents,\nwhich first appear in the tertiary.\n\nI may refer to any popular text-book of geology in evidence of the\nexact conformity of this to the progress of mammalian life, as we now\nknow it in detail from the study of the successive tertiary deposits.\nThe following short summary from Dana, though written several years\nago, still expresses the main features of the case:\n\n\"The quadrupeds did not all come forth together. Large and powerful\nherbivorous species first take possession of the earth, with only a\nfew small carnivora. These pass away. Other herbivora with a larger\nproportion of carnivora next appear. These also are exterminated; and\nso with others. Then the carnivora appear in vast numbers and power,\nand the herbivora also abound. Moreover these races attain a magnitude\nand number far surpassing all that now exist, as much so indeed, on\nall the continents, North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and\nAustralia, as the old mastodon, twenty feet long and nine feet high,\nexceeds the modern buffalo. Such, according to geology, was the age of\nmammals, when the brute species existed in their greatest\nmagnificence, and brutal ferocity had free play; when the dens of\nbears and hyenas, prowling tigers and lions far larger than any now\nexisting, covered Britain and Europe. Mammoths and mastodons wandered\nover the plains of North America, huge sloth-like Megatheria passed\ntheir sluggish lives on the pampas of South America, and elephantine\nmarsupials strolled about Australia.\n\n\"As the mammalian age draws to a close, the ancient carnivora and\nherbivora of that era all pass away, excepting, it is believed, a few\nthat are useful to man. New creations of smaller size peopled the\ngroves; the vegetation received accessions to its foliage, fruit-trees\nand flowers, and the seas brighter forms of water life. This we know\nfrom comparisons with the fossils of the preceding mammalian age.\nThere was at this time no chaotic upturning, but only the opening of\ncreation to its fullest expansion; and so in Genesis no new day is\nbegun, it is still the _sixth day_.\"\n\nThe creation of man is prefaced by expressions implying deliberation\nand care. It is not said, \"Let the earth bring forth\" man, but let us\nform or fashion man. This marks the relative importance of the human\nspecies, and the heavenly origin of its nobler immaterial part. Man is\nalso said to have been \"created,\" implying that in his constitution\nthere was something new and not included in previous parts of the\nwork, even in its material. Man was created, as the Hebrew literally\nreads, the shadow and similitude of God--the greatest of the visible\nmanifestations of Deity in the lower world--the reflected image of his\nMaker, and, under the Supreme Lawgiver, the delegated ruler of the\nearth. Now for the first time was the earth tenanted by a being\ncapable of comprehending the purposes and plans of Jehovah, of\nregarding his works with intelligent admiration, and of shadowing\nforth the excellences of his moral nature. For countless ages the\nearth had been inhabited by creatures wonderful in their structures\nand instincts, and mutely testifying, as their buried remains still\ndo, to the Creator's glory; but limited within a narrow range of\nanimal propensities, and having no power of raising a thought or\naspiration toward the Being who made them. Now, however, man enters on\nthe scene, and the sons of God, who had shouted for joy when the first\nland emerged from the bosom of the deep, saw the wondrous spectacle of\na spiritual nature analogous to their own, united to a corporeal frame\nconstructed on the same general type with the higher of those\nirrational creatures whose presence on earth they had so long\nwitnessed.\n\nMan was to rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and\nthe _bhemah_ or herbivorous animals. The carnivorous creatures are not\nmentioned, and possibly were not included in man's dominion. We shall\nfind an explanation of this farther on. The nature of man's dominion\nwe are left to infer. In his state of innocence it must have been a\nmild and gentle sway, interfering in no respect wilts the free\nexercise of the powers of enjoyment bestowed on animals by the\nCreator, a rule akin to that which a merciful man exercises over a\ndomesticated animal, and which some animals are capable of repaying\nwith a warm and devoted affection. Now, however, man's rule has become\na tyranny. \"The whole creation groans\" because of it. He desolates the\nface of nature wherever he appears, unsettling the nice balance of\nnatural agencies, and introducing remediless confusion and suffering\namong the lower creatures, even when in the might of his boasted\ncivilization he professes to renovate and improve the face of nature.\nHe retains enough of the image of his Maker to enable him to a great\nextent to assert his dominion, and to aspire after a restoration of\nhis original paradise, but he has lost so much that the power which he\nretains is necessarily abused to selfish ends.\n\nMan, like the other creatures, was destined to be fruitful and\nmultiply and replenish the earth. We are also informed in chapter\nsecond that he was placed in a \"garden,\" a chosen spot in the alluvial\nplains of Western Asia, belonging to the later geological formations,\nand thus prepared by the whole series of prior geological changes,\nreplenished with all things useful to him, and containing nothing\nhurtful, at least in so far as the animal creation was concerned.\nThese facts, taken in connection, lead to grave questions. How is the\nhappy and innocent state of man consistent with the contemporaneous\nexistence of carnivorous and predaceous animals, which, as both\nScripture and geology state, were created in abundance in the sixth\nday? How, when confined to a limited region, could he increase and\nmultiply and replenish the earth? These questions, which have caused\nno little perplexity, are easily solved when brought into the light of\nour modern knowledge of nature. 1. Every large region of the earth is\ninhabited by a group of animals differing in the proportions of\nidentical species, and in the presence of distinct species, from the\ngroups inhabiting other districts. There is also sufficient reason to\nconclude that all animals and plants have spread from certain local\ncentres of creation, in which certain groups of species have been\nproduced and allowed to extend themselves, until they met and became\nintermingled with species extending from other centres. Now the\ndistrict of Asia, in the vicinity of the Euphrates and Tigris, to\nwhich the Scripture assigns the origin of the human race, is the\ncentre to which we can with the greatest probability trace several of\nthe species of animals and plants most useful to man, and it lies near\nthe confines of warmer and colder regions of distribution in the Old\nWorld, and also near the boundary of the Asiatic and European regions.\nAt the period under consideration it may have been peopled with a\ngroup of animals specially suited to association with the progenitors\nof mankind. 2. To remove all zoological difficulties from the position\nof primeval man in his state of innocence, we have but to suppose, in\naccordance with all the probabilities of the case, that man was\ncreated along with a group of creatures adapted to contribute to his\nhappiness, and having no tendency to injure or annoy; and that it is\nthe formation of these creatures--the group of his own centre of\ncreation--that is especially noticed in Genesis ii., 19, _et seq._,\nwhere God is represented as forming them out of the ground and\nexhibiting them to Adam; a passage otherwise superfluous, and indeed\ntending to confuse the meaning of the document. 3. The difficulty\nattending the early extension of the human race is at once obviated by\nthe geological doctrine of the extinction of species. We know that in\npast geological periods large and important groups of species have\nbecome extinct, and have been replaced by new groups extending from\nnew centres; and we know that this process has removed, in early\ngeological periods, many creatures that would have been highly\ninjurious to human interests had they remained. Now the group of\nspecies created with man being the latest introduced, we may infer, on\ngeological grounds, that it would have extended itself within the\nspheres of older zoological and botanical districts, and would have\nreplaced their species, which, in the ordinary operation of natural\nlaws, may have been verging toward extinction. Thus not only man, but\nthe Eden in which he dwelt, with all its animals and plants, would\nhave gradually encroached on the surrounding wilderness, until man's\nhappy and peaceful reign had replaced that of the ferocious beasts\nthat preceded him in dominion, and had extended at least over all the\ntemperate region of the earth. 4. The cursing of the ground for man's\nsake, on his fall from innocence, would thus consist in the\npermission given to the predaceous animals and the thorns and the\nbriers of other centres of creation to invade his Eden; or, in his own\nexpulsion, to contend with the animals and plants which were intended\nto have given way and become extinct before him. Thus the fall of man\nwould produce an arrestment in the progress of the earth in that last\ngreat revolution which would have converted it into an Eden; and the\nanomalies of its present state consist, according to Scripture, in a\nmixture of the conditions of the tertiary with those of the human\nperiod. 5. Though there is good ground for believing that man was to\nhave been exempted from the general law of mortality, we can not infer\nthat any such exemption would have been enjoyed by his companion\nanimals; we only know that he himself would have been free from all\nannoyance and injury and decay from external causes. We may also\nconclude that, while Eden was sufficient for his habitation, the\nremainder of the earth would continue, just as in the earlier tertiary\nperiods, under the dominion of the predaceous mammals, reptiles, and\nbirds. 6. The above views enable us on the one hand to avoid the\ndifficulties that attend the admission of predaceous animals into\nEden, and on the other the still more formidable difficulties that\nattend the attempt to exclude them altogether from the Adamic world.\nThey also illustrate the geological fact that many animals,\ncontemporaneous with man, extend far back into the Tertiary period.\nThese are creatures not belonging to the Edenic centre of creation,\nbut introduced in an earlier part of the sixth day, and now permitted\nto exist along with man in his fallen state. I have stated these\nsupposed conditions of the Adamic creation briefly, and with as little\nillustration as possible, that they may connectedly strike the mind of\nthe reader. Each of these statements is in harmony with the\nScriptural narrative on the one hand, and with geology on the other;\nand, taken together, they afford an intelligible history of the\nintroduction of man. If a geologist were to state, _a priori_, the\nconditions proper to the creation of any important species, he could\nonly say--the preparation or selection of some region of the earth for\nit, and its production along with a group of plants and animals suited\nto it. These are precisely the conditions implied in the Scriptural\naccount of the creation of Adam.[99] The difficulties of the subject\nhave arisen from supposing, contrary to the narrative itself, that the\nconditions necessary for Eden must in the first instance have extended\nover the whole earth, and that the creatures with which man is in his\npresent dispersion brought into contact must necessarily have been his\ncompanions there. One would think that many persons derive their idea\nof the first man in Eden from nursery picture-books; for the Bible\ngives no countenance to the idea that all the animals in the world\nwere in Eden. On the contrary, it asserts that a selection was made\nboth in the case of animals and plants, and that this Edenic\nassemblage of creatures constituted man's associates in his state of\nprimeval innocence.\n\nThe food of animals is specified at the close of the work of this day.\nThe grant to man is every herb bearing seed, and every fruit-tree.\nThat to the lower animals is more extensive--every green herb. This\ncan not mean that every animal in the earth was herbivorous. It may\nrefer to the group of animals associated with man in Eden, and this is\nmost likely the intention of the writer; but if it includes the\nanimals of the whole earth, we may be certain, from the express\nmention of carnivorous creatures in the work of the fifth and sixth\ndays, that it indicates merely the general fact that the support of\nthe whole animal kingdom is based on vegetation.\n\nA most important circumstance in connection with the work of the sixth\nday is that it witnessed the creation both of man and the mammalia. A\nfictitious writer would probably have exalted man by assigning to him\na separate day, and by placing the whole animal kingdom together in\nrespect to time. He would be all the more likely to do this, if\nunacquainted, as most ignorant persons as well as literary men are,\nwith the importance and teeming multitudes of the lower tribes of\nanimals, and with the typical identity of the human frame with that of\nthe higher animals. Moses has not done so, we are at liberty to\nsuppose, because the vision of creation had it otherwise; and modern\ngeology has amply vindicated him in this by its disclosure of the\nintimate connection of the human with the tertiary period; and has\nshown in this as in other instances that truth and not \"accommodation\"\nwas the object of the sacred writer. While, as already stated, many\nexisting species extend far back into the tertiary period, showing\nthat the earth has been visited by no universal catastrophe since the\nfirst creation of mammals; on the other hand, we can not with\ncertainty trace any existing species back beyond the commencement of\nthe tertiary era. Geology and revelation, therefore, coincide in\nreferring the creation of man to the close of the period in which\nmammals were introduced and became predominant, and in establishing a\nmarked separation between that period and the preceding one in which\nthe lower animals held undisputed sway. This coincidence, while it\nstrengthens the probability that the creative days were long periods,\nopposes an almost insurmountable obstacle to every other hypothesis\nof reconciliation with geological science.\n\nAt the close of this day the Creator again reviews his work, and\npronounces it good. Step by step the world had been evolved from a\nprimeval chaos, through many successive physical changes and long\nseries of organized beings. It had now reached its acme of perfection,\nand had received its most illustrious tenant, possessing an organism\nexcelling all others in majesty and beauty, and an immaterial soul the\nshadow of the glorious Creator himself. Well might the angels sing,\nwhen the long-protracted work was thus grandly completed:\n\n                      \"Thrice happy man,\n  And sons of men, whom God hath thus advanced,\n  Created in his image, there to dwell\n  And worship him, and in reward to rule\n  Over his works in earth, or sea, or air,\n  And multiply a race of worshippers\n  Holy and just; thrice happy, if they know\n  Their happiness and persevere upright.\"\n\nThe Hebrew idea of the golden age of Eden is pure and exalted. It\nconsists in the enjoyment of the favor of God, and of all that is\nbeautiful and excellent in his works. God and nature are the whole.\nNor is it merely a rude, unintelligent, sensuous enjoyment. Man\nprimeval is not a lazy savage gathering acorns. He is made in the\nimage of the Creator; he is to keep and dress his garden, and it is\nfurnished with every plant good for food and pleasant to the sight. In\nthe midst of our material civilization we need to disabuse ourselves\nof some prejudices before we can realize the fact that man, without\nthe arts of life or any need of them, is not necessarily a barbarian\nor a savage. Yet even Adam must have been an agriculturist with strong\nand willing hands, and must have had some need of agricultural\nimplements such as those with which the least civilized of his\ndescendants have been wont to till the soil. Still, without art or\nwith very little of it, he could enjoy all that is beautiful and grand\nin nature, and could rise from the observation of nature to communion\nwith God. We need the more to realize this, inasmuch as there seems so\nstrong a tendency to confound material civilization with higher\nculture, and to hold that man primeval must have been low and debased\nsimply because he may have had no temples and no machinery. We must\nremember that he had nature, which is higher than fine art, and that\nwhen in harmony with his surroundings he may have had no need either\nof exhausting labor or of mechanical contrivances. Farther, in the\ncontemplation of nature and in seeking after God, he had higher\nteachers than our boasted civilization can claim.\n\nAlas for fallen man, with his poor civilization gathered little by\nlittle from the dust of earth, and his paltry art that halts\nimmeasurably behind nature. How little is he able even to appreciate\nthe high estate of his great ancestor. The world of fallen men has\nworshipped art too much, reverenced and studied God and nature too\nlittle. The savage displays the lowest taste when he admires the rude\nfigures which he paints on his face or his garments more than the\nglorious painting that adorns nature; yet even he acknowledges the\npre-eminent excellence of nature by imitating her forms and colors,\nand by adapting her painted plumes and flowers to his own use. There\nis a wide interval, including many gradations, between this low\nposition and that of the cultivated amateur or artist. The art of the\nlatter makes a nearer approach to the truly beautiful, inasmuch as it\nmore accurately represents the geometric and organic forms and the\ncoloring of nature; and inasmuch as it devises ideal combinations not\nfound in the actual world; which ideal combinations, however, are\nbeautiful or monstrous just as they realize or violate the harmonies\nof nature. It is only the highest culture that brings man back to his\nprimitive refinement.\n\nArt takes her true place when she sits at the feet of nature, and\nbrings her students to drink in its beauties, that they may endeavor,\nhowever imperfectly, to reproduce them. On the other hand, the student\nof nature must not content himself with \"writing Latin names on white\npaper,\" wherewith to label nature's productions, but must rise to the\ncontemplation of the order and beauty of the Cosmos as a revelation of\nDivinity. Both will thus rise to that highest taste which will enable\nthem to appreciate not only the elegance of individual forms, but\ntheir structure, their harmonies, their grouping and their relations,\ntheir special adaptation, and their places as parts of a great system.\nThus art will attain that highest point in which it displays original\ngenius, without violating natural truth and unity, and nature will be\nregarded as the highest art.\n\nMuch is said and done in our time with reference to the cultivation of\npopular taste for fine art as a means of civilization; and this, so\nfar as it goes, is well; but the only sure path to the highest\ntaste-education is the cultivation of the study of nature. This is\nalso an easier branch of education, provided the instructors have\nsufficient knowledge. Good works of art are rare and costly; but good\nworks of nature are everywhere around us, waiting to be examined. Such\neducation, popularly diffused, would react on the efforts of art. It\nwould enable a widely extended public to appreciate real excellence,\nand would cause works of art to be valued just in proportion to the\nextent to which they realize or deviate from natural truth and unity.\nI do not profess to speak authoritatively on such subjects, but I\nconfess that the strong impression on my mind is that neither the\nrevered antique models, nor the practice and principles of the\ngenerality of modern art reformers, would endure such criticism; and\nthat if we could combine popular enthusiasm for art with scientific\nappreciation of nature, a new and better art might arise from the\nunion.\n\nI may appear to dwell too long upon this topic; but my excuse must be\nthat it leads to a true estimate both of natural history and of the\nsacred Scriptures. The study of nature guides to those large views of\nthe unity and order of creation which alone are worthy of a being of\nthe rank of man, and which lead him to adequate conceptions of the\nCreator; but the truly wise recognize three grades of beauty. First,\nthat of art, which, in its higher efforts, can raise ordinary minds\nfar above themselves. Secondly, that of nature, which, in its most\ncommon objects, must transcend the former, since its artist is that\nGod of whose infinite mind the genius of the artist is only a faint\nreflection. Thirdly, that pre-eminent beauty of moral goodness\nrevealed only in the spiritual nature of the Supreme. The first is one\nof the natural resources of fallen man in his search for happiness.\nThe second was man's joy in his primeval innocence. The third is the\ninheritance of man redeemed. It is folly to place these on the same\nlevel. It is greater folly to worship either or both of the first\nwithout regard to the last. It is true wisdom to aspire to the last,\nand to regard nature as the handmaid of piety, art as but the handmaid\nof nature.\n\nNature to the unobservant is merely a mass of things more or less\nbeautiful or interesting, but without any definite order or\nsignificance. An observer soon arrives at the conclusion that it is a\nseries of circling changes, ever returning to the same points, ever\nrenewing their courses, under the action of invariable laws. But if he\nrests here, he falls infinitely short of the idea of the Cosmos, and\nstands on the brink of the profound error of eternal succession. A\nlittle further progress conducts him to the inviting field of special\nadaptation and mutual relation of things. He finds that nothing is\nwithout its use; that every structure is most nicely adjusted to\nspecial ends; that the supposed ceaseless circling of nature is merely\nthe continuous action of great powers, by which an infinity of\nutilities are worked out--the great fly-wheel which, in its unceasing\nand at first sight apparently aimless round, is giving motion to\nthousands of reels and spindles and shuttles, that are spinning and\nweaving, in all its varied patterns, the great web of life.\n\nBut the observer, as he looks on this web, is surprised to find that\nit has in its whole extent a wondrous pattern. He rises to the\ncontemplation of type in nature, a great truth to which science has\nonly lately opened its eyes. He begins dimly to perceive that the\nCreator has from the beginning had a plan before his mind, that this\nplan embraced various types or patterns of existence; that on these\npatterns he has been working out the whole system of nature, adapting\neach to all the variety of uses by an infinity of minor modifications.\nThat, in short, whether he study the eye of a gnat or the structure of\na mountain chain, he sees not only objects of beauty and utility, but\nparts of far-reaching plans of infinite wisdom, by which all objects,\nhowever separated in time or space, are linked together.\n\nHow much of positive pleasure does that man lose who passes through\nlife absorbed with its wants and its artificialities, and regarding\nwith a \"brute, unconscious gaze\" the grand revelation of a higher\nintelligence in the outer world. It is only in an approximation\nthrough our Divine Redeemer to the moral likeness of God that we can\nbe truly happy; but of the subsidiary pleasures which we are here\npermitted to enjoy, the contemplation of nature is one of the best and\npurest. It was the pleasure, the show, the spectacle prepared for man\nin Eden, and how much true philosophy and taste shine in the simple\nwords that in paradise God planted trees \"pleasant to the sight,\" as\nwell as \"good for food.\" Other things being equal, the nearer we can\nreturn to this primitive taste, the greater will be our sensuous\nenjoyment, the better the influence of our pleasures on our moral\nnature, because they will then depend on the cultivation of tastes at\nonce natural and harmless, and will not lead us to communion with and\nreverence for merely human genius, but will conduct us into the\npresence of the infinite perfection of the Creator.\n\nThe Bible knows but one species of man. It is not said that men were\ncreated after their species, as we read of the groups of animals. Man\nwas made, \"male and female;\" and in the fuller details afterwards\ngiven in the second chapter--where the writer, having finished his\ngeneral narrative, commences his special history of man--but one\nprimitive pair is introduced to our notice. We scarcely need the\ndetailed tables of affiliation afterward given, or the declaration of\nthe apostle who preached to the supposed autochthones of Athens, that\n\"God has made of one blood all nations,\" to assure us of the\nScriptural unity of man. If, therefore, there were any good reason to\nbelieve that man is not of one but several origins, we must admit\nMoses to have been very imperfectly informed. Nor, on the other hand,\ndoes the Bible any more than geology allow us to assign a very high\nantiquity to the origin of man relatively to that of the earth on\nwhich he dwells. The genealogical tables of the Bible may admit of\nsome limits of difference of opinion as to the age of the human world\nor aeon, and also of that of the deluge, from which man took his second\npoint of departure; but they do not allow us to put the origin of man\nfarther back than that of the present or modern condition of our\ncontinents and the present races of animals. They therefore limit us\nto the modern or quaternary period of geology. The question of man's\nantiquity, so much agitated now, demands, however, a separate and\ncareful consideration; but we must first devote a few pages to the\nsimple statements of the Bible respecting the Sabbath of creation and\nits relation to human history.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nTHE REST OF THE CREATOR.\n\n\n     \"And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the\n     host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work\n     which he had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all\n     his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day\n     and sanctified it, because that in it God rested from all\n     his work which he had created to make.\"--Genesis ii., 1-3.\n\n\nThe end of the sixth day closed the work of creation properly so\ncalled, as well as that of forming and arranging the things created.\nThe beginning of the seventh introduced a period which, according to\nthe views already stated, was to be occupied by the continued increase\nand diffusion of man and the creatures under his dominion, and by the\ngradual disappearance of tribes of creatures unconnected with his\nwell-being.\n\nScience in this well accords with Scripture. No proof exists of the\nproduction of a new species since the creation of man; and all\ngeological and archaeological evidence points to him and a few of the\nhigher mammals as the newest of the creatures. There is, on the other\nhand, good evidence that several species have become extinct since his\ncreation. Those who believe in the continuous evolution of animals and\nmen, it is true, can see no actual termination of the process with the\nintroduction of man; but even they see that the appearance of a\nrational and moral being at least changes the nature and order of the\ndevelopment. Nor can they doubt that man is the last born of nature,\nand that the whole animal creation is crowned by him as its capital or\ntopmost pinnacle. The later speculators on this subject have never\nreached any truth beyond that long ago stated by the lamented Edward\nForbes--a most careful observer and accurate reasoner on the more\nrecent changes of the earth's surface. He infers, from the\ndistribution of species from their centres of creation, that man is\nthe latest product of creative power; or, in other words, that none of\nthose species or groups of species which he had been able to trace to\ntheir centres, or the spots at which they probably originated, appear\nto be of later or as late origin as man. \"This consideration,\" he\nsays, \"induces me to believe that the last province in time was\ncompleted by the coming of man, and to maintain an hypothesis that man\nstands unique in space and time, himself equal to the sum of any\npre-existing centre of creation or of all--an hypothesis consistent\nwith man's moral and social position in the world.\"\n\nThe seventh day, then, was to have been that in which all the\nhappiness, beauty, and perfection of the others were to have been\nconcentrated. But an element of instability was present in the being\nwho occupied the summit of the animal scale. Not regulated by blind\nand unerring instincts, but a free agent, with a high intellectual and\nmoral nature, and liable to be acted on by temptation from without;\nunder such influence he lost his moral balance in stretching out his\nhand to grasp the peculiar powers of Deity, and fell beyond the hope\nof self-redemption--perpetuating, by one of those laws which regulate\nthe transmission of mixed corporeal and spiritual natures, his\ndegradation to every generation of his species. And so God's great\nwork was marred, and all his plans seemed to be foiled, when they had\njust reached their completion. Thus far science might carry us\nunaided; for there is not a true naturalist, however skeptical as to\nrevealed religion, who does not feel in his inmost heart the\ndisjointed state of the present relations of man to nature; the\nnatural wreck that results from his artificial modes of life, the long\ntrains of violations of the symmetry of nature that follow in the wake\nof his most boasted achievements. But here natural science stops; and\njust as we have found that, in tracing back the world's history, the\nBible carries us much farther than geology, so science, having led us\nto suspect the fallen state of man, leaves us henceforth to the\nteaching of revelation. And how glorious that teaching! God did not\nfind himself baffled--his resources are infinite--he had foreseen and\nprepared for all this apparent evil; and out of the moral wreck he\nproceeds to work out the grand process of _redemption_, which is the\nespecial object of the seventh day, and which will result in the\nproduction of a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth\nrighteousness. In the seventh, as in the former days, the evening\nprecedes the morning. For four thousand years the world groped in its\ndarkness--a darkness tenanted by moral monsters as powerful and\ndestructive as the old pre-Adamite reptiles. The Sun of Righteousness\nat length arose, and the darkness began to pass away; but eighteen\ncenturies have elapsed, and we still see but the gray dawn of morning,\nwhich we yet firmly believe will brighten into a glorious day that\nshall know no succeeding night.[100]\n\nThe seventh day is the modern or human era in geology; and, though it\ncan not yet boast of any physical changes so great as those of past\nperiods, it is still of much interest, as affording the facts on which\nwe must depend for explanations of past changes; and as immediately\nconnected in time with those later tertiary periods which afford so\nmany curious problems to the geological student. The actual connection\nof the human with preceding periods is still involved in some\nobscurity; and, as we shall see, there has recently been a strong\ntendency to throw back the origin of man into prehistoric ages of\nenormous length, on grounds which are, however, much less certain than\nis commonly imagined. This question we have to examine; but before\nentering upon it may shortly sketch the actual import of the\nstatements of the Hebrew Scriptures respecting what may be called the\nprehistoric duration of the human species. This is the more necessary,\nas the most crude notions seem very widely to prevail on the subject.\nI shall, therefore, in this place notice some general facts deducible\nfrom the Bible, and which may be useful in appreciating the true\nrelation of the human era to those which preceded it. It will be\nunderstood that I shall endeavor merely to present a picture of what\nthe Bible actually teaches, and which any one can verify by reading\nthe book of Genesis.\n\n1. The local centre of creation of the human species, and probably of\na group of creatures coeval with it, was Eden; a country of which the\nScriptures give a somewhat minute geographical description. It was\nevidently a district of Western Asia; and, from its possession of\nseveral important rivers, rather a region or large territory than a\nlimited spot, such as many, who have discussed the question of the\nsite of Eden, seem to suppose. In this view it is a matter of no\nmoment to fix its site more nearly than the indication of the Bible\nthat it included the sources and probably large portions of the\nvalleys of the Tigris, the Euphrates, and perhaps the Oxus and\nJaxartes. Into the minor difficulties respecting the site of Eden it\nwould be unprofitable to enter, and it will matter little if we accept\nthat view, which, however, I think less probable, that it was placed\nin the lower part of the valley of the Euphrates. I may merely mention\none particular of the Biblical description, because it throws light on\nthe great antiquity of this geographical delineation, and has been\nstrangely misconceived by expositors--the relation of those rivers to\nCush or Ethiopia and Havilah, a tribal name derived from that of a\ngrandson of Cush. On consulting the tenth chapter of Genesis, it will\nbe found that the Cushites under Nimrod, very soon after the deluge,\nare stated to have pushed their migrations and conquests along the\nTigris to the northward, and established there the first empire. It is\nprobably this primitive Cushite empire, called Ethiopia in our\ntranslation, which in the epoch of the description of Eden occupied\nthe Euphratean valley, and being bounded on one side by the river\ncalled Gihon, was thus believed to extend over the old site of Eden.\nThus the Cush or Ethiopia of the description has no direct connection\nwith the African Ethiopia, and speculations based on such a supposed\nconnection are groundless. On the other hand this feature furnishes an\ninteresting coincidence with other parts of Genesis, and throws light\non many obscure points in the early history of man; and since this\nCushite empire had perished even before the time of Moses, it\nindicates a still more ancient tradition respecting the primeval abode\nof our species.\n\n2. Before the deluge this region must have been the seat of a dense\npopulation, which, according to the Biblical account, must have made\nconsiderable advances in the arts, and at the same time sunk very low\nin moral debasement.[101] Whether any remains of the central portions\nof this ancient population or its works exist will probably not be\ndetermined with absolute certainty till we have accurate geological\ninvestigations of the whole country in the neighborhood of the Caspian\nSea and along the great rivers of Western Asia, though there is\nnothing unreasonable in the belief that some of the old prehistoric\nmen whose remains are discovered in caves and river gravels in Europe\nmay belong to the antediluvian race. Should such remains be found, we\nmight infer, from the extreme longevity and other characteristics\nassigned to the antediluvians, that their skeletons would present\npeculiarities entitling them to be considered a well-marked variety of\nthe human species, and this not of a low type of physical\norganization. We may also infer that the family of man very early\ndivided into two races--one retaining in greater purity the moral\nendowments of the species, the other excelling in the mechanical and\nfine arts; and that there were rude and savage outlying communities of\nmen then as at present. If the so-called palaeolithic men of Europe are\nantediluvian, they were probably of such outlying tribes, and possibly\nof the mixed race which sprung up in the later antediluvian age, and\nwho are described as mighty men physically, and men of violence. It\nwould be quite natural that this intermixture of the Sethite and\nCainite races should produce a race excelling both in energy and\nphysical endowments--the \"giants\" that were in those days.[102] If any\nremains of the two central nations of the antediluvian period are ever\ndiscovered, we may confidently anticipate that the distinctive\ncharacteristics of these races may be detected in their osseous\nstructures as well as in their works of art. Farther, it is to be\ninferred from notices in the fourth chapter of Genesis, that before\nthe deluge there was both a nomadic and a settled population, and that\nthe principal seat of the Cainite, or more debased yet energetic\nbranch of the human family, was to the eastward of the site of Eden.\nNo intimations are given by which the works of art of antediluvian\ntimes could be distinguished from those of later periods; but that\ncurious summary of the treasures of antediluvian man contained in the\nnotice that the land of Havilah produced gold and agate and pearl\n(Gen. ii., 12) would lead us to believe that the early antediluvian\nage was on the whole an age of stone, in which flint for weapons, and\ngold and shell wampum for ornaments, were the leading kinds of wealth.\nOn the other hand, the notices of antediluvian metallurgy, and the\nbuilding and construction of the ark, would lead us to infer that the\nlater antediluvians had attained to much perfection in some\nconstructive arts--a conclusion which harmonizes with the otherwise\ninexplicable perfection of such art soon after the deluge, as\nevidenced not only by the story of Babel, but also by the early works\nof the Assyrians and Egyptians.\n\n3. When the antediluvian population had fully proved itself unfit to\nenter into the divine scheme of moral renovation, it was swept away by\na fearful physical catastrophe. The deluge might, in all its\nrelations, furnish material for an entire treatise. I may remark here,\nas its most important geological peculiarity, that it was evidently a\n_local_ convulsion. The object, that of destroying the human race and\nthe animal population of its peculiar centre of creation, the\npreservation of specimens of these creatures in the ark, and the\nphysical requirements of the case, necessitate this conclusion, which\nis now accepted by the best Biblical expositors,[103] and which\ninflicts no violence on the terms of the record. Viewed in this light,\nthe phenomena recorded in the Bible, in connection with geological\nprobabilities, lead us to infer that the physical agencies evoked by\nthe divine power to destroy this ungodly race were a subsidence of the\nregion they inhabited, so as to admit the oceanic waters, and\nextensive atmospherical disturbances connected with that subsidence,\nand perhaps with the elevation of neighboring regions. In this case it\nis possible that the Caspian Sea, which is now more than eighty feet\nbelow the level of the ocean,[104] and which was probably much more\nextensive then than at present, received much of the drainage of the\nflood, and that the mud and sand deposits of this sea and the\nadjoining desert plains, once manifestly a part of its bottom, conceal\nany remains that exist of the antediluvian population. In connection\nwith this, it may be remarked that, in the book of Job, Eliphaz speaks\nas if the locality of those wicked nations which existed before the\ndeluge was known and accessible in his time:\n\n  \"Hast thou marked the ancient way\n  Which wicked men have trodden,\n  Who were seized [by the waters] in a moment,\n  And whose foundations a flood swept away?\"\n\n  --Job xxii., 15.\n\nOn comparing this statement with the answer of Job in the 26th\nchapter, verse 5th, it would seem that the ungodly antediluvians were\nsupposed to be still under the waters; a belief quite intelligible if\nthe Caspian, which, on the latest and most probable views of the\nlocality of the events of this book, was not very remote from the\nresidence of Job,[105] was supposed to mark the position of the\npre-Noachic population, as the Dead Sea afterward did that of the\ncities of the plain. Some of the dates assigned to the book of Job\nwould, however, render it possible that this last catastrophe is that\nto which _he_ refers:\n\n  \"The _Rephaim_ tremble from beneath\n  The waters and their inhabitants.\n  Sheol is naked before him,\n  And destruction hath no covering.\"\n\nThe word _Rephaim_ here has been variously rendered \"shades of the\ndead\" and \"giants.\" It is properly the family or national name of\ncertain tribes of gigantic Hamite men (the Anakim, Emim, etc.)\ninhabiting Western Asia at a very remote period; and it must here\nrefer either to them or to the still earlier antediluvian\ngiants.[106]\n\nIt is also an important point to be noticed here that the narrative of\nthe deluge in Genesis is given as the testimony or record of an\neye-witness, and is to be so understood; and that the terms of the\nrecord imply, not as usually held that all sorts of animals were taken\ninto Noah's ark, but only a selection, the character of which is\nclearly indicated by a comparison of the five lists of animals given\nin the narrative. Bearing this in mind, and noticing that the writer\ntells of his own experience as to the rise of the water, the drifting\nof the ark, the disappearance of all visible shore, and the sounding\nfifteen cubits where a hill had before been, all the difficulties of\nthe narrative of the deluge will at once disappear. These difficulties\nhave in fact arisen from regarding the story as the composition of a\nhistorian, not as what it manifestly is, the log or journal of a\ncontemporary, introduced with probably little change by the compiler\nof the book.\n\nAfter the deluge, we find the human race settled in the plains of the\nEuphrates and Tigris, attracted thither by the fertility of their\nalluvial soils. There we find them engaging in a great political\nscheme, no doubt founded on recollections of the old antediluvian\nnationalities, and on a dread of the evils which able and aspiring men\nwould anticipate from that wide dispersion of the human race that\nappears to have been intended by the Creator in the new circumstances\nof the earth. They commenced accordingly the erection of a city or\ntower at Babel, in the plain of Shinar, to form a common bond of\nunion, a great public work that should be a rallying-point for the\nrace, and around which its patriotism might concentrate itself. The\nattempt was counteracted by an interposition of divine Providence; and\nthenceforth the diffusion of the human race proceeded unchecked,\ncarrying with it everywhere the memory of the celebrated tower, which\nperpetuated itself not only in the mounds of Assyria and Babylon and\nthe pyramids of Egypt, but in the teocallis and temple mounds of the\nNew World. The Babel enterprise is in fact the first recorded\ndevelopment of that mound-building instinct which the earlier races\neverywhere evince, and which has been a distinguishing characteristic\nmore especially of the Cushite or Turanian race, and has apparently\nmade them the teachers of constructive arts to all other peoples.\nPerhaps a dread of the total decay and loss of the surviving\nantediluvian arts in construction and other matters may have been one\nimpelling motive to the building of Babel. Perhaps it was connected\nwith the communistic ideas of the Turanian race, and their conflict\nwith the patriarchal habits of the Semites. Out of the enterprise at\nBabel, however, arose a new type of evil, which, in the forms of\nmilitary despotism, the spirit of conquest, hero-worship, and the\nalliance of these influences with literature and the arts, has been\nhanded down through every succeeding age to our own time. The name of\nNimrod, the son of Cush, has been preserved to us in the Bible, and\nalso apparently in the tablets and inscriptions of Assyria, as the\nfounder of the first despotism. This bold and ambitious man,\nsubsequently deified under different names, established a Hamite or\nTuranian empire, which appears to have extended its sway over the\ntribes occupying Southwestern Asia and Northeastern Africa, everywhere\nsupporting its power by force of arms, and introducing a debasing\npolytheistic hero-worship, and certain forms of art probably derived\nfrom antediluvian times. The centre of this Cushite empire, however,\ngave way to the rising power of Assyria or the Ashurite branch of the\nsons of Shem, at a period antecedent to the dawn of profane history,\nexcept in its mythical form; and when the light of secular history\nfirst breaks upon us, we find Egypt standing forth as the only stable\nrepresentative of the arts, the systems, and the superstitions of the\nold Cushite empire, of which it had been the southern branch; while\nother remnants of the Hamite races, included in the empire of Nimrod,\nwere scattered over Western Asia, and, migrating into Europe, with or\nafter the ruder but less demoralized sons of Japheth, carried with\nthem their characteristic civilization and mythology, to take root in\nnew forms in Greece and Italy.[107] Meanwhile the Assyrian and Persian\n(Elamite) races were growing in Middle Asia, and probably driving the\nmore eastern remnants of the Nimrodic empire into India, borrowing at\nthe same time their superstitions and their claims to universal\ndominion. These views, which I believe to correspond with the few\nnotices in the Bible and in ancient history, and to be daily receiving\nnew confirmations from the investigations of the ancient Assyrian\nmonuments, enable us to understand many mysterious problems in the\nearly history of man. They give us reason to suspect that the\n_principle_ of the first empire was an imitation of the antediluvian\nworld, and that its arts and customs were mainly derived from that\nsource. They show how it happens that Egypt, a country so far removed\nfrom the starting-point of man after the deluge, should appear to be\nthe cradle of the arts, and they account for the Hamite and perhaps\nantediluvian elements, mixed with primeval Biblical ideas, as the\ncherubim, etc., in the old heathenism of India, Assyria, and Southern\nEurope, and which they share with Egypt, having derived them from the\nsame source. They also show how it is that in the most remote\nantiquity we find two well-developed and opposite religious systems;\nthe pure theism of Noah, and those who retained his faith, and the\nidolatry of those tribes which regarded with adoring veneration the\nobjects and stages of the creative work, the grander powers and\nobjects of nature, the mighty Cainites of the world before the flood,\nand the postdiluvian leaders who followed them in their violence,\ntheir cultivation of the arts, and their rebellion against God. These\nheroes were identified with imaginative conceptions of the heavenly\nbodies, animals, and other natural objects, associated with the\nfortunes of cities and nations, with particular territories, and with\nwar and the useful arts, transmitted under different names to one\ncountry after another, and localized in each; and it is only in\ncomparatively modern times that we have been able to recognize the\nfull certainty of the view held long since by many ingenious writers,\nthat among the greater gods of Egypt and Assyria, and of consequence\namong those also of Greece and Rome, were Nimrod, Ham, Ashur, Noah,\nMizraim, and other worthies and tyrants of the old world; and to\nsuspect that Tubalcain and Naamah, and other antediluvian names, were\nsimilarly honored, though subsequently overshadowed by more recent\ndivinities. The later Assyrian readings of Rawlinson, Hincks, and the\nlamented George Smith, and the more recent works on Egyptian\nantiquities, are full of pregnant hints on these subjects. It would,\nhowever, lead us too far from our immediate subject to enter more\nfully into these questions. I have referred to them merely to point\nout connecting-links between the secular and sacred history of the\nearlier part of the human period, as a useful sequel to our comparison\nof the latter with the conclusions of science, and as furnishing hints\nwhich may guide the geologist in connecting the human with the\ntertiary period, and in distinguishing between the antediluvian and\npostdiluvian portions of the former.\n\nIt may be said, however, that all this Biblical history, however it\nmay accord with the little that remains to us of the written annals of\nearly Oriental nations, is entirely at variance with those modern\narchaeological discussions which point to an immense antiquity of the\nhuman race, and to a primitive barbarism out of which all human\nculture was little by little evolved; and which results of\narchaeological investigation, while contradictory to the Hebrew\nScriptures, are entirely in accord with the evolutionist philosophy.\nThe prominence now given to such views as these renders it necessary\nthat we should denote a special chapter to their discussion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nUNITY AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN.\n\n\n     \"These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their\n     generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations\n     divided in the earth after the flood.\"--Genesis x., 32.\n\n\nThe theologians and evangelical Christians of our time, and with them\nthe credibility of the Holy Scriptures, are supposed by many to have\nbeen impaled on a zoological and archaeological dilemma, in a manner\nwhich renders nugatory all attempts to reconcile the Mosaic cosmogony\nwith science. The Bible, as we have seen, knows but one Adam, and that\nAdam not a myth or an ethnic name, but a veritable man; but some\nnaturalists and ethnologists think that they have found decisive\nevidence that man is not of one but of several origins. The religious\ntendency of this doctrine no Christian can fail to perceive. In\nwhatever way put, or under whatever disguise, it renders the Bible\nhistory worthless, reduces us to that isolation of race from race\ncultivated in ancient times by the various local idolatries, and\ndestroys the brotherhood of man and the universality of that Christian\natonement which proclaims that \"as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall\nall be made alive.\"\n\nFortunately, however, the greater weight of biological and\narchaeological evidence is here on the side of the Bible, and philology\ncomes in with strong corroborative proof. But just as the orthodox\ntheologian is beginning to congratulate himself on the aid he has\nthus received, some of his new friends gravely tell him that, in order\nto maintain their view, it is necessary to believe that man has\nresided on earth for countless ages, and that it is quite a mistake to\nsuppose that his starting-point is so recent as the Mosaic deluge.\nNay, some very rampant theorists of some ethnological schools try to\npierce Moses and his abettors with both horns of the dilemma at once,\nmaintaining that men may be of different species, and yet may have\nexisted for an enormous length of time as well. The recent prevalence\nof theories of evolution has, however, thrown quite into the\nbackground the discussions formerly active respecting the unity of\nman, but has, along with geological and archaeological discovery, given\nincreased prominence to those relating to the date of the origin of\nour species and the manner of its introduction.\n\nThe Bible gives us a definite epoch, that of the deluge, about 2000 to\n3000 B.C., for all existing races of men; but this, according to it,\nwas only the second starting-point of humanity, and though no family\nbut that of Noah survived the terrible catastrophe, it would be a\ngreat error to suppose that nothing antediluvian appears in the\nsubsequent history of man. Before the deluge there were arts and an\nold civilization, extending over at least two thousand years, and\nafter the deluge men carried with them these heirlooms of the old\nworld to commence with them new nations. This has been tacitly ignored\nby many of the writers who underrate the value of the Hebrew history.\nIt may be as well for this reason to place, in a series of\npropositions, the principal points in Genesis which relate to the\nquestions now before us.\n\n1. Adam and Isha, the woman, afterward called Eve (Life-giver), in\nconsequence of the promise of a Redeemer, commenced a life of\nhusbandry on their expulsion from Eden, which, on the ordinary views\nof the Bible chronology, may be supposed to have occurred from 4000 to\n5000 years before the Christian era; and during the lifetime of the\nprimal pair, the sheep, at least, was domesticated. The Bible, of\ncourse, knows nothing of the imaginary continent of Lemuria, in which,\naccording to some hypotheses, men are supposed to have had their birth\nfrom apes. A few generations after, in the time of Lamech, cattle were\ndomesticated; and the metals copper and iron were applied to use--the\nlatter probably meteoric iron; and hence, it may be, the Hindoo and\nHellenic myths of Twachtrei and Hephaestos in connection with the\nthunderbolt. We learn, however, incidentally, as already mentioned, in\nthe description of Eden in Genesis, chapter 2d, that there was a\nprevious stone age, in which \"flint, pearls or shell beads, and\nstream-gold\" were the chief treasures of man, for this is implied in\nthe \"gold, bedolach, and onyx\" of the land of Havilah. It is certain\nalso, from the discoveries made in Assyria, on the site of Troy, and\nelsewhere, that the use of stone implements continued in Western Asia\nlong after the deluge. In the time of Noah the distinction of clean\nand unclean beasts, and the taking of seven pairs of certain beasts\nand birds into the ark, imply that certain mammals and birds were\ndomesticated.[108]\n\n2. Before the flood, as already remarked, there was a division of man\ninto two nationalities or races; and there was a citizen, an\nagricultural, a pastoral, and a nomadic population. Farther, the\nremarkable progress in the arts implied in the building of such\nstructures as the Tower of Babel, and other temple and palace mounds\nin Assyria, and of the pyramids of Egypt, within a few generations\nafter the deluge, proves that a very advanced material civilization\nand great skill in constructive arts had been reached in antediluvian\ntimes.[109]\n\n3. After the deluge, the arts of the antediluvians and their citizen\nlife were almost immediately revived in the plain of Shinar; but the\nplans of the Babel leaders, like those of many others who have\nattempted to force distinct tribes into one nationality, failed. The\nguilt attributed to them probably relates to the attempt to break up\nthe patriarchal and tribal organization, which in these early times\nwas the outward form of true religion, in favor of some sort of\nnational organization, not compatible with the extension of man\nimmediately over the world, and tending to consolidation into dense\ncommunities. It may be a question here whether the tribal communism\nwhich has prevailed among the American Indians and other rude races\nwas the primitive form of society which the Babel-builders essayed to\nchange, or whether the Semitic patriarchal system had at first\nprevailed, and the Babel difficulties were connected with a conflict\nbetween this and communism or despotism, both new Turanian or Aryan\nintroductions. In any case, Babel, and Babylon its successor, remain\nin the subsequent Biblical literature as types of the God-defying and\nantichristian systems that have succeeded each other from the time of\nNimrod to this day.\n\n4. The human race was scattered over the earth in family groups or\ntribes, each headed by a leading patriarch, who gave it its name.\nFirst, the three sons of Noah formed three main stems, and from these\ndiverged several family branches. The ethnological chart in the 10th\nchapter of Genesis gives the principal branches under patriarchal and\nethnic names; but these, of course, continued to subdivide beyond the\nspace and time referred to by the sacred writer. It is simply absurd\nto object, as some writers have done, to the universality of the\nstatements in Genesis, that they do not mention in detail the whole\nearth. They refer to a few generations only, and beyond this restrict\nthemselves to the one branch of the human family to which the Bible\nprincipally relates. We should be thankful for so much of the leading\nlines of ethnological divergence, without complaining that it is not\nfollowed out into its minute ramifications and into all history.\n\n5. The tripartite division in Genesis x. indicates a somewhat strict\ngeographical separation of the three main trunks. The regions marked\nout for Japheth include Europe and Northwestern Asia. The name\nJapheth, as well as the statements in the table, indicate a versatile,\nnomadic, and colonizing disposition as characteristic of these\ntribes.[110] The Median population, the same with a portion of that\nnow often called Aryan,[111] was the only branch remaining near the\noriginal seats of the species, and in a settled condition. The\noutlying portions of the posterity of Japheth, on account of their\nwide dispersion, must at a very early period have fallen into\ncomparative barbarism, such as we find in historic periods all over\nWestern and Northern Europe and Northern Asia. Owing to their habitat,\nthe Japhetites of the Bible include none of the black races, unless\ncertain Indian and Australian nations are outlying portions of this\nfamily. The Shemite nations showed little tendency to migrate, being\ngrouped about the Euphrates and Tigris valleys and neighboring\nregions. For this reason, with the exception of certain Arab tribes,\nthey present no instances of barbarism, and generally retained a high\ncerebral organization, and respectable though stationary civilization,\nand they possess the oldest alphabet and literature. The posterity of\nHam differs remarkably from the others. It spread itself over\nSouthern, Central, and Eastern Asia, Southern Europe, and Northern\nAfrica, and constitutes the stock alike of the Turanian and African\nraces, as well as probably of the American tribes. It has all along\ndisplayed a great capacity for certain forms of art and\nsemi-civilization, but has rarely risen to the level of the Shemite\nand Japhetite races. It established the earliest military and\nmonarchical institutions, and presents at the dawn of history--in\nAssyria, in Egypt, and India--settled and arbitrary forms in politics\nand religion, of a character so much resembling that of an old and\ncorrupt civilization that we can scarcely avoid supposing that Ham and\nhis family had preserved more than any of the other Noachian races the\narts and institutions of the old world before the flood. It certainly\npresents itself in early postdiluvian times as the first\nrepresentative and teacher of art and material civilization. The\nHamite race is remarkable for the early development of pantheism and\nhero-worship, and for the artificial character of its culture. It\npresents us with the darkest colors, and in the vast solitudes of\nAfrica and Central Asia its outlying tribes must have fallen into\ncomparative barbarism a few centuries after the deluge. It is farther\nto be observed that, according to the Bible, the Canaanites and other\nHamite nations spoke languages not essentially different from those of\nthe Shemites, while the Japhetite nations were to them barbarians--\"a\nnation whose tongue thou shalt not understand.\" There was, too, at the\ndate of the dispersion of Babel, already a distinction of tongues\nwithin each of the great races of men.\n\n6. All the divisions of the family of Noah had from the first the\ndomesticated animals and the principal arts of life, and enjoyed these\nin a national capacity so soon as sufficiently numerous. The more\nscattered tribes, wandering into fresh regions, and adopting the life\nof hunters, lost the characteristics of civilization, and diverged\nwidely from the primitive languages. We should thus have, according to\nthe Hebrew ethnology, a central area presenting the principal stems of\nall the three races in a permanently civilized state. All around this\narea should lie aberrant and often barbarous tribes, differing most\nwidely from the original type in the more distant regions, and in\nthose least favorable to human health and subsistence. In these\noutlying regions, secondary centres of civilization might grow up,\ndiffering from that of the primitive centre, except in so far as the\ncommon principles of human nature and intercommunication might prevent\nthis. All these conclusions, fairly deducible at once from the Mosaic\nethnology and the theory of dispersion from a centre, are perfectly in\naccordance with observed facts, though in absolute contradiction to\nprevalent ethnological conclusions, based on these facts in connection\nwith theories of development.\n\nA multitude of Bible notices might easily be quoted illustrative of\nthese points, and also of the consistency of the Mosaic narrative with\nitself. One of them may suffice here. Abraham, who is said by the\nJews to have been contemporary with Shem, as Menes by the Egyptians\nwith Ham, at least lived sufficiently near to the time of the rise of\nthe earliest nations to be taken as an illustration of this primitive\ncondition of society. He was not a patriarch of the first or second\nrank, like Ham or Mizraim or Canaan, but a subordinate family leader\nseveral removes from the survivors of the deluge. Yet his tribe\nincreases in comparatively few years to a considerable number. He is\ntreated as an equal by the monarchs of Egypt and Philistia. He\ndefeats, with a band of three or four hundred retainers, a confederacy\nof four Euphratean kings representing the embryo state of the Persian\nand Assyrian empires, and already relatively so strong that they have\noverrun much of Western Asia. All this bespeaks in a most consistent\nmanner the rapid rise of many small nationalities, scattered over the\nbetter parts of wide regions, and still in a feeble condition, though\ninheriting from their ancestors an old civilization, and laying the\nfoundations of powerful states. If we attach any historical value\nwhatever to the narrative, it obviously implies that at a date of\nabout two thousand years before Christ the regions afterward occupied\nby the oldest historic empires were still thinly peopled, and their\ndominant races little more than feeble tribes. This farther\ncorresponds with the authentic history of all the ancient nations,\nhowever these may have been extended by previous mythical periods.\nAbout or shortly before the time of Abraham, Menes was draining for\nthe first time the swamps of Egypt, Ninus or Nimrod was founding the\nAssyrian empire, the Phoenicians were founding Sidon, agriculture was\nbeing introduced into China, the Vedas were being written in India,\nthe Persian monarchy was being founded; and, in short, all the\nhistorical nations of the East were originating, and this apparently\nby springing into being with an already formed civilization.\n\nSuch being the Hebrew account of the date and early history of man, it\nmay be proper here to compare it with such deductions from\narchaeological and geological investigation as may seem to conflict\nwith it, and at the same time to make some comparisons with the\nTuranian and Aryan traditions and speculations as to human origins.\nThe special lines of investigation important here are: 1. Early\nhistorical records other than the Bible; 2. The diversity of human\nlanguages; 3. The geological evidence afforded by remains of\nprehistoric men found in caverns and other repositories. The last of\nthese is at present that which has attained the greatest development.\n\n1. _Early Human History._--Had the human race everywhere preserved\nhistorical records, we should have had some certain evidence as to the\nplaces and times of origination of its tribes and peoples.\nUnfortunately this has not been the case. All savage and barbarous\nraces, and many of those now civilized, have lost all records of their\nearly history. Most of the so-called ancient nations are comparatively\nmodern, and their history after a very short course loses itself in\nuncertain tradition and mythical fancies. The only really ancient\nnations that have given us in detail their own written history are the\nHebrews, the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Hindoos, and the Chinese.\nThe last people, though professedly very ancient, trace their history\nfrom a period of barbarism--a view confirmed by their physical\ncharacters and the nature of their civilization; and on this account,\nif no other, their history can not be considered as of much\narchaeological value. According to their own records, their earliest\nauthentic history goes back to about 2800 B.C., and was preceded by a\nprehistoric period of uncertain duration. The astronomical deductions\nof Schlegel, which would extend their history to 17,000 years, are\nevidently altogether unreliable.[112] The early Hindoo history is\npalpably fabulous or distorted, and has been variously modified and\nchanged in comparatively modern times. There is one great and very\nancient people--the Egyptian--evidently civilized from the beginning\nof all history, that have succeeded in transmitting to us, though only\nin fragments, their primeval history; and of late years constant\nadditions have been made from inscribed tablets and monuments to our\nknowledge of the ancient history of the Assyrians and Chaldeans.\n\nThe Egyptian history has been gathered first from sketches by Greek\ntravellers, and from fragments of the chronicles of Manetho, one of\nthe later Egyptian priests; and, secondly, from the inscriptions\ndeciphered on Egyptian monuments and papyri. It is still in a very\nfragmentary and uncertain state, but has been used with considerable\neffect to prove both the diversity of races of men and the pre-Noachic\nantiquity of the species. The Egyptian, in features and physical\nconformation, tended to the European form, just as the modern Fellahs\nand Berbers do; but he had a dark complexion, a somewhat elongated\nhead and flattened lips, and certain negroid peculiarities in his\nlimbs. His language combined many of the peculiarities of the Semitic,\nAryan, and African tongues, indicating thereby great antiquity or else\ngreat intermixture, but not, as some ethnographers demand, both; most\nprobably the former--the Egyptians being really the oldest civilized\npeople that we certainly know, and therefore, if languages have one\norigin, likely to be near its root-stock.\n\nThe actual history of Egypt begins from Menes, the first human king, a\nmonarch, or rather tribal chief, who took up his abode in the flats\nand fens of Lower Egypt, certainly not very long after the deluge. His\nname has been translated \"one who walks with Khem,\" or Ham; one,\ntherefore, who was contemporary with this great patriarch and god of\nthe Egyptians, which will place his time within a few centuries of the\nBiblical flood. The date of Menes has been variously placed. In\ncorrection of the ordinary Hebrew chronology, we have the following\nattempts:\n\n  Josephus places his reign                                2350 B.C.\n  Dr. Hales' calculation                                   2412\n  Manetho and the Monuments, as corrected by Syncellus    {2712\n  and calculated by various archaeologists                 {to\n                                                          {2782\n  Herodotus, astronomical reduction by Rennell             2890\n  Estimate by Gliddon in \"Ancient Egypt\"                   2750\n  Bunsen, \"Egypt's Place,\" etc.                            4000\n\nThe truth may be somewhere near the mean of the shorter chronologies\ngiven in the list.[113] That of Bunsen is liable to very grave\nobjections; more especially as he adds to it other views, altogether\nunsupported by historical evidence, which would carry back the deluge\nto 10,000 years B.C. It rests wholly on the chronology of Manetho, who\nlived 300 years B.C.; and who, even if the Egyptians then possessed\nauthentic documents extending 3700 years before his time, may have\nerred in his rendering of them; and is farther liable to grave\nsuspicions of having merely grouped the names on the monuments of his\ncountry arbitrarily in Sothic cycles. Farther, they rest on an\ninterpretation of Manetho, which supposes his early dynasties to have\nbeen successive, while good reasons have been found to prove that many\nof them consist of contemporaneous petty sovereigns of parts of Egypt.\nThe early parts of Manetho's lists are purely mythical, and it is\nimpossible to fix the point where his authentic history commences. He\ncopied from monuments which have no consecutive dates, the precise age\nof which could only be vaguely known even in his time, and which are\ndifferent in their statements in different localities. It is only by\nmaking due allowance for these uncertainties that any historical value\ncan be attached to these earlier dynasties of Manetho. Yet Bunsen has\nbuilt on an uncertain interpretation of this writer, as handed down in\na very fragmentary and evidently garbled condition, and on the equally\nor more uncertain chronology of Eratosthenes, a system differing from\nall previous belief on the subject, from the Hebrew history, and from\nall former interpretations of the monuments and Manetho.[114]\nDiscarding, therefore, in the mean time, this date, and the still\nolder one claimed by Mariette,[115] we may roughly estimate the date\nof Menes as 2000 to 2500 years B.C.,[116] and proceed to state some of\nthe facts developed by Egyptologists.\n\nOne of the most striking of these is the proof that Egypt was a new\ncountry in the days of Menes and several generations of his\nsuccessors. The monuments of this period show little of the\ncomplicated idolatry, ritual, and caste system of later times, and are\ndeficient in evidence of the refinement and variety of art afterward\nattained. They also show that these early monarchs were principally\nengaged in dyking, and otherwise reclaiming the alluvial flats; an\nevidence precisely of the same character with that which every\ntraveller sees in the more recently settled districts of Canada, where\nthe forest is giving way to the exertions of the farmer. Farther, in\nthis primitive period, known as the \"old monarchy,\" few domestic\nanimals appear, and experiments seem to have been in progress to tame\nothers, natives of the country, as the hyena, the antelope, the stork.\nEven the dog in the older dynasties is represented by one or at most\ntwo varieties, and the prevalent one is a wolfish-looking animal akin\nto the present wild or half-tamed dogs of the East.[117] The\nEgyptians, too, of the earlier dynasties, are more homogeneous in\ntheir appearance than those of the later, after conquest and migration\nhad introduced new races; and the earliest monumental notice referring\nto Negro tribes does not appear until the 12th dynasty, about half-way\nbetween the epoch of Menes and the Christian era, nor does any\nrepresentation of the Negro features occur until, at the earliest, the\n17th dynasty. This allows ample time--one thousand years at the\nleast--for the development, under abnormal circumstances and\nisolation, of all the most strongly marked varieties of man. Still\nEgypt, even under the old monarchy, presents evidence of the\ncontinuation of antediluvian culture.[118]\n\nIt is obvious, in short, that the whole aspect of early Egyptian\nhistory presents to us a people already civilized taking possession of\nthat country at a period corresponding with that of the subsidence of\nthe Noachian deluge, and not finding there any remains of older\npopulations. Nor have any remains of such populations been found by\nmodern investigation.[119]\n\nIn Assyria the results of the recent discoveries, so well known\nthrough many learned and popular works, strikingly confirm the Hebrew\nchronology. They indicate no slow emergence from barbarism, but show\nthat in Assyria as in Egypt implements of stone and metal were used\ntogether by a primitive people, already far advanced in civilization;\nand the oldest historical names only carry us back to cities and\nsovereigns of the Abrahamic age, while the story of the primitive\nempire of Nimrod and the traditions of the deluge seem to have\nsurvived in more or less mythical legends. The earliest Assyrian\nmonuments would seem to belong to a Turanian race, of which\ncomparatively little is known, but which may correspond with the\nprimitive Cushites of Biblical story. To these, it is true, Berosus\nattaches a fabulous antiquity; but this is not confirmed by the\nmonuments. These, according to the latest facts disclosed by Smith,\nRawlinson, and others, appear to fix a date of about 1800 B.C. for the\nfoundation of the Assyrian monarchy proper, and the oldest previous\ndate given by Assurbampal, who reigned about B.C. 668 to 626, gives\n1635 years before his time, or say 2280 B.C., as the date of an\nElamite king Kudarnankundi, who seems to be the leader of a primitive\ntribe, one of the oldest in the region, and who has been conjectured\nto have been the Chedorlaomer of Genesis, but was probably one of his\npredecessors.\n\nWe gather from the Assyrian annals that the early Turanian kings,\nwhile mound-builders like their kindred elsewhere, and acquainted with\nmetals and with the cuneiform writing, yet constituted comparatively\nsmall nations, and were much occupied with hunting and other rude\nsports, and with predatory expeditions, so as to answer very nearly to\nthe Biblical conception of the early Cushite kingdom of the valley of\nthe Euphrates, which was probably in the same stage of culture with\nthe nations that in a later period inhabited the valley of the\nMississippi, and are known as the Alleghans.\n\nIn connection with the early history of man, much importance has been\nattached to the division of the early historic and prehistoric ages\ninto the periods of Stone, Bronze, and Iron, and of the former into a\nPalaeolithic or ancient stone age, and a more modern or Neolithic stone\nage. It is plain, however, that too great importance has been attached\nto these distinctions, and that they express rather differences of\ncircumstances and of culture than of age, so that they have really no\nbearing on the Biblical chronology.\n\nIf palaeolithic or rudely chipped implements are the oldest known, as\nthey not improbably were the first tools used by man, yet their use\nhas extended in the case of rude nations all the way up to the present\ntime; and in America and Northern Asia we know that their antiquity is\nbut of yesterday, and that they were used with highly finished\nimplements of bone, and of those softer stones that admit of being\npolished. No certain line can therefore be drawn even locally between\na Neolithic and a Palaeolithic period, especially since in localities\nwhere flint implements were extensively quarried and made, as on the\nbanks of rivers in Northern France and Southern England, and in such\nplaces as \"Grimes' Graves\" and Cissbury in the latter country, where\nmines were sunk in the chalk for the extraction of flints, it\nnecessarily happened that vast multitudes of unfinished or spoiled\nimplements and weapons were left on the ground, while the\nbetter-formed specimens were for the most part taken away. This\nconclusion is amply supported by similar localities in America, where\npeople well acquainted with many of the arts of life have left\nquantities of strictly palaeolithic material. Wilson, Southall, and\nother writers have accumulated so many examples of this that I think\nthe distinction of Palaeolithic and Neolithic ages must now be given up\nby all investigators who possess ordinary judgment. A remarkable\ninstauce is the celebrated \"Flint ridge\" of Ohio, which was a great\nquarry of flint for implements used by the ancient mound-builders, a\nhighly civilized race, as well as by the modern Indians. Here are\nfound countless multitudes of palaeolithic flint implements of all the\nordinary types, but which are merely the unfinished material of\nworkers capable of producing the most exquisite implements. There can\nbe scarcely a doubt that the palaeolithic implements of the European\ngravels, in so far as they are the workmanship of man, are in like\nmanner merely the relics of old flint quarries.[120]\n\nPossibly a more accurate measurement of time for particular regions of\nthe world might be deduced from the introduction of bronze and iron.\nIf the former was, as many antiquarians suppose, a local discovery in\nEurope, and not introduced from abroad, it can give no measurement of\ntime whatever. In America, as the facts detailed by Dr. Wilson show,\nwhile a bronze age existed in Peru, it was the copper age in the\nMississippi Valley, and the stone age elsewhere; and these conditions\nmight have co-existed for any length of time, and could give no\nindication of relative dates. On the other hand, the iron introduced\nby European commerce spread at once over the continent, and came into\nuse in the most remote tribes, and its introduction into America\nclearly marks an historical epoch. With regard to bronze in Europe, we\nmust bear in mind that tin was to be procured only in England and\nSpain, and in the latter in very small quantity; the mines of Saxony\ndo not seem to have been known till the Middle Ages. We must further\nconsider that tin ore is a substance not metallic in appearance, and\nlittle likely to attract the attention of savages; and that, as we\ngather from a hint of Pliny, it was probably first observed, in the\nWest at least, as stream tin, in the Spanish gold washings. Lastly,\nwhen we place in connection with these considerations the fact that in\nthe earliest times of which we have certain knowledge, the tin trade\nof Spain and England was monopolized by the Phoenicians, there seems\nto be a strong probability that the extension of the trade of this\nnation to the western Mediterranean really inaugurated the bronze\nperiod. The only valid argument against this is the fact that moulds\nand other indications of native bronze casting have been found in\nSwitzerland, Denmark, and elsewhere; but these show nothing more than\nthat the natives could recast bronze articles, just as the American\nIndians can forge fish-hooks and knives out of nails and iron hoops.\nOther considerations might be adduced in proof of this view, but our\nlimits will not permit us to refer to them. The important questions\nstill remain: When was this trade commenced, and how rapidly did it\nextend itself from the sea-coast across Europe? The British tin trade\nmust have been in existence in the time of Herodotus, though his\nnotion of the locality was not more definite than that it was in the\nextremity of the earth. The Phoenician settlements in the western\nMediterranean must have existed as early as the time of Solomon, when\n\"ships of Tarshish\" was the general designation of seagoing ships for\nlong voyages. How long previously these colonies existed we do not\nknow; but considering the great scarcity and value of tin in those\nvery ancient times, we may infer that perhaps only the Spanish, and\nnot the British deposits were known thus early; or that the\nPhoenicians had only indirect access to the latter. Perhaps we may fix\nthe time when these traders were able to supply the nations of Europe\nwith abundance of bronze in exchange for their products, at, say 1000\nto 1200 B.C., as the earliest probable period; and possibly from one\nto two centuries would be a sufficient allowance for the complete\npenetration of the trade throughout Europe. But of course wars or\nmigrations might retard or accelerate the process; and there may have\nbeen isolated spots in which a partial stone period extended up to\nthose comparatively recent times in which first the Greek trade, and\nafterward the entire overthrow of the Carthaginian power by the\nRomans, terminated forever the age of bronze and substituted the age\nof iron. This would leave, according to our ordinary chronologies, at\nleast ten or fifteen centuries for the postdiluvian stone period in\nEurope and Western Asia, a time quite sufficient in our view for all\nthat part of it represented by such monuments as the Danish\nshell-heaps or the platform habitations of the Swiss lakes; leaving\nthe remains of the prehistoric caverns and river gravels for the\nantediluvian period. A few facts in illustration of these points, and\nalso of the Biblical history, may be mentioned here.\n\nWe know perfectly that the early Chaldeans of the Euphratean valley\nwere acquainted with the use of metals--bronze certainly, and at a\nvery early date iron; yet flint knives and other implements of stone\nare found under circumstances which show that they were used in the\npalmy days of the Assyrian empire. The inhabitants of Egypt were\nacquainted with bronze and iron long before the date of the Exodus,\nyet the Egyptians used stone knives for some purposes up to a\ncomparatively modern time. Joshua used stone knives for the purpose of\ncircumcision; and according to Herodotus there were Ethiopians in the\narmy of Xerxes who used stone-tipped arrows. If any antiquarian were\nto stumble on the \"hill of the foreskins\"--a mound under which were\nburied in all probability the multitudinous flint flakes used in the\ncircumcision of the thousands of Israel--or the grave in which some of\nthe Ethiopian auxiliaries of Xerxes were buried with their flint\narrow-heads and javelins of antelopes' horn, how absurd would be the\ninference that these repositories were of the palaeolithic age. Nay, so\nlate as 1870 a traveller was informed that the Bagos, a people of\nAbyssinia, still made and used stone hatchets and flint knives.[121]\n\nIn Europe we find reason to believe that the Ligurians of Northwestern\nItaly were flint-folk of very rude type until they were conquered by\nthe Gauls about 400 B.C.[122] Though the Gauls, Britons, and Germans\nof the age of Julius Caesar had iron weapons, yet it is evident that\nthe metal was very scarce, and that bronze was more common; and in\nconfirmation of this it is found that in the trenches before Alize,\nthe Alesia of Caesar, where the final struggle of the Roman general\nwith Vercingetorix took place, weapons of stone, bronze, and iron are\nintermixed. All over the more northern parts of Europe there is the\nbest reason to believe that the use of stone and bronze continued to a\nmuch later period, and locally until long after the Christian era. It\nis clear that such facts as these must greatly modify our ideas of the\nprobable age of the Swiss lake villages, and should induce the\ngreatest caution in claiming any special antiquity for particular\nclasses of implements.\n\nOne of the most remarkable discoveries of modern times is that of the\nsite of ancient Troy by Dr. Schliemann, and it affords clear and\ndecisive evidence as to the historic value of the ages to which we\nhave referred.\n\nTroy was destroyed by the Greeks perhaps about 1300 B.C., and we know\nfrom Homer that this was in what for the Greeks and Trojans may\nproperly be termed the copper age, weapons and armor of that metal\nbeing in common use, and also the mode of burial by cremation. We may\nwell suppose that at that early date the stone age was still in full\nforce in Northern Europe and Asia, and in the mountains of\nSwitzerland; and as the tin mines of England had not yet been reached,\nbronze was scarce and dear even in Eastern Europe and Asia. Now\nSchliemann has disinterred the undoubted Trojan Ilium on the hill of\nHissarlik; but he finds it to be only one of several buried cities,\nand the succession of strata will be most clearly seen in the section\non the following page, compiled from his clear and circumstantial\ndescriptions. It is needless to say that this presents a succession of\nthe stone age to one of comparatively high civilization. It also forms\nan epitome of that of the whole East, and of primitive man in general,\nin some very important respects. We have first, at a date probably\ncoeval with that of the earliest monarchies of Assyria and Egypt, a\nprimitive people whose arts and mode of life remind us strongly of the\nAmerican Toltecans and Peruvians.[123] Schliemann supposes them to\nhave been Aryan, but they were more probably of Turanian race. They\nmust have occupied the site for a very long time. They were succeeded\nby a more cultivated people of fine physical organization, yet\npossibly still Turanians or primitive Aryans, who by trade or plunder\nhad accumulated large stores of metallic wealth, and had made advances\nin the arts of life placing them on a level with the early Phoenicians\nand Egyptians, with whom they probably had intercourse. These\n\n  =====================================================================\n  |Surface.                        |\n  |                                |\n  |Fifth stratum to 6-1/2 feet.    |The Greek Ilium, with buildings\n  |                                |and objects of art characteristic\n  |                                |of the Hellenic civilization of\n  |                                |historic periods.\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------------\n  |Fourth stratum to 13 feet.      |A second barbarous people, but\n  |                                |probably allied to the first.\n  |                                |Very coarse pottery. Implements\n  |                                |and weapons of copper or bronze--\n  |                                |stone knives and saws.\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------------\n  |Third stratum to 23 feet.       |Barbarous people occupying the\n  |                                |site of Troy. Rude stone\n  |                                |implements and rude pottery.\n  |                                |Buildings of small stones and clay.\n  |                                |Some objects of pottery found here\n  |                                |would on American sites be regarded\n  |                                |as probably tobacco-pipes.\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------------\n  |Second stratum to 33 feet.      |Homeric Troy. Implements and\n  |                                |weapons of copper, bronze, and\n  |                                |stone. Pottery, some of it of\n  |                                |Peruvian and ancient Cypriot types.\n  |                                |Fine gold jewelry, and gold and\n  |                                |silver vessels. Armor similar to\n  |                                |that described by Homer. Stone\n  |                                |buildings and walls. This city had\n  |                                |been sacked and burned.\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------------\n  | First stratum to 46 or 53 feet.|Primitive or prehistoric Troy.\n  |                                |Stone implements, polished and\n  |                                |chipped. Millstones, copper nails,\n  |                                |pottery--some with patterns\n  |                                |curiously resembling those of\n  |                                |America--bone implements,\n  | Rock.                          |terra-cotta disks. Stone buildings.\n  =====================================================================\n\nwere the Trojans of the Homeric poems, and the destruction of their\ncity was probably in the first instance celebrated in their own native\nsongs, which Homer at a date but little later[124] wove into his\nmagnificent poem, and idealized and exaggerated. The Trojans\nworshipped an owl-headed goddess--the Athena of the Homeric poems;\nand from symbols found are believed also to have had the worship of a\nsacred tree, and of fire or of the Sun. All of these are widespread\nsuperstitions over both the Old and New World. But while Troy\nflourished there were barbarous nations not far off still in the stone\nage; and when the city had fallen, these, possibly in successive\nhordes, took possession of the fertile plain and used the old city as\ntheir stronghold, perhaps till the foundation of the Greek city about\n650 B.C. I have sketched in some detail these interesting discoveries,\nas they so clearly illustrate an actual succession of ages, and so\nconclusively show the uncertainty of the classification into ages of\nstone and metal, except when taken in connection with the precise\ncircumstances of each locality.\n\nI have referred above only to the question of historic or postdiluvian\nman. We have still to consider what remains exist of antediluvian man.\nThese may be studied in connection with our third head of geological\nevidences of man's antiquity; for if the Mosaic narrative be true, the\ndiluvial catastrophe must have constituted a physical separation\nbetween historic man and prehistoric; since, in so far as antediluvian\nages are concerned, all are prehistoric or mythical everywhere except\nin the sacred history itself. Antediluvian men may thus in geology be\nPleistocene as distinguished from modern, or Palaeocosmic as\ndistinguished from Neocosmic.[125]\n\n2. _Language in Relation to the Antiquity of Man._--In many animals\nthe voice has a distinctive character; but in man it has an importance\naltogether peculiar. The gift of speech is one of his sole\nprerogatives, and identity in its mode of exercise is not only the\nstrongest proof of similarity of psychical constitution, but more than\nany other character marks identity of origin. The tongues of men are\nmany and various; and at first sight this diversity may, as indeed it\noften does, convey the impression of radical diversity of race. But\nmodern philological investigations have shown many and unexpected\nlinks of connection in vocabulary or grammatical structure, or both,\nbetween languages apparently the most dissimilar. I do not here refer\nto the vague and fanciful parallels with which our ancestors were\noften amused, but to the results of sober and scientific inquiry.\n\"Nothing,\" says Professor Max Mueller, \"necessitates the admission of\ndifferent independent beginnings for the material elements of the\nTuranian, Semitic, and Aryan branches of speech; nay, it is possible\neven now to point out radicals which, under various changes and\ndisguises, have been current in these three branches ever since their\nfirst separation.\" Of the truth of this I have convinced myself by\nsome original investigation, and also of the farther truth that of\nthis radical unity of all human tongues there is more full evidence\nthan many philologists are disposed to admit, and that the results of\nfuture study must be to connect more and more with each other the\nseveral main stems of language. Whether this results merely from the\npsychical unity of the human race, or from the historical derivation\nof languages from one root, is not so material as the fact of unity;\nbut that the latter is implied it would not be difficult to show.[126]\nLet us examine for a little these results as they are presented to us\nby Latham, Mueller, Bunsen, and other modern philologists.\n\nA convenient starting-point is afforded by the great group of\nlanguages known as the Indo-European, Japhetic, or Aryan. From the\nGanges to the west coast of Ireland, through Indian, Persian, Greek,\nItalian, German, Celt, runs one great language--the Sanscrit and the\ndark Hindoo at one extreme, the Erse and the xanthous Celt at the\nother. No one now doubts the affinity of this great belt of languages.\nNo one can pretend that any one of these nations learned its language\nfrom another. They are all decided branches of a common stock. Lying\nin and near this area are other nations--as the Arabs, the Syrians,\nthe Jews--speaking languages differing in words and structure--the\nSemitic tongues. Do these mark a different origin? The philologists\nanswer in the negative, pointing to the features of resemblance which\nstill remain, and above all to certain intermediate tongues of so high\nantiquity that they are rather to be regarded as root-stocks from\nwhich other languages diverged than as mixtures. The principal of\nthese is the ancient Egyptian, represented by the inscriptions on the\nmonuments of that wonderful people, and by the more modern Coptic,\nwhich, according to Bunsen and Latham, presents decided affinities to\nboth the great classes previously mentioned, and may be regarded as\nstrictly intermediate in its character. It has accordingly been\ndesignated by the term Sub-Semitic.[127] But it shares this character\nwith all or nearly all the other African languages, which bear strong\nmarks of affinity to the Egyptian and Semitic tongues. On this\nsubject Dr. Latham says, \"That the uniformity of languages throughout\nAfrica is greater than it is either in Asia or in Europe, is a\nstatement to which I have not the least hesitation in committing\nmyself.\"[128] To the north the Indo-European area is bounded by a\ngreat group of semi-barbarous populations, mostly with Mongolian\nfeatures, and speaking languages which have been grouped as Turanian.\nThese Turanian languages, on the one hand, graduate without any break\ninto those of the Esquimaux and American Indians; on the other,\naccording to Mueller and Latham, they are united, though less\ndistinctly, with the Semitic and Japhetic tongues. They not improbably\nrepresent in more or less altered forms the most primitive stock of\nlanguage from which both the Semitic and Japhetic groups have\nbranched. Another great area on the coasts and in the islands of the\nPacific is overspread by the Malay, which, through the populations of\nTransgangetic India, connects itself with the great Indo-European\nline. Mr. Edkins, in his remarkable book on \"China's Place in\nPhilology,\" has collected a large amount of fact tending to show that\nthe early Chinese in its monosyllabic radicals presents root-forms\ntraceable into all the stocks of human speech in the Old World; and\nthe American languages would have furnished him with similar lines of\naffinity. If we regard physical characters, manners, and customs, and\nmythologies, as well as mere language, it is much easier thus to link\ntogether nearly all the populations of the globe. In investigations of\nthis kind, it is true, the links of connection are often delicate and\nevanescent; yet they have conveyed to the ablest investigators the\nstrong impression that the phenomena are rather those of division of a\nradical language than of union of several radically distinct.\n\nThis impression is farther strengthened when we regard several results\nincidental to these researches. Latham has shown that the languages of\nmen may be regarded as arranged in lines of divergence, the extreme\npoints of which are Fuego, Tasmania, Easter Island; and that from all\nthese points they converge to a common centre in Western Asia, where\nwe find a cluster of the most ancient and perfect languages; and even\nHaeckel is obliged to adopt in his map of the affiliation of races of\nmen a similar scheme, though he, without any good historical or\nscientific evidence, extends it back into the imaginary lost continent\nof Lemuria. Farther, the languages of the various populations differ\nin proceeding from these centres in a manner pointing to degeneracy\nsuch as is likely to occur in small and rude tribes separating from a\nparent stock. These lines of radiation follow the most easy and\nprobable lines of migration of the human race spreading from one\ncentre. It must also be observed that in the primary migration of men,\nthere must of necessity have been at its extreme limits outlying and\nisolated tribes, placed in circumstances in which language would very\nrapidly change; especially as these tribes, migrating or driven\nforward, would be continually arriving at new regions presenting new\ncircumstances and objects. When at length the utmost limit in any\ndirection was reached, the inroads of new races of population would\npress into close contact these various tribes with their different\ndialects. Where the distance was greatest before reaching this limit,\nwe might expect, as in America, to find the greatest mutual variety\nand amount of difference from the original stock. After the primary\nmigration had terminated, the displacements arising from secondary\nmigrations and conquests, would necessarily complicate the matter by\nbreaking up the original gradations of difference, and thereby\nrendering lines of migration difficult to trace.\n\nTaking all these points into the account, along with the known\ntendencies of languages in all circumstances to vary, it is really\nwonderful that philology is still able to give so decided indications\nof unity.\n\nThere is, in the usual manner of speaking of these subjects, a source\nof misapprehension, which deserves special mention in this place. The\nHebrew Scriptures derive all the nations of the ancient world from\nthree patriarchs, and the names of these have often been attached to\nparticular races of men and their languages; but it should never be\nsupposed that these classifications are likely to agree with the Bible\naffiliation. They may to a certain extent do so, but not necessarily\nor even probably. In the nature of the case, those portions of these\nfamilies which remained near the original centre, and in a civilized\nstate, would retain the original language and features comparatively\nunchanged. Those which wandered far, fell into barbarism, or became\nsubjected to extreme climatic influences, would vary more in all\nrespects. Hence any general classification, whether on physical or\nphilological characters, will be likely to unite, as in the Caucasian\ngroup of Cuvier, men of all the three primitive families, while it\nwill separate the outlying and aberrant portions from their main stems\nof affiliation. Want of attention to this point has led to much\nmisconception; and perhaps it would be well to abandon altogether\nterms founded on the names of the sons of Noah, except where\nhistorical affiliation is the point in question. It would be well if\nit were understood that when the terms Semitic, Japhetic,[129] and\nHametic are used, direct reference is made to the Hebrew ethnology;\nand that, where other arrangements are adopted, other terms should be\nused. It is obviously unfair to apply the terms of Moses in a\ndifferent way from that in which he uses them. A very prevalent error\nof this kind has been to apply the term Japhetic to a number of\nnations not of such origin according to the Bible; and another of more\nmodern date is to extend the term Semitic to all the races descended\nfrom Ham, because of resemblance of language. It should be borne in\nmind that, assuming the truth of the Scriptural affiliation, there\nshould be a \"central\" group of races and languages where the whole of\nthe three families meet, and \"sporadic\"[130] groups representing the\nchanges of the outlying and barbarous tribes.\n\nWhile, however, all the more eminent philologists adhere to the\noriginal unity of language, they are by no means agreed as to the\nantiquity of man; and some, as for instance Latham and Dr. Max Mueller,\nare disposed to claim an antiquity for our species far beyond that\nusually admitted. In so far as this affects the Bible history, it is\nimportant, inasmuch as this would appear to limit the possible\nantiquity of all languages to the time of the deluge. The date of this\nevent has been variously estimated, on Biblical grounds, at from 1650\nB.C. (Usher) to 3155 B.C. (Josephus and Hales); but the longest of\nthese dates does not appear to satisfy the demands of philology. The\nreason of this demand is the supposed length of time required to\neffect the necessary changes. The subject is one on which definite\ndata can scarcely be obtained. Languages change now, even when reduced\nto a comparatively stable form by writing. They change more rapidly\nwhen men migrate into new climates, and are placed in contact with new\nobjects. The English, the Dutch, and the German were perhaps all at\nthe dawn of the mediaeval era Maeso-Gothic. At the same rate of change,\nallowing for greater barbarism and greater migrations, they may very\nwell have been something not far from Egyptian or Sanscrit 2000 years\nbefore Christ. The truth is that present rates of variation afford no\ncriterion for the changes that must occur in the languages of small\nand isolated tribes lapsing into or rising from barbarism, possessing\nfew words, and constantly requiring to name new objects and until some\nratio shall have been established between these conditions and those\nof modern languages, fixed by literature and by a comparatively\nstationary state of society, it is useless to make any demands for\nlonger time on this ground.[131]\n\nEven in the present day, Moffat informs us that in South Africa the\nseparation of parts of a tribe, for even a few months, may produce a\nnotable difference of dialect. If we take the existing languages of\ncivilized men whose history is known, we shall find that it is\nimpossible to trace many of them back as far as the Christian era, and\nwhen we have passed over even half that interval, they become so\ndifferent as to be unintelligible to those who now speak them. Where\nthere are exceptions to this, they arise entirely from the effects of\nliterature and artificial culture. While, therefore, there is good\nground in philology for the belief in one primitive language, there\nseems no absolute necessity to have recourse even to the confusion of\ntongues at Babel to explain the diversities of language.[132] Farther,\nthe Bible carries back the Semitic group of languages at least to the\ntime of the Deluge, but it does not seem necessary on the mere ground\nof antediluvian names, to carry it any farther back, and the Assyrian\ninscriptions show the coexistence of Turanian and Semitic tongues at\nthe dawn of history in the region of the Euphrates and Tigris. One or\nother of these--or a monosyllabic language underlying it--was probably\nan antediluvian tongue, and the other a very early derivative; and\nboth history and philology would assign the precedence to the Turanian\nlanguage, which was probably most akin to that which had descended\nfrom antediluvian times, and which at that early period of dispersion\nindicated in the Bible story of Babel, had begun to throw off its two\ngreat branches of the Aryan and Semitic languages. These, proceeding\nin two dissimilar lines of development, continue to exist to this day\nalong with the surviving portions of the uncultivated Turanian speech.\nTo this point, however, we may return under another head.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nUNITY AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN--(_Continued._)\n\n\n     \"By the word of God the heavens were from of old, and the\n     earth, formed out of water, and by means of water, by which\n     waters the world that then was, being overflowed with water,\n     perished.\"--2 Peter iii., 5, 6.\n\n\n3. _Geological Evidence as to the Antiquity of Man._--No geological\nfact can now be more firmly established than the ascending progression\nof animal life, whereby from the early invertebrates of the Eozoic and\nPrimordial series we pass upward through the dynasties of fishes and\nreptiles and brute mammals to the reign of man. In this great series\nman is obviously the last term; and when we inquire at what point he\nwas introduced, the answer must be in the later part of the great\nCainozoic or Tertiary period, which is the latest of the whole. Not\nonly have we the negative fact of the absence of his remains from all\nthe earlier Tertiary formations, but the positive fact that all the\nmammalia of these earlier ages are now extinct, and that man could not\nhave survived the changes of condition which destroyed them and\nintroduced the species now our contemporaries. This fact is altogether\nindependent of any question as to the introduction of species by\nderivation or by creation. The oldest geological period in which any\nanimals nearly related in structure to man occur is that named the\nMiocene, and no traces of man have as yet been found in any deposits\nof this age. All human remains known belong either to the Pleistocene\nor Modern. Now the Pleistocene was characterized by one of those\nperiods of glacial cold which have swept over the earth--by one of\nthose great winters which have so chilled the continents that few\nforms of life could survive them--and man comes in at the close of\nthis cold period, in what is called the Post-glacial age. Some\ngeologists, it is true, hold to an interglacial warm period, in which\nman is supposed to have existed, but the evidence of this is extremely\nslender and doubtful, and it carries back in any case human antiquity\nbut a very little way. I have, in my \"Story of the Earth and Man,\"\nshown reason for the belief, in which I find Professor Hughes, of\nCambridge, coincides with me,[133] that the interglacial periods are\nmerely an ingenious expedient to get rid of the difficulties attending\nthe hypothesis of the universal glaciation of the northern hemisphere.\n\nBut, though man is thus geologically modern, it is held that\nhistorically his existence on earth may have been very ancient,\nextending perhaps ten or twenty, or even a hundred times longer than\nthe period of six or seven thousand years supposed to be proved by\nsacred history. Let us first, as plainly and simply as possible,\npresent the facts supposed thus to extend the antiquity of man, and\nthen inquire as to their validity and force as arguments in this\ndirection.\n\nThe arguments from geology in favor of a great antiquity for man may\nbe summarized thus: (1) Human remains are found in caverns under very\nthick stalagmitic crusts, and in deposits of earth which must have\naccumulated before these stalagmites began to form, and when the\ncaverns were differently situated with reference to the local\ndrainages. (2) Remains of man are found under peat-bogs which have\ngrown so little in modern times that their antiquity on the whole\nmust be very great. (3) Implements, presumably made by men, are found\nin river-gravels so high above existing riverbeds that great physical\nchanges must have occurred since they were accumulated. (4) One case\nis on record where a human bone is believed to have been found under a\ndeposit of glacial age. (5) Human remains have been found under\ncircumstances which indicate that very important changes of level have\ntaken place since their accumulation. (6) Human remains have been\nfound under circumstances which indicate great changes of climate as\nintervening between their date and that of the modern period. (7) Man\nis known to have existed, in Europe at least, at the same time with\nsome quadrupeds formerly supposed to have been extinct before his\nintroduction. (8) The implements, weapons, etc., found in the oldest\nof these repositories are different from those known to have been used\nin historic times.\n\nThese several heads include, I think, all the really material evidence\nof a geological character. It is evidence of a kind not easily\nreducible into definite dates, but there can be no doubt that its\nnature, and the rapid accumulation of facts within a small number of\nyears, have created a deep and widespread conviction among geologists\nand archaeologists that we must relegate the origin of man to a much\nmore remote antiquity than that sanctioned by history or by the\nBiblical chronology. I shall first review the character of this\nevidence, and then state a number of geological facts which bear in\nthe other direction, and have been somewhat lost sight of in recent\ndiscussions. Of the facts above referred to, the most important are\nthose which relate to caverns, peat-bogs, and river-gravels. We may,\ntherefore, first consider the nature and amount of this evidence.\n\nThat the reader may more distinctly understand the geological history\nof these more recent periods of the earth's history which are supposed\nto have witnessed the advent of man, in Western Europe at least, I\nquote the following summary from Sir Charles Lyell of the more modern\nchanges in that portion of the world. These are:\n\n\"First, a continental period, toward the close of which the forest of\nCromer flourished; when the land was at least 500 feet above its\npresent level, perhaps much higher. * * * The remains of _Hippopotamus\nmajor_ and _Rhinoceros etruscus_, found in beds of this period, seem\nto indicate a climate somewhat milder than that now prevailing in\nGreat Britain. [This was a _Preglacial_ era, and may be regarded as\nbelonging to the close of the Pliocene tertiary.]\n\n\"Secondly, a period of submergence, by which the land north of the\nThames and Bristol Channel, and that of Ireland, was generally reduced\nto * * * an archipelago. * * * This was the period of great\nsubmergence and of floating ice, when the Scandinavian flora, which\noccupied the lower grounds during the first continental period, may\nhave obtained exclusive possession of the only lands not covered with\nperpetual snow. [This represents the Glacial period; but according to\nthe more extreme glacialists only a portion of that period.]\n\n\"Thirdly, a second continental period, when the bed of the glacial\nsea, with its marine shells and erratic blocks, was laid dry, and when\nthe quantity of land equalled that of the first period. * * * During\nthis period there were glaciers in the higher mountains of Scotland\nand Wales, and the Welsh glaciers * * * pushed before them and cleared\nout the marine drift with which some valleys had been filled during\nthe period of submergence. * * * During this last period the passage\nof the Germanic flora into the British area took place, and the\nScandinavian plants, together with northern insects, birds, and\nquadrupeds, retreated into the higher grounds. * * *\n\n\"Fourthly, the next and last change comprised the breaking up of the\nland of the British area once more into numerous islands, ending in\nthe present geographical condition of things. There were probably many\noscillations of level during this last conversion of continuous land\ninto islands, and such movements in opposite directions would account\nfor the occurrence of marine shells at moderate heights above the\nlevel of the sea, notwithstanding a general lowering of the land. * * *\nDuring this period a gradual amelioration of temperature took place,\nfrom the cold of the glacial period to the climate of historical\ntimes.\"[134]\n\nThe second continental period above referred to is that which appears\non the best evidence to have been the time of the introduction of man;\nbut such facts as that of the Settle Cave, and the implements of the\nbreccia in Kent's Cave, if rightly interpreted, would make man\npreglacial or \"interglacial.\"\n\nThe deposits found in caverns in France, Switzerland, Germany,\nBelgium, and England have afforded a large proportion of the remains\nfrom which we derive our notions of the most ancient prehistoric men\nof Europe. From the Belgian caves, as explored by M. Dupont, we learn\nthat there were two successive prehistoric races, both rude or\ncomparatively uncivilized. The first were men of Turanian type, but of\ngreat bodily stature and high cerebral organization, and showing\nremarkable skill in the manufacture of implements and ornaments of\nbone and ivory. These men are believed to have been contemporary with\nthe earlier postglacial mammals, as the mammoth and hairy rhinoceros,\nand to have lived at a time when the European land was more extensive\nthan at present, stretching far to the west of Ireland, and connecting\nGreat Britain with the Continent. The skeletons found at Cro-Magnon,\nMentone, and elsewhere in France fully confirm the deductions of\nDupont as to this earliest race of Palaeocosmic, Palaeolithic, or\nantediluvian man. This grand race seems to have perished or been\ndriven from Europe by the great depression of the level of the land\nwhich inaugurated the modern era, and which was probably accompanied\nby many oscillations of level as well as by considerable changes of\nclimate. They were succeeded by a second race, equally Turanian in\ntype, but of small stature, and resembling the modern Lapps. These\nwere the \"allophylian\" peoples displaced by the historical Celts, and\nup to their time the reindeer seems to have existed abundantly in\nFrance and Germany. These two successive prehistoric populations have\nbeen termed respectively men of the \"mammoth\" age and men of the\n\"reindeer\" age. The Bible record would lead us to regard the earlier\nand gigantic men as antediluvian, and the smaller or Lappish race as\npostdiluvian. We may therefore, having already at some length\nconsidered the postdiluvian age, take up the mode of occurrence of the\nremains of the earlier of the two races--that of the mammoth age.\n\nThe caverns themselves may be divided into those of residence, of\nsepulture, and of driftage, though one cavern has often successively\nassumed two at least of these characters. In the caverns of residence\nlarge accumulations have been formed of ashes, charcoal, bones, and\nother debris of cookery, among which are found flint and bone\nimplements, the general character of which, as well as that of the\nneedles, stone hammers, mortars for paint, and other domestic\nappliances, are not more dissimilar from those of the Red Indian and\nEsquimau races in North America than these are from one another, and\nin many things, as in the bone harpoons, the resemblance is very\nstriking indeed. In tendency to imitative art, and in the skill of\ntheir delineations of animals, the prehistoric men seem to have\nsurpassed all the American races except the semi-civilized\nmound-builders and the more cultivated Mexican and Peruvian nations.\nWith regard to the residence of these men of the mammoth age in\ncaverns, several things are indicated by American analogies to which\nsome attention should be paid.\n\nIt is not likely that caverns were the usual places of residence of\nthe whole population. They may have been winter houses for small\ntribes and detached families of fugitives or outlaws, or they may have\nbeen places of resort for hunting parties at certain seasons of the\nyear. The large quantities of broken and uncooked bones of particular\nspecies, as of the horse and reindeer, in some of the caverns, would\nfarther indicate a habit of making great battues, like those of the\nAmerican hunting tribes, at certain seasons, and of preparing\nquantities of pemmican or dried meat preserved with marrow and fat for\nfuture use. The number of bone needles found in some of the caves\nwould seem to hint that, like the Americans, they sewed up their\npemmican in skin bags. The multitude of flint flakes and of rude stone\nimplements applicable to breaking bones certainly indicates a\nwholesale cutting of flesh and preparation of marrow. In the \"Story of\nthe Earth,\" I have suggested in connection with this that there may\nhave been towns or villages of these people unknown to us, and which\nwould afford higher conceptions of their progress in the arts. This\nanticipation appears recently to have been realized in the discovery\nof such a town or fortified village of the mammoth age at Soloutre, in\nFrance, and which seems to afford evidence that these ancient people\nhad already domesticated the horse, using it as food as well as a\nbeast of burden, in the manner of the Khirgis and certain other Tartar\ntribes of Central Asia.[135] This, with the undoubtedly high cerebral\norganization indicated by the skulls of the mammoth age, notably\nraises our estimate of the position of man at this early date.\n\nWith regard to caves of sepulture, the same remark may be made as with\nregard to the caves of residence. They do not seem to have been the\nburial-places of large populations, but only occasional places of\ninterment, few bodies being found in them, and these often interred in\nthe midst of culinary debris, evidencing previous or contemporary\nresidence. With regard to the latter, it seems to have been no\nuncommon practice with some North American tribes to bury the dead\neither in the floors of their huts or in their immediate proximity. It\nis probable, however, that the few examples known of caves of\nsepulture of this period indicate not tribal or national places of\nburial, but occasional and accidental cases, happening to hunting or\nwar parties, perhaps remote from their ordinary places of residence.\nIn so far as method of burial is concerned, the men of the Palaeocosmic\nor Mammoth age seem to have buried the dead extended at full length,\nand not in the crouching posture usual with some later races. Like the\nAmericans, they painted the dead man, and buried him with his robes\nand ornaments, and probably with his weapons, thus intimating their\nbelief in happy hunting-grounds beyond the grave.[136] I may remark\nhere that all the known interments of the mammoth age indicate a race\nof men of great cerebral capacity, with long heads and coarsely marked\nfeatures, of large stature and muscular vigor, surpassing indeed much\nin all these respects the average man of modern Europe. These\ncharacteristics befit men who had to contend with the mammoth and his\ncontemporaries, and to subdue the then vast wildernesses of the\neastern continent, and they correspond with the Biblical\ncharacteristics of antediluvian man.\n\nAmong caves of driftage may be classed some of those near Liege, in\nBelgium, and, partially at least, those of Kent's Hole and Brixham, in\nEngland. In these only disarticulated remnants of human skeletons, or\nmore frequently only flint implements, some of them of doubtful\ncharacter, have been found. In my \"Story of the Earth,\" I have taken\nthe carefully explored Kent's Cavern of Torquay as a typical example,\nand have condensed its phenomena as described by Mr. Pengelly. I now\nrepeat this description, with some important emendations suggested by\nthat gentleman in more recent reports and in private correspondence.\n\nThe somewhat extensive and ramifying cavern of Kent's Hole is an\nirregular excavation, evidently due partly to fissures or joints in\nlimestone rock, and partly to the erosive action of water enlarging\nsuch fissures into chambers and galleries. At what time it was\noriginally cut we do not know, but it must have existed as a cavern at\nthe close of the Pliocene or beginning of the Post-pliocene period,\nsince which time it has been receiving a series of deposits which have\nquite filled up some of its smaller branches.\n\nFirst and lowest, according to Mr. Pengelly, of the deposits as yet\nknown, is a \"breccia,\" or mass of broken and rounded stones, with\nhardened red clay filling the interstices. Some of the stones are of\nthe rock which forms the roof and walls of the cave, but the greater\nnumber, especially the rounded ones, are from more distant parts of\nthe surrounding country. Many are fragments of grit from the Devonian\nbeds of adjacent hills. There are also fragments of stalagmite from an\nold crust broken up when the breccia was deposited, and possibly\nbelonging to Pliocene times. In this mass, the depth of which is\nunknown, are numerous bones, nearly all of one kind of animal, the\ncave bear or bears, for there may be more than one species--creatures\nwhich seem to have lived in Western Europe from the close of the\nPliocene down to the modern period. They must have been among the\nearliest and most permanent tenants of Kent's Hole at a time when its\nlower chambers were still filled with water. Teeth of a lion and of\nthe common fox also occur in this deposit, but rarely. Next above the\nbreccia is a floor of \"stalagmite,\" or stony carbonate of lime,\ndeposited from the drippings of the roof, and in some places more than\ntwelve feet thick. This also contains bones of the cave bear,\ndeposited when there was less access of water to the cavern. Mr.\nPengelly infers the existence of man at this time from the occurrence\nof chipped flints supposed to be artificial; but which, in so far as I\ncan judge from the specimens described and figured, must still be\nregarded as of doubtful origin.\n\nAfter the old stalagmite floor above mentioned was formed, the cave\nagain received deposits of muddy water and stones; but now a change\noccurs in the remains embedded. This stony clay, or \"cave earth,\" has\nyielded an immense quantity of teeth and bones, including those of the\nelephant, rhinoceros, horse, hyena, cave bear, reindeer, and Irish\nelk. With these were found weapons of chipped flint, and harpoons,\nneedles, and bodkins of bone, precisely similar to those of the North\nAmerican Indians and other rude races. The \"cave earth\" is four feet\nor more in thickness. It is not stratified, and contains many fallen\nfragments of rock, rounded stones, and broken pieces of stalagmite. It\nalso has patches of the excrement of hyenas, which the explorers\nsuppose to indicate the temporary residence of these animals; and\nbesides fragments of charcoal scattered in the mass, there is in one\nspot, near the top, a limited layer of burned wood, with remains which\nindicate the cooking and eating of repasts of animal food by man. It\nis clear that when this bed was formed the cavern was liable to be\ninundated with muddy water, carrying stones and perhaps some of the\nbones and implements, and breaking up in places the old stalagmite\nfloor.[137] One of the most puzzling features, especially to those who\ntake an exclusively uniformitarian view, is that the entrance of\nwater-borne mud and stones implies a level of the bottom of the water\nin the neighboring valleys of nearly one hundred feet above its\npresent height. The cave earth is covered by a second crust of\nstalagmite, less dense and thick than that below, and containing only\na few bones, which are of the same general character with those\nbeneath, but include a fragment of a human jaw with teeth. Evidently\nwhen this stalagmite was formed the influx of water-borne materials\nhad ceased, or nearly so; and Mr. Pengelly appears to affirm, though\nwithout assigning any reason, that none of these bones could, like\nthe masses of stalagmite, have been lifted from lower beds, or washed\ninto the cave from without.\n\nThe next bed marks a new change. It is a layer of black mould from\nthree to ten inches thick. Its microscopic structure does not seem to\nhave been examined; but it is probably a forest soil, introduced by\ngrowth, by water, by wind, and by ingress of animals, all of them\nmodern, and contains works of art from the old British times before\nthe Roman invasion up to the porter bottles and dropped half-pence of\nmodern visitors. Lastly, in and upon the black mould are many fallen\nblocks from the roof of the cave.\n\nThere can be no doubt that this cave and the neighboring one of\nBrixham have done very much to impress the minds of British geologists\nwith ideas of the great antiquity of man; and they have, more than any\nother postglacial monuments, shown the existence of some animals now\nextinct up to the human age. Of precise data for determining time,\nthey have, however, given nothing. The only measures which seem to\nhave been applied, namely, the rate of growth of stalagmite and the\nrate of erosion of neighboring valleys, are, from the very sequence of\nthe deposits, obviously worthless; and the only apparently constant\nmeasure, namely, the fall of blocks from the roof, seems not to have\nbeen applied, and Mr. Pengelly declares that it can not be practically\nused. We are therefore quite uncertain as to the number of centuries\ninvolved in the filling of this cave, and must remain so until some\nsurer system of calculation can be devised. We may, however, attempt\nto sketch the series of events which it indicates.\n\nThe animals found in Kent's Hole are all \"postglacial,\" some of them\nof course survivors from \"preglacial\" times, and some of them still\nsurviving. They therefore inhabited the country after it rose from the\ngreat glacial submergence. Perhaps the first colonists of the coast of\nDevonshire in this period were the cave bears, migrating on floating\nice, and subsisting like the arctic bear and the black bear of\nAnti-costi, on fish, and on the garbage cast up by the sea. They may\nhave found Kent's Hole a sea-side cavern, with perhaps some of its\ngalleries still full of water and filling with breccia, with which the\nbones of dead bears became mixed. In the case of such a deposit as\nthis breccia, however, the precise time when its materials were\nfinally laid down in their present form, or the length of time\nnecessary for its accumulation, can not be definitely settled. It may\nbe a result of continued torrential action or of some sudden\ncataclysm. As the land rose, these creatures for the most part betook\nthemselves to lower levels, and in process of time the cavern stood\nupon a hill-side, perhaps several hundreds of feet above the sea; and\nthe mountain streams, their beds not yet emptied of glacial detritus,\nwashed into it stones and mud, and probably bones also, while it\nappears that hyenas occupied the cave at intervals, and dragged in\nremains of mammals of many species which had now swarmed across the\nplains elevated out of the sea, and multiplied in the land. This was\nthe time of the cave earth; and before its deposit was completed,\nthough how long before an unstratified and therefore probably\noften-disturbed bed of this kind can not tell, man himself seems to\nhave been added to the inhabitants of the British land. In pursuit of\ngame he sometimes ascended the valleys beyond the cavern, or even\npenetrated into its outer chambers; or perhaps there were even in\nthose days rude and savage hill-men, inhabiting the forests and\nwarring with the more cultivated denizens of plains below, which are\nnow deep under the waters. Their weapons, and other implements dropped\nin the cavern or lost in hunting, or buried in the flesh of wounded\nanimals which crept to the streams to assuage their thirst, are those\nfound in the cave earth. The absence of the human bones may merely\nshow that the mighty hunters of those days were too hardy, athletic,\nand intelligent often to perish from accidental causes, and that they\ndid not use this cavern for a place of burial. The fragments of\ncharcoal show that they were acquainted with fire, and possibly that\nthey sometimes took shelter in the cave. But the land again subsided.\nThe valley of that now nameless river, of which the Rhine and the\nThames may have alike been tributaries, disappeared under the sea; and\nperhaps some tribe, driven from the lower lands, took up its abode in\nthis cave, now again near the encroaching waves, and left there the\nremains of their last repasts ere they were driven farther inland or\nengulfed in the waters. For a time the cavern may have been wholly\nsubmerged, and the charcoal of the extinguished fires became covered\nwith its thin coating of clay. But ere long it re-emerged to form part\nof an island, long barren and desolate; and the valleys having been\ncut deeper by the receding waters, it no longer received muddy\ndeposits, and the crust formed by drippings from its roof contained\nonly bones and pebbles washed by rains and occasional land floods from\nits own clay deposits. Finally, the modern forests overspread the\nland, and were tenanted by the modern animals. Man returned to use the\ncavern again as a place of refuge or habitation, and to leave there\nthe relics contained in the black earth. This seems at present the\nonly intelligible history of this curious cave and others resembling\nit; though, when we consider the imperfection of the results obtained\neven by a large amount of labor, and the difficult and confused\ncharacter of the deposits in this and similar caves, too much value\nshould not be attached to such histories, which may at any time be\ncontradicted or modified by new facts or different explanations of\nthose already known. The time involved depends very much on the answer\nto the question whether we should regard the postglacial subsidence\nand re-elevation as somewhat sudden, or as occupying long ages at the\nslow rate at which some parts of our continents are now rising or\nsinking.\n\nMr. Pengelly thinks it possible, but not proved, that the lower\nbreccia of Kent's Cavern may be interglacial or preglacial in age. One\ncase only is known where a human bone has been found in a cavern under\ndeposits supposed to be of the nature of the glacial drift. It is that\nof the Victoria Cave, at Settle, in Yorkshire. At this place a human\nfibula was found under a layer of boulder clay. But there are too many\nchances of this bone having come into this position by some purely\nlocal accident to allow us to attach much importance to it until\nfuture discoveries shall have supplied other instances of the\nkind.[138]\n\nI may close this survey of the cave deposits with a summary of the\nresults of M. Dupont, as obtained from two of the caves explored by\nhim, that of Margite and that of Frontal. In the first of these\ncaverns, resting on rolled pebbles which covered the floor, were four\ndistinct layers of river mud deposited by inundations, and amounting\nto two yards and a half in thickness. In all of these layers were\nbones. The lowest contained rude flint implements, and bones of the\nmammoth, rhinoceros, bear, horse, chamois, reindeer, stag, and hyena.\nIn the overlying deposits are some flint implements of more artistic\nform and a greater prevalence of the bones of the reindeer. In the\nsecond cave, that of Frontal, over a similar deposit of alluvial mud\nof the mammoth age, was found a sepulchre containing the remains of\nsixteen individuals, of the second or diminutive Lappish race before\nreferred to. The door of the cave had been closed by these people with\na slab of stone, and in front was a hearth for funeral feasts, built\non the deposits of the mammoth age, and containing bones of animals\nall recent or now living in Belgium, and without any traces of the\nbones of the extinct quadrupeds. This burial-place belonged to the\nNeocosmic yet prehistoric race which replaced the Palaeocosmic men of\nthe mammoth age.\n\nWhat is the absolute antiquity of the Palaeocosmic age in Europe? We\nhave no monumental or historical chronology to answer this question,\nbut only the measures of time furnished by the accumulation of\ndeposits, by the deposition of stalagmite, by the gradual extinction\nof animals, and by the erosion of valleys and other physical changes.\nThese somewhat loose measures have been applied in various ways, but\nthe tendency of geologists, from the prevalence of uniformitarian\nviews, and the prejudice created by familiarity with the long times of\nprevious geologic periods, has been to assign to them too great rather\nthan too little value, both as measures of time and as indicating a\nremote antiquity.\n\nWith reference to the accumulation of deposits, whether derived from\ndisintegration of the roof and walls of the cave, introduced by land\nfloods or river inundations or by the residence of man, their rate is\nof very difficult estimation. Loose stones fallen from the roof, as in\nthe case of Kent's Cave, would give a fair measure of time if we could\nbe sure that the climate had continued uniform, and that there had\nbeen no violent earthquakes. Mr. Pengelly has, however, hopelessly\ngiven up this kind of evidence. Where, as in the case of many of these\ncaves, land floods and river inundations have entered, these may have\nbeen frequent or separated by long intervals of time, and they may\nhave been of great or small amount. Where, for instance, as in one of\nthe Belgian caves, there are six beds of ossiferous mud, but for the\nfact that five layers of stalagmite separate them we might not have\nknown whether they represent six annual inundations, or floods\nseparated by many centuries from each other.\n\nIn the case of the Victoria Cave at Settle, Dawkins, reasoning from\nthe accumulation of two feet of detritus over British remains that may\nbe supposed to be 1200 years old, gives a basis which would at the\nsame rate of deposit allow about 5000 years for the date of\npalaeolithic men; but Prestwich and others, on the basis of stalagmite\ndeposits, claim a vastly higher antiquity for the men who made the\nimplements found in Kent's Hole and Brixham.\n\nIf we now turn to these stalagmite floors, when we consider that they\nhave been formed by the slow solution of limestone by rain-water\ncharged with carbonic acid, and the dropping of this water on the\nfloor, and when we are told that in Kent's Cavern a marked date shows\nthat the stalagmite has grown at the rate of only one twentieth of an\ninch since 1688, and that there are two beds of stalagmite, one of\nwhich is in some places twelve feet thick, we are impressed with the\nconviction of a vast antiquity. But when we are told by Dawkins that\nthe rate of deposit in Ingleborough Cave may be estimated at a quarter\nof an inch per annum, and when we consider that the present rate of\ndeposit in Kent's Hole is probably very different from what it was in\nthe former condition of the country, stalagmite becomes a very unsafe\nmeasure of time. With respect again to the accumulation of\nkitchen-midden stuff in the course of the occupancy of caverns, this\nproceeds with great rapidity, when caves are steadily occupied and it\nis not the practice to cleanse out the debris of fires, food, and\nbedding. Even when the occupation is temporary, a tribe of savages\nengaged with the preparation of dried meat and pemmican in a very\nshort time produce a considerable heap of bones and other\nrejectamenta.\n\nLooking next to the extinction of animals, we find that the species\nfound in the oldest deposits containing human remains are in part\nstill extant. Others which are locally extinct we know existed in\nEurope until historical times, that is, within the last two thousand\nyears. How long previously to this the others became extinct we have\nno certain means of knowing, though it seems probable that they\ndisappeared gradually and successively. We have, however, farther to\nbear in mind the possibility of cataclysms or climatal changes which\nmay have proved speedily fatal to many species over large areas. In\nany case we have this certain fact that, though the time elapsed has\nbeen sufficient for the extinction of many species, it does not seem\nto have sufficed to effect any noteworthy change on those that\nsurvived. Farther, we may consider that time is only one factor in\nthis matter, and not the one which is the efficient cause of change,\nsince we know no reason why one species of animal should not continue\nto be reproduced as long as another, but for the occurrence of\nphysical changes of a prejudicial character.\n\nWe have still remaining the changes which have taken place in the\nerosion of valleys since the caverns were occupied. Dupont informs us\nthat the openings of some of the caverns once flooded by rivers are\nnow in limestone cliffs two hundred feet above the water, while no\nappreciable lowering of the bottoms of the ravines is taking place\nnow. This would in some contingencies put back the period of filling\nof the caves to an indefinite antiquity. But then the questions\noccur--Was there once more water in the rivers or more obstruction at\ntheir outlets, or was the erosive power greater at one time than now,\nor were the river valleys excavated in still more ancient time, and\npartly filled with mud when the water entered the caves, and may this\nmud have been since swept away? So, in like manner, the waters flowing\nin the channels near Brixham Cave and Kent's Hole were apparently\nabout seventy feet higher in times of flood than at present, but the\ntime involved is subject to the same doubts as in the case of the\nBelgian caves. Hughes has well remarked that elevations of the land,\nby causing rivers to form waterfalls and cascades, which they cut\nback, may greatly accelerate the rate of erosion. Farther, there is\nthe best reason to believe that in the glacial period many old valleys\nwere filled with clay, and that the modern cutting consisted merely in\nthe removal of this clay. Belt has shown in a recent paper[139] good\nreason to believe that this is the case with the Falls of Niagara, and\nthat the cutting actually effected through rock within the later\nPleistocene and modern period has been that only of the new gorge from\nthe whirlpool to Queenstown, the main part of the ravine being of\nolder date and merely re-excavated. This would greatly reduce the\nordinary estimate of time based on the cutting of the Niagara gorge.\n\nThis leads us next to consider the occurrence of human remains and\nobjects of art in the river-gravels themselves, and the amount of\nexcavation and deposit involved in the deposition of these gravels.\nIn the river-gravels of the Somme, and of many other rivers in France\nand Southern England, chipped flints and rude flint implements are\nfound in so great quantity as to imply that the beds and banks of\nthese streams were resorted to for flint material, and that the\nunfinished and rejected implements left in the holes and trenches, or\non the heaps where the work was carried on, were afterward sorted by\nrunning water, perhaps in abnormal floods and debacles, such as occur\nin all river valleys occasionally, perhaps in that great diluvial\ncatastrophe which seems to have terminated the residence of\nPalaeocosmic man in Europe. Wilson has well shown how the heaps left by\nAmerican tribes in and near their flint quarries would furnish the\nmaterial for such accumulations. The time required for the erosion of\nthe valleys and the deposit of the gravels has been very variously\nestimated. In the case of the Somme, which river is not appreciably\ndeepening its bed, if we suppose it to have cut its wide valley to the\ndepth of one hundred and fifty feet out of solid chalk since the\nso-called \"high level\" gravels of France and the South of England were\ndeposited, the time required shades off into infinity. So Evans, in\nhis work on \"The Ancient Stone Implements of Great Britain,\" looking\nupon the amount of excavation of wide and deep valleys since the stone\nimplements of Bournemouth are supposed to have been deposited in\ngravel, says, \"Who can fully comprehend how immensely remote was the\nepoch when that vast bay was high and dry land?\" and he becomes\npoetical in delineating the view that must have met the eyes of\n\"palaeolithic\" man. And undoubtedly, if one is to be limited to the\nprecise nature and amount of causes now at work in the district, the\ntime must not only be \"immensely remote,\" but illimitably so. The\ndifficulty lies with the exaggerated uniformitarianism of the\nsupposition that such causes could have produced the results. But,\nfor reasons to be immediately stated, the time required is liable to\nnumerous deductions; and recently Tylor, Pattison, Collard, and others\nhave insisted ably on these deductions, as has also Professor Hughes,\nof Cambridge. I have myself urged them strongly in the work already\nreferred to.\n\nIn the first place, when we see a deep river valley in which the\npresent stream is doing an almost infinitesimal amount of deepening,\nwe are not to infer that this represents all its work past and\npresent. In times of unusual flood it may do in one week more than in\nmany previous years. Farther, if there have been elevations or\ndepressions of the land, when the land has been raised the cutting\npower has at once been enormously increased, and when depressed it has\nbeen diminished, or filling has taken the place of cutting. Again, if\nthe climate in time past has been more extreme, or the amount of\nrainfall greater, the cutting action has then been proportionally\nrapid. Perhaps no influence is greater in this respect than that which\nis known to the colonists in Northeastern America as \"ice-freshets,\"\nwhen in spring, before the ice has had time to disappear from the\nrivers, sudden thaws and rains produce great floods, which rushing\ndown over the icy crust, or breaking and hurling its masses before\nthem, work terrible havoc on the banks and alluvial flats, depositing\ngreat beds of gravel, and sweeping away immense masses that had lain\nundisturbed for centuries. Now we know that in Europe the human period\nwas preceded by what has been termed the glacial age, and as it was\npassing away there must have been unexampled floods and ice-freshets,\nand a temporary \"pluvial period,\" as it has been called, in which the\nvolume of the rivers was immensely increased. Farther, it is an\nestablished fact that the period of the appearance of man was a time\nwhen the continents in the northern hemisphere were more elevated\nthan at present, and when consequently the cutting action of rivers\nwas at a maximum. This was again followed by a period of depression,\naccompanied probably by many local cataclysms, if not by a general\ndeluge; and there are strong geological reasons to believe that this\nconvulsion was connected with the disappearance from Europe of\nPalaeocosmic man, and many of the animals his contemporaries. This view\nI advocated some time ago in my \"Story of the Earth;\" and more\nrecently Mr. Pattison, in an able paper read before the Victoria\nInstitute, has developed it in greater detail, and supported it by a\ngreat mass of geological authority. If the Palaeocosmic period was one\nof continental elevation, when the greater seats of population were in\nthe valleys of great rivers now covered by the German Ocean and the\nEnglish Channel, and when the valleys of the Thames and the Somme were\nthose of upland streams frequented by straggling parties and small\ntribes, and the seats of extensive flint factories for the supply of\nthe plains below, and if this state of things was terminated by a\ndiluvial debacle, we can account for all the phenomena of the drift\nimplements without any extravagant estimate of time.\n\nI quote with much pleasure on this subject the following from the\nreport of a lecture on \"Geological Measures of Time,\" by Professor\nHughes, before the Royal Institution of London. Hughes was, like\nmyself, a companion of Sir Charles Lyell in some of his journeys,\nthough belonging to a younger generation of geologists, and is an\naccurate observer and reasoner.\n\n\"Another method of estimating the lapse of time is founded upon the\nsupposed rate at which rivers scoop out their channels. Although no\nvery exact estimates have been attempted, still the immense quantity\nof work that has been done, as compared with the slow rate at which a\nriver is now excavating that same part of the valley, is often\nappealed to as a proof of a great lapse of time.\n\n\"The fact of such an enormous lapse of time is not questioned, but\nthis part of the evidence is challenged.\n\n\"The previous considerations of the rate of accumulation of silt on\nthe low lands prepares us to inquire whether there is any waste at all\nalong the alluvial plains. Several examples were given to show that\nthe lowering of valleys was brought about by receding rapids and\nwaterfalls; for instance, following up the Rhine, its terraces could\noften be traced back to where the waterfall was seen to produce at\nonce almost all the difference of level between the river reaches\nabove and below it. At Schaffhausen the river terrace below the hotel\ncould be traced back and found to be continuous with the river margin\nabove the fall. The wide plains occurring here and there, such as the\nMayence basin, were due to the river being arrested by the hard rocks\nof the gorges below Bingen so long that it had time to wind from side\nto side through the soft rocks above the gorges. When waterfalls cut\nback to such basins or to lakes they would recede rapidly, tapping the\nwaters of the lake, eating back the soft beds of the alluvial plains,\nand probably in both cases leaving terraces as evidence, not of\nupheavals or of convulsions, but of the arrival of a waterfall which\nhad been gradually travelling up the valley. So when the Rhone cuts\nback from the falls at Belgarde we shall have terraces where now is\nthe shore of Geneva; so also when the Falls of Schaffhausen, and ages\nafterward when the Falls of Laufenburg have tapped the Lake of\nConstance, there will be terraces marking its previous levels. And so\nwe may explain the former greater extent of the Lake of Zurich, which\nstood higher and spread wider by Utznach and Wetzikon before it was\ntapped by the arrival of waterfalls, which cut back into it and let\nits waters run off until they fell to their present level.\n\n\"A small upheaval near the mouth of a river would have a similar\neffect. The Thames below London and the Somme below St. Acheul can now\nonly just hand on the mud brought down from higher ground; but suppose\nan elevation of a hundred feet over those parts of England and France\n(quite imperceptible if extended over 10,000, 1000, or even 100\nyears), and the rivers would tumble over soft mud and clay and chalk,\nand soon eat their way back from Sheppey to London, and from St.\nValery to Amiens.\n\n\"So when we want to estimate the age of the gravels on the top of the\ncliff at the Reculvers, or on the edge of the plateau of St. Acheul,\nwe have to ask, not how long would it take the rivers to cut down to\ntheir present level from the height of those gravels at the rate at\nwhich that part of their channel is being lowered now, but how long\nwould it take the Somme or Thames, which once ran at the level of\nthose gravels, to cut back from where its mouth or next waterfall was\nthen to where it runs over rapids now. We ought to know what movements\nof upheaval and depression there have been; what long alluvial flats\nor lakes which may have checked floods, but also arrested the\nrock-protecting gravel; how much the wash of the estuarine waves has\nhelped. In fact, it is clear that observations made on the action of\nthe rivers at those points now have nothing to do with the calculation\nof the age of the terraces above, and that the circumstances upon\nwhich the rate of recession of the waterfalls and rapids depends are\nso numerous and changeable that it is at present unsafe to attempt any\nestimate of the time required to produce the results observed.\"\n\nI may close this discussion by quoting from the paper of my friend Mr.\nPattison, already referred to, the following summing up of his\nconclusions, in which I fully concur:\n\n     \"We may assume it as established that there was a time when\n     England was connected with the Continent, when big animals\n     roamed in summer up the watercourses and across the uplands,\n     and man, armed only with rude stones, followed them into the\n     marshes and woods, hunted them for sustenance, and consumed\n     them in shelter of caves, then accessible from the river\n     levels. This state of things was continued until disturbed\n     by oscillations of surface, accompanied by excessive\n     rainfalls and rushes of water from the water-sheds of the\n     rivers, until the great animals were driven out or\n     destroyed, and man ceased to visit these parts. The\n     disturbances continued, the Strait of Dover was formed, the\n     configuration of the soft parts of the islands and\n     continents was fixed, action subsided, and the present state\n     of things obtained. Man resumed his residence, but with loss\n     of the mammoth and its companions. The reindeer now\n     constituted the type of a state of things which lasted down\n     to the historic period, without any other from that time to\n     this. * * *\n\n     \"Chronologists are agreed that about 2000 years B.C. Abraham\n     migrated from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and that at this time\n     Egypt at least was old in civilization. Beyond this we have\n     no positive scale of time in Scripture; for it is evident,\n     from the narrative itself, that the latter does not cover\n     the whole time. * * *\n\n     \"Ussher estimates from Scripture the creation of man as\n     about 2000 years before this. During the latter portion of\n     this time civilization was proceeding under settled\n     governments in the East, interrupted, says the record and\n     tradition, by a flood. * * *\n\n     \"So Lucretius:\n\n        'Thus, too, the insurgent waters once o'erpowered,\n        As fables tell, and deluged many a state;\n        Till, in its turn, the congregated waves\n        By cause more potent conquered, heaven restrain'd\n        Its ceaseless torrents, and the flood decreased.'\n\n     Barbarism covered the whole Western world; neither in the\n     2000 years before Abraham, nor in the 2000 years afterward,\n     have we any light reflected from these regions to the East.\n     In this 4000 years, or in the somewhat longer period which\n     probably will be ultimately settled as warranted by the\n     record, we place hypothetically all the phenomena of the\n     later mammalian age, including the introduction of man as a\n     hunter, the first occupation of the caves by him also, the\n     diluvial phenomena of the wide valleys, the oscillations and\n     disturbances of the earth's crust, alterations in the\n     coast-line, and physical settlement of the country; after\n     this comes the second occupation of the caves. In short, if\n     we say that, hypothetically, the whole first known human age\n     occurred within 4000 years of the Christian era, no one can\n     say that it is geologically impossible. Who can say that\n     1643 years is insufficient to comprise all the phenomena\n     that occurred during a period confessedly characterized by\n     more rapid and extensive action than at present--a period\n     during which ruptures in the earth's crust, oscillations,\n     and permanent uprising took place, and the intermittent\n     action of violent floods caused the deposit and disturbance\n     and resettlement of the gravels and brick-earth? There is\n     nothing to interfere with the prevalent opinion that man was\n     introduced here while the glacial period was dying out, and\n     while it was still furnishing flood-waters sufficient to\n     scour and re-sort the gravels of the valleys down which they\n     flowed. This supposition may be extended to both the great\n     continents.\"\n\nTo conclude: Our mode of reconciling the Mosaic history of\nantediluvian man with the disclosures of the gravels and caves would\nbe to identify Palaeocosmic man, or man of the mammoth age, with\nantediluvian man; to suppose that the changes which closed his\nexistence in Europe as well as Western Asia were those recorded in the\nNoachian deluge; and that the second colonization of the diminished\nand shrunken Europe of the modern period was effected by the\ndescendants of Noah. It may be asked--Must we suppose that the Adam of\nthe Bible was of the type of the coarsely featured and gigantic men of\nthe European caverns? I would answer--Not precisely so; but it is\nquite possible that Adam may have been Turanian in feature. We should\ncertainly suppose him to have been a man well developed in brain and\nmuscle. Such men as those found in the caves would rather represent\nthe ruder \"Nephelim,\" the \"giants that were in those days,\" than Adam\nin Eden. Farther, the new colonists of Europe after the deluge would\nno doubt be a very rude and somewhat degenerate branch of Noachidae,\nprobably driven before more powerful tribes in the course of the\ndispersion. The higher races of both periods are probably to be looked\nfor in Western Asia; but even there we must expect to find cave men\nlike those whose remains were found by Tristram in the caves near\nTyre, and like the Horim of Moses; and we must also expect to find the\nantediluvian age in the main an age of stone everywhere, and its arts,\nexcept in certain great centres of population, perhaps not more\nadvanced than those of the Polynesians, or those of the agricultural\nAmerican tribes before the discovery of America by Columbus.\n\nAs a geologist, and as one who has been in the main of the school of\nLyell, and after having observed with much care the deposits of the\nmore modern periods on both sides of the Atlantic, I have from the\nfirst dissented from those of my scientific brethren who have\nunhesitatingly given their adhesion to the long periods claimed for\nhuman history, and have maintained that their hasty conclusions on\nthis subject must bring geological reasoning into disrepute, and react\ninjuriously on our noble science. We require to make great demands on\ntime for the prehuman periods of the earth's history, but not more\nthan sacred history is willing to allow for the modern or human age.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nCOMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS.\n\n\n     \"Lo, these are but the outlines of his ways, and how faint\n     the whisper which we hear of him--the thunder of his power\n     who could understand?\"--Job xxvi., 14.\n\n\nIn the preceding pages I have, as far as possible, avoided that mode\nof treating my subject which was wont to be expressed as the\n\"reconciliation\" of Scripture and Natural Science, and have followed\nthe direct guidance of the Mosaic record, only turning aside where\nsome apt illustration or coincidence could be perceived. In the\npresent chapter I propose to inquire what the science of the earth\nteaches on these same subjects, and to point out certain manifest and\nremarkable correspondences between these teachings and those of\nrevelation. Here I know that I enter on dangerous ground, and that if\nI have been so fortunate as to carry the intelligent reader with me\nthus far, I may chance to lose him now. The Hebrew Scriptures are\ncommon property; no one can fairly deny me the right to study them,\neven though I do so in no clerical or theological capacity; and even\nif I should appear extreme in some of my views, or venture to be\nalmost as enthusiastic as the commentators of Homer, Shakespeare, or\nDante, I can not be very severely blamed. But the direct comparison of\nthese ancient records with results of modern science is obnoxious to\nmany minds on different grounds; and all the more so that so few men\nare at once students both of nature and revelation. There are, as\nyet, but few even of educated men whose range of study has included\nany thing that is practical or useful either in Hebrew literature or\ngeological science. That slipshod Christianity which contents itself\nwith supposing that conclusions which are false in nature may be true\nin theology is mere superstition or professional priestcraft, and has\nnothing in common with the Bible; but there are still multitudes of\ngood men, trained in the verbal and abstract learning which at one\ntime constituted nearly the whole of education, who regard geology as\na mass of crude hypotheses destitute of coherence, a perpetual\nbattle-ground of conflicting opinions, all destined in time to be\nswept away. It must be admitted, too, that from the nature of\ngeological evidence, and from the liability to error in details, the\nsolidity of its conclusions is not likely soon to be appreciated as\nfully as is desirable by the common mind; while it is unfortunately\ntrue that the outskirts of science are infested with hosts of\nhalf-informed and superficial writers, who state these conclusions\nincorrectly, or apply them in an unreasonable manner to matters on\nwhich they have no bearing. On the other hand, the geologist, fully\naware of the substantial nature of the foundations of the science of\nthe earth, regards it as little less than absurd to find parallels to\nits principles in an ancient theological work. Still there are\npossible meeting-points of things so dissimilar as Bible lore and\ngeological exploration. If man is a being connected on the one hand\nwith material nature, and on the other with the spiritual essence of\nthe Creator; if that Creator has given to man powers of exploring and\ncomprehending his plans in the universe, and at the same time has\ncondescended to reveal to him directly his will on certain points,\nthere is nothing unphilosophical or improbable in the supposition that\nthe same truths may be struck out on the one hand by the action of\nthe human mind on nature, and on the other by the action of the Divine\nmind on that of man. The highest and most nobly constituted minds have\never been striving to scale heaven above and dive into the earth\nbelow, that they may extort from them the secret of their origin, and\nmay find what are the privileges and destinies of man himself. They\nhave learned much; and if through other gifted minds, and through his\nheaven-descended Word and Spirit, God has condescended to reveal\nhimself, there must surely be much in common in that which God's works\nteach to earnest inquirers and that which he directly makes known. But\nfew of our greatest thinkers, whether on nature or theology, have\nreached the firm ground of this higher probability; or if they have\nreached it, have dreaded the scorn of the half-learned too much to\nutter their convictions. Still this is a position which the\nenlightened Christian and student of nature must be prepared to\noccupy, humbly and with admission of much ignorance and incapacity,\nbut with bold assertion of the truth that there are meeting-points of\nnature and revelation which afford legitimate subjects of study.\n\nIn entering on these subjects, we may receive certain great truths in\nreference to the history of the earth as established by geological\nevidence. In the present rapidly progressive state of the science,\nhowever, it is by no means easy to separate its assured and settled\nresults from those that have been founded on too hasty generalization,\nor are yet immature; and at the same time to avoid overlooking new and\nimportant truths, sufficiently established, yet not known in all their\ndimensions. In the following summary I shall endeavor to present to\nthe reader only well-ascertained general truths, without indulging in\nthose deviations from accuracy for effect too often met with in\npopular books. On the other hand, we have already found that the\nScriptures enunciate distinct doctrines on many points relating to the\nearth's early history, to which it will here be necessary merely to\nrefer in general terms. Let us in the first place shortly consider the\nconclusions of geology as to the origin and progress of creation.\n\n1. The widest and most important generalization of modern geology is\nthat all the materials of the earth's crust, to the greatest depth\nthat man can reach, either by actual excavation or inference from\nsuperficial arrangements, are of such a nature as to prove that they\nare not, in their present state, original portions of the earth's\nstructure; but that they are the results of the operation, during long\nperiods, of the causes of change--whether mechanical, chemical, or\nvital--now in operation, on the land, in the seas, and in the interior\nof the earth. For example, the most common rocks of our continents are\nconglomerates, sandstones, shales, and slates; all of which are made\nup of the debris of older rocks broken down into gravel, sand, or mud,\nand then re-cemented. To these we may add limestones, which have been\nmade up by the accumulation of corals and shells, or by deposits from\ncalcareous springs; coal, composed of vegetable matter; and granite,\nsyenite, greenstone, and trap, which are molten rocks formed in the\nmanner of modern lavas. So general has been this sorting, altering,\nand disturbance of the substance of the earth's crust, that, though we\nknow its structure over large portions of our continents to the depth\nof several miles, the geologist can point to no instance of a truly\nprimitive rock which can be affirmed to have remained unchanged and\n_in situ_ since the beginning.\n\n\"All are aware that the solid parts of the earth consist of distinct\nsubstances, such as clay, chalk, sand, limestone, coal, slate,\ngranite, and the like; but, previously to observation, it is commonly\nimagined that all had remained from the first in the state in which we\nnow see them--that they were created in their present forms and in\ntheir present position. The geologist now comes to a different\nconclusion; discovering proofs that the external parts of the earth\nwere not all produced in the beginning of things in the state in which\nwe now behold them, nor in an instant of time. On the contrary, he can\nshow that they have acquired their actual condition and configuration\ngradually and at successive periods, during each of which distinct\nraces of living beings have flourished on the land and in the waters;\nthe remains of these creatures lying buried in the crust of the\nearth.\"[140]\n\n2. Having ascertained that the rocks of the earth have thus been\nproduced by secondary causes, we next affirm, on the evidence of\ngeology, that a distinct order of succession of these deposits can be\nascertained; and though there are innumerable local variations in the\nnature of the rocks formed at the same period, yet there is, on the\ngreat scale, a regular sequence of formations over the whole earth.\nThis succession is of the greatest importance in the case of aqueous\nrocks, or those formed in water; and it is evident that in the case of\nbeds of sand, clay, etc., deposited in this way, the upper must be the\nmore recent of any two layers. This simple principle, complicated in\nvarious ways by the fractures and disturbances to which the beds have\nbeen subjected, forms the basis of the succession of \"formations\" in\ngeology as deduced from stratigraphical evidence.\n\n3. This regular series of formations would be of little value as a\nhistory of the earth were it not that nearly all the aqueous rocks\ncontain remains of the contemporary animals and plants. Ever since\nthe earth began to be tenanted by organized beings, the various\naccumulations formed in the bottoms of seas and at the mouths of\nrivers have entombed remains of marine animals, more especially their\nharder parts, as shells, corals, and bones, and also fragments or\nentire specimens of land animals and plants. Hence, in any rock of\naqueous formation, we may find fossil remains of the living creatures\nthat existed in the waters in which that rock was accumulated or on\nthe neighboring land. If in the process of building up the continents,\nthe same locality constituted in succession a part of the bottom of\nthe ocean, of an inland sea, of an estuary, and a lake, we should find\nin the fossil remains entombed in the deposits of that place evidences\nof these various conditions; and thus a somewhat curious history of\nlocal changes might be obtained. Geology affords more extensive\ndisclosures of this nature. It shows that as we descend into the older\nformations we gradually lose sight of the existing animals and plants,\nand find the remains of others not now existing; and these, in turn,\nthemselves disappear, and were preceded by others; so that the whole\nliving population of the earth appears to have been several times\nrenewed prior to the beginning of the present order of things. This\nseems farther to have occurred in a slow and gradual manner, not by\nsuccessive great cataclysms or clearances of the surface of the earth,\nfollowed by wholesale renewal. This doctrine of geological uniformity\nis, however, to be understood as limited by the equally certain fact\nthat there has been progress and advance, both in the inorganic\narrangements of the earth's surface and in its organized inhabitants,\nand that there have, in geological as in historical times, been local\ncataclysms and convulsions, as those of earthquakes and volcanoes,\noften on a very extensive scale. Farther, there are good reasons to\nbelieve that there have been alternations of cold or glacial periods\nand of warm periods, of periods of subsidence and re-elevation, and of\nperiods of greater and less activity of certain of the leading agents\nof geological change. But as to the extent of these differences and\ntheir bearing on the geological history, there is still much\nuncertainty and difference of opinion.[141]\n\nIn the sediment _now_ accumulating in the bottom of the waters are\nbeing buried remains of the existing animals and plants. A geological\nformation is being produced, and it contains the skeletons and other\nsolid parts of a vast variety of creatures belonging to all climates,\nand which have lived on land as well as in fresh and salt water. Let\nus now suppose that by a series of changes, sudden or gradual, all the\npresent organized beings were swept away, and that, when the earth was\nrenewed by the power of the Creator, a new race of intelligent beings\ncould explore those parts of the former sea basins that had been\nelevated into land. They would find the remains of multitudes of\ncreatures not existing in their time; and by the presence of these\nthey could distinguish the deposits of the former period from those\nthat belonged to their own. They could also compare these remains with\nthe corresponding parts of creatures which were their own\ncontemporaries, and could thus infer the circumstances in which they\nhad lived, the modes of subsistence for which they had been adapted,\nand the changes in the distribution of land and water and other\nphysical conditions which had occurred. This, then, is precisely the\nplace which fossil organic remains occupy in modern geology, except\nthat our present system of nature rests on the ruins, not of one\nprevious system, but of several.\n\n4. By the aid of the superposition of deposits and their organic\nremains, geology can divide the history of the earth into distinct\nperiods. These periods are not separated by merely arbitrary\nboundaries, but to some extent mark important eras in the progress of\nour earth; though they usually pass into each other at their confines,\nand the nature of the evidence prevents us from ascertaining the\nprecise length of the periods themselves, or the intervals in time\nwhich may separate the several monuments by which they are\ndistinguished. The following table will serve to give an idea of the\narrangement at present generally received, with some of the more\nimportant facts in the succession of animal and vegetable life, as\nconnected with our present subject. It commences with the oldest\nperiods known to geology, and gives in the animal and vegetable\nkingdoms the _first appearance_ of each class, with a few notes of the\nsubsequent history of the principal forms. It must, however, be borne\nin mind that farther discoveries may extend some classes farther back\nthan we at present know them, and that a more detailed table,\ndescending to orders and families, would give a more precise view of\nthe succession of life. Farther, the several geological formations\nwould admit of much subdivision, and are represented locally by\nvarious kinds and different thicknesses of sediment.[142]\n\nTABULAR VIEW OF THE SUCCESSION OF GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS AND\nORGANIC REMAINS.\n\n  ====================================================================\n  PERIODS. |    SYSTEMS OF      |   CLASSES OF ANIMALS.   |  PLANTS.\n           |    FORMATIONS.     |                         |\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------\n  I.       |Ancient Metamorphic |Eozoon and probably other|Graphite and\n  EOZOIC   |rocks of            | Protozoa.               |Iron Ores\n  PERIOD.  |Scandinavia,        |                         |representing\n           |Canada, etc.        |                         |Vegetable\n           |                    |                         |Matter.\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------\n  II.      |Cambrian.           |_Radiata_--Hydrozoa,     |Algae.\n  PRIMARY  |                    | Echinodermata           |\n  OR       |                    | (Cystideans).           |\n  PALAEOZOIC|                    |_Mollusca_--Brachiopoda, |\n  PERIOD.  |                    | Lamellibranchiata,      |\n           |                    | Gasteropoda, Cephalopoda|\n           |                    | (Bivalve and Univalve   |\n           |                    | Shell-fishes).          |\n           |                    |_Articulata_--Annelida,  |\n           |                    | Crustacea (Worms and    |\n           |                    | Soft Shell-fishes of the|\n           |                    | lower grades).          |\n           |                    |                         |\n           |Lower Silurian.     |_Radiata_--Anthozoa      |Algae.\n           |                    | (coral animals),        |\n           |                    | Echinodermata           |\n           |                    | (sea stars, etc.).      |\n           |                    |_Mollusca_--Polyzoa,     |\n           |                    | Tunicata.               |\n           |                    |Other Mollusks and       |\n           |                    | Articulates as before.  |\n           |                    |                         |\n           |Upper Silurian.     |Radiates, Mollusks, and  |Acrogenous\n           |                    | Articulates as before.  |Land plants.\n           |                    |_Vertebrata_--First      |\n           |                    | Ganoid and Placoid      |\n           |                    | Fishes.                 |\n           |                    |                         |\n           |Erian or Devonian.  |_Articulata_--Insects    |Acrogens\n           |                    | and higher Crustaceans. |and\n           |                    |_Vertebrata_--Fishes,    |Gymnosperms.\n           |                    | Ganoid and Placoid.     |\n           |                    |                         |\n           |Carboniferous.      |_Mollusca_--Pulmonata    |Acrogens,\n           |                    | (Land Snails).          |Gymnosperms,\n           |                    |_Articulata_--Myriapods, |Endogens?\n           |                    | Arachnidans (Gallyworms,|\n           |                    | Spiders and Scorpions). |\n           |                    |_Vertebrata_--Batrachians|\n           |                    | or Amphibians prevalent.|\n           |                    |                         |\n           |Permian.            |_Vertebrata_--Lacertian  |\n           |                    | or Lizard-like          |\n           |                    | Reptiles.               |\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------\n  III.     |Triassic.           |_Vertebrata_--Higher     |\n  SECONDARY|                    |  Reptiles prevalent;    |\n  OR       |                    |  Marsupial Mammals.     |\n  MESOZOIC |                    |                         |\n  PERIOD.  |Jurassic.           |_Vertebrata_--Great      |Endogenous\n           |                    |  prevalence of higher   |trees.\n           |                    |  Reptiles; Fishes,      |\n           |                    |  homocerque; Earliest   |\n           |                    |  Birds.                 |\n           |                    |                         |\n           |Cretaceous.         |_Vertebrata_--Decadence  |Angiospermous\n           |                    | of reign of Reptiles;   |Exogens.\n           |                    | Ordinary  Bony Fishes.  |\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------\n  IV.      |Eocene.             |_Vertebrata_--Mammals    |Exogens\n  TERTIARY |                    |  prevalent, especially  |prevalent.\n  OR       |                    |  Pachyderms; Cycloid    |\n  CAINOZOIC|                    |  and Ctenoid Fishes     |\n  PERIOD.  |                    |  prevalent.             |\n           |                    |First _living_           |Some Modern\n           |                    |  Invertebrates.         |Species\n           |                    |                         |appear.\n           |Miocene.            |Living Invertebrates more|\n           |                    |  numerous.              |\n           |                    |                         |\n           |Pliocene.           |Living Invertebrates     |\n           |                    |  still  more numerous.  |\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------\n  V.       |Post-Pliocene.      |First living Mammals.    |Existing\n  POST-    |                    |Living Invertebrates     |vegetation.\n  TERTIARY |                    |  prevalent.             |\n  OR       |                    |                         |\n  MODERN   |Post-Glacial        |Man and living Mammals.  |\n  PERIOD.  |and Recent.         |                         |\n  ====================================================================\n\n\nThe oldest fossil remains known are the Protozoa of the Laurentian\nrocks. In the succeeding Cambrian or Primordial rocks we find many\nextinct species of zoophytes, shell-fish, and crustaceans, and the\nalgae or sea-weeds. In the Palaeozoic period as a whole, though numerous\nBatrachian or Amphibian reptiles existed toward its close, the higher\norders of fishes seem to have been the dominant tribe of animals; and\nvegetation was nearly limited to cryptogams and gymnosperms. In the\nMesozoic period, though small mammalia had been created, large\nterrestrial and marine reptiles were the ruling race, and fishes\noccupied a subordinate position; while, at the close, the higher\norders of plants took a prominent place. In the Tertiary and Modern\neras, the mammalia, with man, have assumed the highest or dominant\nposition in nature.\n\nOn this series of groups, and the succession of living beings, Sir. C.\nLyell remarks \"It is not pretended that the principal sections called\nPrimary, Secondary, and Tertiary are of equivalent importance, or that\nthe subordinate groups comprise monuments relating to equal portions\nof time or of the earth's history. But we can assert that they each\nrelate to successive periods, during which certain animals and plants,\nfor the most part peculiar to their respective eras, flourished, and\nduring which different kinds of sediment were deposited.\"\n\nWe have already, in previous chapters, noticed the parallelism of the\nsuccession of life in the earth as revealed in Genesis with that\ndisclosed by geology; but this subject must be farther referred to in\nthe sequel, and in the mean time the reader may compare for himself\nthe succession of life in the table with that in the later creative\ndays.\n\n5. The lapse of time embraced in the geological history of the earth\nis enormous. Fully to appreciate this it is necessary to study the\nscience in detail, and to explore its phenomena as disclosed in actual\nnature. A few facts, however, out of hundreds which might have been\nselected, will suffice to indicate the state of the case. The delta\nand alluvial plain of the Mississippi have an area of more than 12,000\nsquare miles, and must have an average depth of about 800 feet. At the\npresent rate of conveyance of sediment by the river, it has been\ncalculated that a period of about 33,000 years is implied in the\ndeposition of this comparatively modern formation.[143] To be quite\nsafe, let us take 30,000 years, and add 50,000 more for the remainder\nof the Post-pliocene or Quaternary. We may then safely multiply this\nnumber by forty, for the length of the Tertiary period. We may add\nthree times as much for the Mesozoic period, and this will be far\nunder the truth. It will then be quite safe to assume that the\nPalaeozoic period was three times as long as the Mesozoic and Tertiary\ntogether. This would give altogether, say, 51,280,000 years for the\nwhole of geological time from the beginning of the Palaeozoic, leaving\nthe duration of the Eozoic and previous periods undetermined, but\nrequiring perhaps nearly as much time. Great though these demands may\nseem, they would be probably far below the rigid requirements of the\ncase were it not for the probability that the present rate of\ntransference of material by the great river is less than it was in\nPost-pliocene and early modern times. This might enable us to reduce\nour estimate considerably within the scope of a hundred millions of\nyears.[144] Take another illustration from an older formation. An\nexcellent coast section at the Joggins, in Nova Scotia, exhibits in\nthe coal formation proper a series of beds with erect trunks and roots\nof trees _in situ_, amounting to nearly 100. About 100 forests have\nsuccessively grown, partially decayed, and been entombed in muddy and\nsandy sediment. In the same section, including in all about 14,000\nfeet of beds, there are 76 seams of coal, each of which can be proved\nto have taken more time for its accumulation than that required for\nthe growth of a forest. Supposing all these separate fossil soils and\ncoals to have been formed with the greatest possible rapidity, forty\nthousand years would be a very moderate calculation for this portion\nof the Carboniferous system; and for aught that we know thousands of\nyears may be represented by a single fossil soil. But this is the age\nof only one member of the Carboniferous system, itself only a member\nof the great Palaeozoic group, and we have made no allowance for the\nabrasion from previous rocks and deposition of the immense mass of\nsandy and muddy sediment in which the coals and forests are imbedded,\nand which is vastly greater than the deltas of the largest modern\nrivers.\n\nConsiderations of a physical rather than of a geological nature also\ngive us long periods for the probable existence of the earth, though\nthey serve to correct somewhat the extravagant estimates of some\ntheorists. Croll has based an interesting calculation on the amount of\nerosion of the land by rivers. That of the Mississippi amounts to one\nfoot in 6000 years. That of the Ganges gives one foot in 2358 years,\nthe average being, say, one foot in 4179 years. Some smaller rivers\ngive a much shorter time; but the average of two great rivers, one\ndraining a very large area of the western and another of the eastern\nhemisphere, and in very different climates and geographical\nconditions, will probably be the most reliable datum. Croll, however,\nprefers the Mississippi rate.[145] If we estimate the proportion of\nland to water as 576 to 1390, this will give for the entire area of\nthe ocean a rate of deposition of one foot in 14,400 years. Now the\nentire thickness of all the stratified rocks is estimated at 72,000\nfeet; and at this rate the enormous time of 1,036,800,000 years would\nbe necessary. But we have no right to assume that deposition has been\ngoing on uniformly over the entire sea-bottom. On the contrary, the\ngreater part of it takes place within a belt of about one hundred\nmiles from the coasts, and the deposit of calcareous and other matters\nover the remainder will scarcely make up for the portions of this belt\non which no deposit is taking place. This will give an area of deposit\nof about 11,650,000 square miles, consequently only one twelfth of the\nabove time, or about 86,400,000 years, would be required. This can be\nbut a very rough calculation; but it has the merit of squaring very\nnearly with the calculations derived from physical considerations,\nmore especially by Sir William Thomson, which limit the possible\nexistence of the earth's solid crust to one hundred millions of years.\nSimilar conclusions have also been deduced from what is known of the\nphysical constitution of the sun. Croll's own ingenious theory of\nglacial periods produced by the varying eccentricity of the earth's\norbit, along with the precession of the equinoxes, would give,\naccording to him, about 80,000 years ago for the date of the Glacial\nperiod, and for the beginning of the Tertiary period about 3,000,000\nyears ago.\n\nIt would thus appear that physical and geological science conspire in\nassigning a great antiquity to the earth, but not an unlimited\nantiquity. They agree in restricting the ages that have elapsed since\nthe introduction of life within one hundred millions of years. I\nconfess, however, that a consideration of the fact that all our\ngeological measures of erosion and deposition seem to be based on\ncases which refer to what may be termed minimum action leads me to\nbelieve that the actual time will fall very far within this limit. For\nexample, if we were to suppose an elevation of the land drained by the\nMississippi even to a small amount, its cutting power would be vastly\nincreased for a long time. The same effect would result from a\nsubsidence and re-elevation, or from any cause increasing the amount\nof rainfall or deposition of snows in winter. Now we know that such\nthings have occurred in the past, while we have no reason to believe\nthat the amount of action was ever much less than at present. Similar\nconsiderations apply to nearly all our geological measures of time;\nand there has been a tendency to exaggerate these, as if geologists\nwere entitled to demand unlimited time, and to stretch the doctrine of\nuniformity to the utmost.\n\n6. During the whole time referred to by geology, the great laws both\nof inorganic and organic nature have been the same as at present. The\nevidence of light and darkness, of sunshine and shower, of summer and\nwinter, and of all the known igneous and aqueous causes of change,\nextends back almost, and in some of these cases altogether, to the\nbeginning of the Palaeozoic period. In like manner the animals and\nplants of the oldest rocks are constructed on the same physiological\nand anatomical principles with existing tribes, and they can be\narranged in the same genera, orders, or classes, though specifically\ndistinct. The revolutions of the globe have involved no change of the\ngeneral laws of matter; and though it is possible that geology has\ncarried us back to the time when the laws that regulate life began to\noperate, it does not show that they were less perfect than now, and it\nindicates no trace of the beginning of the inorganic laws. Geological\nchanges have resulted not from the institution of new laws, but from\nnew _dispositions_, under existing laws and general arrangements.\nThere is every reason to believe that in the inorganic world these\ndispositions have required no new creative interpositions during the\ntime to which geology refers, but merely the continued action of the\nproperties bestowed on matter when first produced. In the organic\nworld the case is different.\n\n7. In the succession of animal and vegetable life we find a constant\nimprovement and advance by the introduction of new types of being. We\nhave already given a general outline of this advancement of organized\nnature. It has consisted in the introduction, from time to time, of\nnew and more highly organized beings, so as at once to increase the\nvariety of nature, and to provide for the elevation of the summit of\nthe graduated scale of life to higher and higher points. At the same\ntime, in each successive period, it has been the law of creation that\nthe forms of life then dominant should attain their highest\ndevelopment, and should then be succeeded by more advanced types. For\ninstance, in the earlier Palaeozoic period we have molluscous animals\nand fishes, then apparently the highest forms of life, appearing with\na very advanced organization, not surpassed, if even equalled, in\nmodern times. In the latter part of the same period, some lower forms\nof vegetable life, now restricted to a comparatively humble place,\nwere employed to constitute magnificent forests. In the Mesozoic\nperiod, again, reptiles attained to their highest point in\norganization and variety of form and employment, while mammalia had as\nyet scarcely appeared.[146]\n\n8. If now we ask in what manner the succession of life on the earth\nhas been produced, two apparently opposite hypotheses rise before us.\nThe one is that of introduction of new species by creative acts, the\nother that of development of new species by changes of those\npreviously existing. In one respect the difference of these views is\nlittle more than one of expression, for the meaning of the statements\ndepends on what we understand by a species and what by a mere varietal\nform, and also on what we understand by creation and what we mean by\ndevelopment. Twenty years ago nearly all geologists were believers in\ncreation, though it must be admitted without precisely understanding\nwhat they meant by the term. Now, the great impression produced by\nDarwin's speculations and the prevalence of the evolutionist\nphilosophy have produced a leaning in the other direction. More\nrecently, however, the absurdities into which the extreme\nevolutionists find themselves driven have produced a reaction; and we\nhope that views consistent with revelation, or at least with Theism,\nwill again be in the ascendant, and that present controversies will\nserve to give more precise and definite views than heretofore of the\nrelation of nature to God. As illustrations of the opinions prevalent\nbefore the rise of the development theory, I may quote from Pictet and\nBronn, two of the most eminent palaeontologists.\n\nPictet says, in the introduction to his \"Traite de Paleontologie:\" \"It\nseems to me impossible that we should admit, as an explanation of the\nphenomena of successive faunas, the passage of species into one\nanother; the limits of such transitions of species, even supposing\nthat the lapse of a vast period of time may have given them a\ncharacter of reality much greater than that which the study of\nexisting nature leads us to suppose, are still infinitely within those\ndifferences which distinguish two successive faunas. Lastly, we can\nleast of all account by this theory for the appearance of new _types_,\nto explain the introduction of which we must necessarily, in the\npresent state of science, recur to the idea of distinct creations\nposterior to the first.\"\n\nThe following are the general conclusions of Bronn, in his elaborate\nand most valuable essay, presented to the French Academy in 1856, as\nsummarized in a notice of the work in the Journal of the Geological\nSociety:\n\n\"1. The first productions of this power in the oldest Neptunian strata\nof the earth consisted of Plants, Zoophytes, Mollusks, Crustaceans,\nand perhaps even Fish; the simultaneous appearance of which,\ntherefore, contradicts the assumption that the more perfect organic\nforms arose out of the gradual transformation in time of the more\nimperfect forms.\n\n\"2. The same power which produced the first organic forms has\ncontinued to operate in intensively as well as extensively increasing\nactivity during the whole subsequent geological period, up to the\nfinal appearance of man; but here also can no traces be found of a\ngradual transformation of old species and genera into new; but the new\nhave everywhere appeared as new without the co-operation of the\nformer.\n\n\"3. In the succession of the different forms of plants and animals, a\ncertain regular course and plan is perceptible, which is quite\nindependent of chance. While all species possess only a limited\nduration, and must sooner or later disappear, they make way for\nsubsequent new ones, which not only almost always offer an equivalent,\nin number, organization, and duties to be performed, for those which\nhave disappeared, but which are also generally more varied, and\ntherefore more perfect, and always maintain an equilibrium with each\nother in their stage of organization, their mode of life, and\nfunctions. There always exists, therefore, a certain fixed relation\nbetween the newly arising and the disappearing forms of organic life.\n\n\"4. A similar relation necessarily exists between the newly arising\norganic forms and the outward conditions of life which prevailed at\ntheir first appearance on the earth's surface, or at the place of\ntheir appearance.\n\n\"5. A fixed plan appears to be the basis of the whole series of\ndevelopment of organic forms, in so far as man makes his first\nappearance at its close, when he finds every thing prepared that is\nnecessary to his own existence and to his progressive development and\nimprovement--which would not have been possible had he appeared at a\nformer period.\n\n\"6. Such a regular progress in carrying out the same plan from the\nbeginning to the end of a period of millions of years can only be\naccounted for in one of two ways. Either this course of successive\ndevelopment during millions of years has been the regular immediate\nresult of the systematic action of a conscious Creator, who on every\noccasion settled and carried out not only the order of appearance,\nformation, organization, and terrestrial object of each of the\ncountless numbers of species of plants and animals, but also the\nnumber of the first individuals, the place of their settlement in\nevery instance, although it was in his power to create every thing at\nonce--or there existed some natural power hitherto entirely unknown to\nus, which by means of its own laws formed the species of plants and\nanimals, and arranged and regulated all those countless individual\nconditions; which power, however, must in this case have stood in the\nmost immediate connection with, and in perfect subordination to, those\npowers which caused the gradually progressing perfection of the crust\nof the earth, and the gradual development of the outward conditions of\nlife for the constantly increasing numbers and higher classes of\norganic forms in consequence of this perfection. Only in this way can\nwe explain how the development of the organic world could have\nregularly kept pace with that of the inorganic. Such a power, although\nwe know it not, would not only be in perfect accordance with all the\nother functions of nature, but the Creator, who regulated the\ndevelopment of organic nature by means of such a force so implanted in\nit, as he guides that of the inorganic world by the mere co-operation\nof attraction and affinity, must appear to us more exalted and\nimposing than if we assumed that he must always be giving the same\ncare to the introduction and change of the vegetable and animal world\non the surface of the earth as a gardener daily bestows on each\nindividual plant in the arrangement of his garden.\n\n\"7. We therefore believe that all species of plants and animals were\noriginally produced by some natural power unknown to us, and not by\ntransformation from a few original forms, and that that power was in\nthe closest and most necessary connection with those powers and\ncircumstances which effected the perfection of the earth's surface.\"\n\nBarrande also, probably the greatest living palaeontologist of Europe,\nadheres substantially to these views; as Agassiz did, and I believe\nHall and Dana still do, in America.\n\nI have, for my own part, seen no reason to dissent from these views,\nthough in the sequel I shall endeavor to present some considerations\nwhich may tend to reconcile with them some of the hypotheses of a\ncontrary nature now held. It must be admitted, however, that the\nmajority of geologists and biologists have abandoned these views of\nPictet and Bronn, and have gone over to the evolutionist philosophy,\nwith how little reason I have endeavored to show elsewhere,[147] and\nshall farther illustrate in the Appendix. Let it be observed, however,\nthat even evolution does not affect the grand idea of the unity of\nnature, or the fact that the plan of the Creator in the organic world\nwas so vast that it required the whole duration of our planet, in all\nits stages of physical existence, to embrace the whole. There is but\none system of organic nature; but, to exhibit the whole of it, not\nonly all the climates and conditions now existing are required, but\nthose also of all past geological periods. Further, the progress of\nnature being mainly in the direction of differentiation of functions\nonce combined, it has a limit backward in the most general forms and\nconditions, and forward in the most specialized. This is the history\nof the individual and probably also of the type, of the world itself\nand of the universe; and for this reason material nature necessarily\nlacks the eternity of its author.\n\nIt appears, from the above facts and reasonings, that geology informs\nus--1. That the materials of our existing continents are of secondary\norigin, as distinguished from primitive or coeval with the beginning.\n2. That a chronological order of formation of these rocks can be made\nout. 3. That the fossil remains contained in the rocks constitute a\nchronology of animal and vegetable existence. 4. That the history of\nthe earth may be divided in this way into distinct periods, all\npre-Adamite. 5. That the pre-Adamite periods were of enormous\nduration. 6. That during these periods the existing general laws of\nnature were in force, though the dispositions of inorganic nature were\ndifferent in different periods, and the animals and plants of\nsuccessive periods were also different from each other. 7. The\nintroduction of new species of animals and of plants, while indicating\nadvance in the perfection of nature, does not prove spontaneous\ndevelopment, but rather a definite plan and law of creation.\n\nThe parallelism of these conclusions of careful inductive inquiry into\nthe structure of the earth's crust, with the results which we have\nalready obtained from revelation, may be summed up under the following\nheads:\n\n1. Scripture and Science both testify to the great fact that there was\na beginning--a time when none of all the parts of the fabric of the\nuniverse existed; when the Self-Existent was the sole occupant of\nspace. The Scriptures announce in plain terms this great truth, and\nthereby rise at once high above atheism, pantheism, and materialism,\nand lay a broad and sure foundation for a pure and spiritual theology.\nHad the pen of inspiration written but the words, \"In the beginning\nGod created the heavens and the earth,\" and added no more, these words\nalone would have borne the impress of their heavenly birth, and would,\nif received in faith, have done much for the progress of the human\nmind. These words contain a negation of hero-worship, star-worship,\nanimal-worship, and every other form of idolatry. They still more\nemphatically deny atheism and materialism, and point upward from\nnature to its spiritual Creator--the One, the Triune, the Eternal, the\nSelf-Existent, the All-Pervading, the Almighty. They call upon us, as\nwith a voice of thunder, to bow down before that Awful Being of whom\nit can be said that he created the heavens and the earth. They thus\nembody the whole essence of natural theology, and most appropriately\nstand at the entrance of Holy Scripture, referring us to the works\nwhich men behold, as the visible manifestation of the attributes of\nthe Being whose spiritual nature is unveiled in revelation. Scripture\nthus begins with the announcement of a great ultimate fact, to which\nscience conducts us with but slow and timid steps. Yet science, and\nespecially geological science, can bear witness to this great truth.\nThe materialist, reasoning on the fancied stability of natural things,\nand their inscription within invariable laws, concludes that matter\nmust be eternal. No, replies the geologist, certainly not in its\npresent form. This is but of recent origin, and was preceded by other\narrangements. Every existing species can be traced back to a time when\nit was not; so can the existing continents, mountains, and seas. Under\nour processes of investigation the present melts away like a dream,\nand we are landed on the shores of past and unknown worlds. But I\nread, says the objector, that you can see \"no evidence of a beginning,\nno prospect of an end.\" It is true, answers geology; but, in so\nsaying, it is not intended that the present state of things had not an\nascertained beginning, but that there has been a great and, so far as\nwe know, unlimited series of changes carried on under the guidance of\nintelligence. These changes we have traced back very far, without\nbeing able to say that we have reached the first. We can trace back\nman and his contemporaries to their origin, and we can reach the\npoints at which still older dynasties of life began to exist. Knowing,\nthen, that all these had a beginning, we infer that if others preceded\nthem they also had a beginning. But, says another objector, is not the\npresent the child of the past? Are not all the creatures that inhabit\nthe earth the lineal descendants of creatures of past periods, or may\nnot the whole be parts of one continual succession, under the\noperation of an eternal law of development? No, answers geology,\nspecies are immutable, except within narrow limits, and do not pass\ninto each other, in tracing them toward their origin. On the contrary,\nthey appear at once in their most perfect state, and continue\nunchanged till they are forced off the stage of existence to give\nplace to other creatures. The origin of species is a mystery, and\nbelongs to no natural law that has yet been established. Thus, then,\nstands the case at present. Scripture asserts a beginning and a\ncreation. Science admits these, as far as the objects with which it is\nconversant extend, and the notions of eternal succession and\nspontaneous development, discountenanced both by theology and science,\nare obliged to take refuge in those misty regions where modern\nphilosophical skepticism consorts with the shades of departed\nheathenism.[148]\n\n2. Both records exhibit the progressive character of creation, and in\nmuch the same aspect. The Almighty might have called into existence,\nby one single momentary act, a world complete in all its parts. From\nboth Scripture and geology we know that he has not done so--why we\nneed not inquire, though we can see that the process employed was\nthat best adapted to show forth the variety of his resources and the\ninfinitely varied elements that enter into the perfect whole.\n\nThe Scripture history may be viewed as dividing the progress of the\ncreation into two great periods, the later of which only is embraced\nin the geological record. The first commences with the original chaos,\nand reaches to the completion of inorganic nature on the fourth day.\nHad we any geological records of the first of these periods, we should\nperceive the evidences of slow mutations, tending to the sorting and\narrangement of the materials of the earth, and to produce distinct\nlight and darkness, sea and land, atmosphere and cloud, out of what\nwas originally a mixture of the whole. We should also, according to\nthe Scriptural record, find this period interlocking with the next, by\nthe intervention of a great vegetable creation, before the final\nadjustment of the earth's relations to the other bodies of our system.\nThe second period is that of the creative development of animal life.\nFrom both records we learn that various ranks or gradations existed\nfrom the first introduction of animals; but that on the earlier stages\nonly certain of the lower forms of animals were present; that these\nsoon attained their highest point, and then gradually, on each\nsucceeding platform, the variety of nature in its higher--the\nvertebrate--form increased, and the upper margin of animal life\nattained a more and more elevated point, culminating at length in man;\nwhile certain of the older forms were dropped, as no longer required.\n\nIn the oldest fossiliferous rocks next to the Eozoic, which so far\nhave afforded only Protozoa--e. g., the Cambrian and Lower\nSilurian--we find the mollusca represented mainly by their highest\nand lowest classes, by allies of the cuttle-fish and nautilus, and by\nthe lowest bivalve shell-fishes. The Articulata are represented by the\nhighest marine class--the crustaceans--and by the lowest--the worms,\nwhich have left their marks on some of the lowest fossiliferous beds.\nThe Radiata, in like manner, are represented by species of their\nhighest class--the starfishes, etc.--and by some of their simpler\npolyp forms. At the very beginning, then, of the fossiliferous series,\nthe three lower sub-kingdoms exhibit species of their most elevated\naquatic classes, though not of the very highest orders in those\nclasses. The vertebrated sub-kingdom has, as far as yet known, no\nrepresentative in these lowest beds. In the Upper Silurian series,\nhowever, we find remains of fishes; and in the succeeding Devonian and\ncarboniferous rocks the fishes rise to the highest structures of their\nclass; and we find several species of reptiles, representing the next\nof the vertebrated classes in ascending order. Here a very remarkable\nfact meets us. Before the close of the Palaeozoic period the three\nlower sub-kingdoms and the fishes had already attained the highest\nperfection of which their types are capable. Multitudes of new species\nand genera were added subsequently, but none of them rising higher in\nthe scale of organization than those which occur in the Palaeozoic\nrocks. Thenceforth the progressive improvement of the animal kingdom\nconsisted in the addition, first of the reptile, which attained its\nhighest perfection and importance in the Mesozoic period, and then of\nthe bird and mammal, which did not attain their highest forms till the\nModern period. This geological order of animal life, it is scarcely\nnecessary to add, agrees perfectly with that sketched by Moses, in\nwhich the lower types are completed at once, and the progress is\nwholly in the higher.\n\nIn the inspired narrative we have already noticed some peculiarities,\nas, for instance, the early appearance of a highly developed flora,\nand the special mention of great reptiles in the work of the fifth\nday, which correspond with the significant fact that high types of\nstructure appeared at the very introduction of each new group of\norganized beings--a fact which, more than any other in geology, shows\nthat, in the organic department, elevation has always been a strictly\n_creative_ work, and that there is in the constitution of animal\nspecies no innate tendency to elevation, but that on the contrary we\nshould rather suspect a tendency to degeneracy and ultimate\ndisappearance, requiring that the fiat of the Creator should after a\ntime go out again to \"renew the face of the earth.\" In the natural as\nin the moral world, the only law of progress is the will and the power\nof God. In one sense, however, progress in the organic world has been\ndependent on, though not caused by, progress in the inorganic. We see\nin geology many grounds for believing that each new tribe of animals\nor plants was introduced just as the earth became fitted for it; and\neven in the present world we see that regions composed of the more\nancient rocks, and not modified by subsequent disturbances, present\nfew of the means of support for man and the higher animals; while\nthose districts in which various revolutions of the earth have\naccumulated fertile soils or deposited useful minerals are the chief\nseats of civilization and population. In like manner we know that\nthose regions which the Bible informs us were the cradle of the human\nrace and the seats of the oldest nations are geologically among the\nmost recent parts of the existing continents, and were no doubt\nselected by the Creator partly on that account for the birthplace of\nman. We thus find that the Bible and the geologists are agreed not\nonly as to the fact and order of progress, but also as to its manner\nand use.\n\n3. Both records agree in affirming that since the beginning there has\nbeen but one great system of nature. We can imagine it to have been\notherwise. Our existing nature might have been preceded by a state of\nthings having no connection with it. The arrangements of the earth's\nsurface might have been altogether different; races of creatures might\nhave existed having no affinity with or resemblance to those of the\npresent world, and we might have been able to trace no present\nbeneficial consequences as flowing from these past states of our\nplanet. Had geology made such revelations as these, the consequences\nin relation to natural theology and the credibility of Scripture would\nhave been momentous. The Mosaic narrative could scarcely, in that\ncase, have been interpreted in such a manner as to accord with\ngeological conclusions. The questions would have arisen--Are there\nmore creative Powers than one? If one, is He an imperfect or\ncapricious being who changes his plans of operation? The divine\nauthority of the Scriptures, as well as the unity and perfections of\nGod, might thus have been involved in serious doubts. Happily for us,\nthere is nothing of this kind in the geological history of the earth;\nas there is manifestly nothing of it in that which is revealed in\nScripture.\n\nIn the Scripture narrative each act of creation prepares for the\nothers, and in its consequences extends to them all. The inspired\nwriter announces the introduction of each new part of creation, and\nthen leaves it without any reference to the various phases which it\nassumed as the work advanced. In the grand general view which he\ntakes, the land and seas first made represent those of all the\nfollowing periods. So do the first plants, the first invertebrate\nanimals, the first fishes, reptiles, birds, and mammals. He thus\nassures us that, however long the periods represented by days of\ncreation, the system of nature was one from the beginning. In like\nmanner in the geological record each of the successive conditions of\nthe earth is related to those which precede and those which follow, as\npart of a series. So also a uniform plan of construction pervades\norganic nature, and uniform laws the inorganic world in all periods.\nWe can thus include in one system of natural history all animals and\nplants, fossil as well as recent, and can resolve all inorganic\nchanges into the operation of existing laws. The former of these facts\nis in its nature so remarkable as almost to warrant the belief of\nspecial design. Naturalists had arranged the existing animals and\nplants, without any reference to fossil species, in kingdoms,\nsub-kingdoms, classes, orders, families, and genera. Geological\nresearch has added a vast number of species not now existing in a\nliving state; yet all these fossils can be inserted within the limits\nof recognized groups. We do not require to add a new kingdom,\nsub-kingdom, or class; but, on the contrary, all the fossil genera and\nspecies go into the existing divisions, in such a manner as to fill\nthem up precisely where they are most deficient, thus occupying what\nwould otherwise be gaps in the existing system of nature. The\nprincipal difficulty which they occasion to the zoologist and botanist\nis that, by filling the intervals between genera previously widely\nseparated, they give to the whole a degree of continuity which renders\nit more difficult to decide where the boundaries separating the groups\nshould be placed.\n\nWe also find that the animals and plants of the earlier periods often\ncombined in one form powers and properties afterward separated in\ndistinct groups; thus in the earlier formations the sauroid fishes\nunite peculiarities afterward divided between the fish and reptiles,\nconstituting what Agassiz has called a synthetic type. Again, the\nseries of creatures in time accords with the ranks which a study of\ntheir types of structure induces the naturalist to assign them in his\nsystem; and also within each of the great sub-kingdoms presents many\npoints of accordance with the progress of the embryonic development of\nthe individual animal. Nor is this contradictory to the statement that\nthe earlier representatives of types are often of high and perfect\norganization, for the progress both in geological time and in the life\nof the individual is so much one of specialization that an immature\nanimal often presents points of affinity to higher forms that\ndisappear in the adult. In connection with this, earlier organic forms\noften appear to foreshadow and predict others that are to succeed them\nin time, as the winged and marine reptiles of the Mesozoic foreshadow\nthe birds and cetaceans. Agassiz has admirably illustrated these links\nof connection between the past and the present in the essay on\nclassification prefixed to his \"Contributions to the Natural History\nof America.\" In reference to \"prophetic\" types, he says: \"They appear\nnow like a prophecy in those earlier times of an order of things not\npossible with the earlier combinations then prevailing in the animal\nkingdom, but exhibiting in a later period in a striking manner the\nantecedent consideration of every step in the gradation of animals.\"\n\n4. The periods into which geology divides the history of the earth are\ndifferent from those of Scripture, yet when properly understood there\nis a marked correspondence. Geology refers only to the fifth and sixth\ndays of creation, or, at most, to these with parts of the fourth and\nseventh, and it divides this portion of the work into several eras,\nfounded on alternations of rock formations and changes in organic\nremains. The nature of geological evidence renders it probable that\nmany apparently well-marked breaks in the chain may result merely from\ndeficiency in the preserved remains; and consequently that what appear\nto the geologist to be very distinct periods may in reality run\ntogether. The only natural divisions that Scripture teaches us to look\nfor are those between the fifth and sixth days, and those which within\nthese days mark the introduction of new animal forms, as, for\ninstance, the great reptiles of the fifth day. We have already seen\nthat the beginning of the fifth day can be referred almost with\ncertainty to the Palaeozoic period. The beginning of the sixth day may\nwith nearly equal certainty be referred to that of the Tertiary era.\nThe introduction of great reptiles and birds in the fifth day\nsynchronizes and corresponds with the beginning of the Mesozoic\nperiod; and that of man at the close of the sixth day with the\ncommencement of the Modern era in geology. These four great\ncoincidences are so much more than we could have expected, in records\nso very different in their nature and origin, that we need not pause\nto search for others of a more obscure character. It may be well to\nintroduce here a tabular view of this correspondence between the\ngeological and Biblical periods, extending it as far as either record\ncan carry us, and thus giving a complete general view of the origin\nand history of the world as deduced from revelation and science. In\ncomparing this table with that on page 330, it will be observed that\nthe latter refers to the last half of the creative week only, the\nearlier half being occupied with physical changes which, however\nprobable inferentially, are not within the scope of geological\nobservation.\n\nPARALLELISM OF THE SCRIPTURAL COSMOGONY WITH THE ASTRONOMICAL AND\nGEOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE EARTH.\n\n  ====================================================================\n                                    |\n            BIBLICAL AEONS.          |  PERIODS DEDUCED FROM SCIENTIFIC\n                                    |        CONSIDERATIONS.\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------\n  The Beginning.                    |Creation of Matter.\n                                    |\n  _First Day._--Earth mantled by    |Condensation of Planetary Bodies\n   the Vaporous Deep--Production    |  from a nebulous mass--Hypothesis\n   of Light.                        |  of original incandescence.\n                                    |\n  _Second Day._--Earth covered by   |Primitive Universal Ocean, and\n   the Waters--Formation of the     |  establishment of Atmospheric\n   Atmosphere.                      |  equilibrium.\n                                    |\n  _Third Day._--Emergence of Dry    |Elevation of the land which\n   Land--Introduction of            |  furnished the materials of the\n   Vegetation.                      |  oldest rocks--Eozoic Period of\n                                    |  Geology?\n                                    |\n  _Fourth Day._--Completion of the  |Metamorphism of Eozoic rocks and\n   arrangements of the Solar System.|  disturbances preceding the\n                                    |  Cambrian epoch--Present\n                                    |  arrangement of Seasons--Dominion\n                                    |  of \"Existing Causes\" begins.\n                                    |\n  _Fifth Day._--Invertebrates and   |Palaeozoic Period--Reign of\n   Fishes, and afterward great      |  Invertebrates and Fishes.\n   Reptiles and Birds created.      |Mesozoic Period--Reign of\n                                    |  Reptiles.\n                                    |\n  _Sixth Day._--Introduction of     |Tertiary Period--Reign of Mammals.\n   Mammals--Creation of Man and     |Post-Tertiary--Existing Mammals\n   Edenic Group of Animals.         |  and Man.\n                                    |\n  _Seventh Day._--Cessation of Work |Period of Human History.\n   of Creation--Fall and Redemption |\n   of Man.                          |\n                                    |\n  _Eighth Day._--New Heavens and    |\n   Earth to succeed the Human Epoch |\n   --\"The Rest (Sabbath) that       |\n   remains to the People of God.\"   |\n   [149]                            |\n======================================================================\n\n_Note._--The above table is identical with that published in \"Archaia\"\nin 1860, and which the author sees no reason now to change.\n\n\n5. In both records the ocean gives birth to the first dry land, and it\nis the sea that is first inhabited, yet both lead at least to the\nsuspicion that a state of igneous fluidity preceded the primitive\nuniversal ocean. In Scripture the original prevalence of the ocean is\ndistinctly stated, and all geologists are agreed that in the early\nfossiliferous periods the sea must have prevailed much more\nextensively than at present. Scripture also expressly states that the\nwaters were the birthplace of the earliest animals, and geology has as\nyet discovered in the whole Silurian series no terrestrial animal,\nthough marine creatures are extremely abundant; and though\nair-breathing creatures are found in the later Palaeozoic, they are,\nwith the exception of insects, of that semi-amphibious character which\nis proper to alluvial flats and the deltas of rivers. It is true that\nthe negative evidence collected by geology does not render it\naltogether impossible that terrestrial animals, even mammals, may have\nexisted in the earliest periods; yet there are, as already pointed\nout, some positive indications opposed to this. The Scripture,\nhowever, commits itself to the statement that the higher land animals\ndid not exist so early, though it must be observed that there is\nnothing in the Mosaic narrative adverse to the existence of birds,\ninsects, and reptiles in the earlier Palaeozoic periods. I have said\nthat the Bible, which informs us of a universal ocean preceding the\nexistence of land, also gives indications of a still earlier period of\nigneous fluidity or gaseous expansion. Geology also and astronomy have\ntheir reasonings and speculations as to the prevalence of such\nconditions. Here, however, both records become dim and obscure, though\nit is evident that both point in the same direction, and combine those\naqueous and igneous origins which in the last century afforded so\nfertile ground of one-sided dispute.\n\n6. Both records concur in maintaining what is usually termed the\ndoctrine of existing causes in geology. Scripture and geology alike\nshow that since the beginning of the fifth day, or Palaeozoic period,\nthe inorganic world has continued under the dominion of the same\ncauses that now regulate its changes and processes. The sacred\nnarrative gives no hint of any creative interposition in this\ndepartment after the fourth day; and geology assures us that all the\nrocks with which it is acquainted have been produced by the same\ncauses that are now throwing down detritus in the bottom of the\nwaters, or bringing up volcanic products from the interior of the\nearth. This grand generalization, therefore, first worked out in\nmodern times by Sir Charles Lyell, from a laborious collection of the\nchanges occurring in the present state of the world, was, as a\ndoctrine of divine revelation, announced more than three thousand\nyears ago by the Hebrew lawgiver; not for scientific purposes, but as\na part of the theology of the Hebrew monotheism.\n\n7. Both records agree in assuring us that death prevailed in the world\never since animals were introduced. The punishment threatened to Adam,\nand considerations connected with man's state of innocence, have led\nto the belief that the Bible teaches that the lower animals, as well\nas man, were exempt from death before the fall. When, however, we find\nthe great _tanninim_, or crocodilian reptiles, created in the fifth\nday, and beasts of prey on the sixth, we need entertain no doubt on\nthe subject, in so far as Scripture is concerned. The geological\nrecord is equally explicit. Carnivorous creatures, with the most\nformidable powers of destruction, have left their remains in all parts\nof the geological series; and indeed, up to the introduction of man,\nthe carnivorous fishes, reptiles, and quadrupeds were the lords and\ntyrants of the earth. There can be little doubt, however, that the\nintroduction of man was the beginning of a change in this respect. A\ncreature destitute of offensive weapons, and subsisting on fruits, was\nto rule by the power of intellect. As already hinted, it is probable\nthat in Eden he was surrounded by a group of inoffensive animals, and\nthat those creatures which he had cause to dread would have\ndisappeared as he extended his dominion. In this way the law of\nviolent death and destruction which prevailed under the dynasties of\nthe fish, the reptile, and the carnivorous mammifer would ultimately\nhave been abrogated; and under the milder sway of man life and peace\nwould have reigned in a manner to which our knowledge of pre-Adamite\nand present nature may afford no adequate key. Be this as it may, on\nthe important point of the original prevalence of death among the\nlower animals both records are at one.\n\n8. In the department of \"final causes,\" as they have been termed,\nScripture and geology unite in affording large and interesting views.\nThey illustrate the procedure of the All-wise Creator during a long\nsuccession of ages, and thus enable us to see the effects of any of\nhis laws, not only at one time, but in far distant periods. To reject\nthe consideration of this peculiarity of geological science would be\nthe extremest folly, and would involve at once a misinterpretation of\nthe geologic record and a denial of the agency of an intelligent\nDesigner as revealed in Scripture, and indicated by the succession of\nbeings. Many of the past changes of the earth acquire their full\nsignificance only when taken in connection with the present wants of\nthe earth's inhabitants; and along the whole course of the geological\nhistory the creatures that we meet with are equally rich in the\nevidences of nice adaptation to circumstances and wonderful\ncontrivances for special ends, with their modern representatives. As\nan example of the former, how wonderful is the connection of the\ngreat vegetable accumulations of the ancient coal swamps, and the\nbands and nodules of iron-stone which were separated from the\nferruginous sands or clays in their vicinity by the action of this\nvery vegetable matter, with the whole fabric of modern civilization,\nand especially with the prosperity of that race which, in our time,\nstands in the front of the world's progress. In a very ancient period,\nwide swamps and deltas, teeming with vegetable life, and which, if\nthey now existed, would be but pestilent breeders of miasmata, spread\nover large tracts of the northern hemisphere, on which marine animals\nhad previously accumulated thick sheets of limestone. Vast beds of\nvegetable matter were collected by growth in these swamps, and the\nwaste particles that passed off in the form of organic acids were\nemployed in concentrating the oxide of iron in underlying clays and\nsands. In the lapse of ages the whole of these accumulations were\nburied deep in the crust of the earth; and long periods succeeded,\nwhen the earth was tenanted by reptilian and other creatures,\nunconscious of the treasures beneath them. The modern period arrived.\nThe equable climate of the coal era had passed away. Continents were\nprepared for the residence of man, and the edges of the old\ncarboniferous beds were exposed by subterranean movements, and laid\nbare by denudation. Man was introduced, fell from his state of\ninnocence, and was condemned to earn his subsistence by the sweat of\nhis brow; and now for the first time appears the use of these buried\ncoal swamps. They now afford at once the materials of improvement in\nthe arts and of comfortable subsistence in extreme climates, and\nsubjects of surpassing interest to the naturalist. Similar instances\nmay be gleaned by the natural theologian from nearly every part of the\ngeological history.\n\nLastly. Both records represent man as the last of God's works, and the\nculminating-point of the whole creation. We have already had occasion\nto refer to this as a result of zoology, geology, and Scriptural\nexegesis, and may here confine ourselves to the moral consequences of\nthis great truth. Man is the capital of the column; and, if marred and\ndefaced by moral evil, the symmetry of the whole is to be restored,\nnot by rejecting him altogether, like the extinct species of the\nancient world, and replacing him by another, but by re-casting him in\nthe image of his Divine Redeemer. Man, though recently introduced, is\nto exist eternally. He is, in one or another state of being, to be\nwitness of all future changes of the earth. He has before him the\noption of being one with his Maker, and sharing in a future glorious\nand finally renovated condition of our planet, or of sinking into\nendless degradation. Such is the great spiritual drama of man's fate\nto be acted out on the theatre of the world. Every human being must\nplay his part in it, and the present must decide what that part shall\nbe. The Bible bases these great foreshadowings of the future on its\nown peculiar evidence; yet I may venture humbly to maintain that its\nharmony with natural science, as far as the latter can ascend, gives\nto the Word of God a pre-eminent claim on the attention of the\nnaturalist. The Bible, unlike every other system of religious\ndoctrine, fears no investigation or discussion. It courts these.\n\"While science,\" says a modern divine,[150] \"is fatal to superstition,\nit is fortification to a Scriptural faith. The Bible is the bravest of\nbooks. Coming from God, and conscious of nothing but God's truth, it\nawaits the progress of knowledge with calm security. It watches the\nantiquary ransacking among classic ruins, and rejoices in every medal\nhe discovers and every inscription he deciphers; for from that rusty\ncoin or corroded marble it expects nothing but confirmations of its\nown veracity. In the unlocking of an Egyptian hieroglyphic or the\nunearthing of some implement it hails the resurrection of so many\nwitnesses; and with sparkling elation it follows the botanist as he\nscales Mount Lebanon, or the zoologist as he makes acquaintance with\nthe beasts of the Syrian desert; or the traveller as he stumbles on a\nlong-lost Petra or Nineveh or Babylon. And from the march of time it\nfears no evil, but calmly abides the fulfilment of those prophecies\nand the forthcoming of those events with whose predicted story\ninspiration has already inscribed its page. It is not light but\ndarkness which the Bible deprecates; and if men of piety were also men\nof science, and if men of science were to search the Scriptures, there\nwould be more faith in the earth, and also more philosophy.\"\n\nThe reader has, I trust, found in the preceding pages sufficient\nevidence that the Bible has nothing to dread from the revelations of\ngeology, but much to hope in the way of elucidation of its meaning and\nconfirmation of its truth. If convinced of this, I trust that he will\nallow me now to ask for the warnings, promises, and predictions of the\nBook of God his entire confidence; and, in conclusion, to direct his\nattention to the glorious prospects which it holds forth to the human\nrace, and to every individual of it who, in humility and\nself-renunciation, casts himself in faith on that Divine Redeemer who\nis at once the creator of the heavens and the earth, and the brother\nand the friend of the penitent and the contrite. That same old book,\nwhich carries back our view to those ancient conditions of our planet\nwhich preceded not only the creation of man, but the earliest periods\nof which science has cognizance, likewise carries our minds forward\ninto the farthest depths of futurity, and shows that all present\nthings must pass away. It reveals to us a new heaven and a new earth,\nwhich are to replace those now existing; when the Eternal Son of God,\nthe manifestation of the Father equally in creation and redemption,\nshall come forth conquering and to conquer, and shall sweep away into\nutter extinction all the blood-stained tyrannies of the present earth,\neven as he has swept away the brute dynasties of the pre-Adamite\nworld, and shall establish a reign of peace, of love, and of holiness\nthat shall never pass away: when the purified sons of Adam, rejoicing\nin immortal youth and happiness, shall be able to look back with\nenlarged understandings and grateful hearts on the whole history of\ncreation and redemption, and shall join their angelic brethren in the\nfinal and more ecstatic repetition of that hymn of praise with which\nthe heavenly hosts greeted the birth of our planet. May God in his\nmercy grant that he who writes and they who read may \"stand in their\nlot at the end of the days\" and enjoy the full fruition of these\nglorious prospects.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\nA.--TRUE AND FALSE EVOLUTION.\n\nThe term \"evolution\" need not in itself be a bugbear on theological\ngrounds. The Bible writers would, I presume, have no objection to it\nif understood to mean the development of the plans of the Creator in\nnature. That kind of evolution to which they would object, and to\nwhich enlightened reason also objects, is the spontaneous evolution of\nnothing into atoms and force, and of these into all the wonderful and\ncomplicated plan of nature, without any guiding mind. Farther,\nbiological and palaeontological science, as well as the Bible, object\nto the derivation of living things from dead matter by merely natural\nmeans, because this can not be proved to be possible, and to the\nproduction of the series of organic forms found as fossils in the\nrocks of the earth by the process of struggle for existence and\nsurvival of the fittest, because this does not suffice to account for\nthe complex phenomena presented by this succession. With reference to\nthe testimony of palaeontology, I have in other publications developed\nthis very fully; and would here merely quote the summing up of the\nargument, as given in my Address of 1875 before the American\nAssociation for the Advancement of Science:\n\n\"I have thus far said nothing of the bearing of the prevalent ideas of\ndescent with modification on this wonderful procession of life. None\nof these of course can be expected to take us back to the origin of\nliving beings; but they also fail to explain why so vast numbers of\nhighly organized species struggle into existence simultaneously in one\nage and disappear in another; why no continuous chain of succession in\ntime can be found gradually blending species into each other; and why\nin the natural succession of things degradation under the influence of\nexternal conditions and final extinction seem to be laws of organic\nexistence. It is useless here to appeal to the imperfection of the\nrecord or to the movements or migrations of species. The record is now\nin many important parts too complete, and the simultaneousness of the\nentrance of the faunas and floras too certainly established, and\nmoving species from place to place only evades the difficulty. The\ntruth is that such hypotheses are at present premature, and that we\nrequire to have larger collections of facts. Independently of this,\nhowever, it appears to me that from a philosophical point of view it\nis extremely probable that all theories of evolution as at present\napplied to life are fundamentally defective in being too partial in\ntheir character; and perhaps I can not better group the remainder of\nthe facts to which I wish to refer than by using them to illustrate\nthis feature of most of the later attempts at generalization on this\nsubject.\n\n\"First, then, these hypotheses are too partial in their tendency to\nrefer numerous and complex phenomena to one cause, or to a few causes\nonly, when all trustworthy analogy would indicate that they must\nresult from many concurrent forces and determinations of force. We\nhave all no doubt read those ingenious, not to say amusing,\nspeculations in which some entomologists and botanists have indulged\nwith reference to the mutual relations of flowers and haustellate\ninsects. Geologically the facts oblige us to begin with cryptogamous\nplants and mandibulate insects, and out of the desire of insects for\nnon-existent honey, and the adaptations of plants to the requirements\nof non-existent suctorial apparatus, we have to evolve the marvellous\ncomplexity of floral form and coloring, and the exquisitely delicate\napparatus of the mouths of haustellate insects. Now when it is borne\nin mind that this theory implies a mental confusion on our part\nprecisely similar to that which in the department of mechanics\nactuates the seekers for perpetual motion, that we have not the\nsmallest tittle of evidence that the changes required have actually\noccurred in any one case, and that the thousands of other structures\nand relations of the plant and the insect have to be worked out by a\nseries of concurrent evolutions so complex and absolutely incalculable\nin the aggregate that the cycles and epicycles of the Ptolemaic\nastronomy were child's play in comparison, we need not wonder that the\ncommon-sense of mankind revolts against such fancies, and that we are\naccused of attempting to construct the universe by methods that would\nbaffle Omnipotence itself, because they are simply absurd. In this\naspect of them indeed such speculations are necessarily futile,\nbecause no mind can grasp all the complexities of even any one case,\nand it is useless to follow out an imaginary line of development which\nunexplained facts must contradict at every step. This is also no doubt\nthe reason why all recent attempts at constructing 'Phylogenies' are\nso changeable, and why no two experts can agree about the details of\nany of them.\n\n\"A second aspect in which such speculations are too partial is in the\nunwarranted use which they make of analogy. It is not unusual to find\nsuch analogies as that between the embryonic development of the\nindividual animal and the succession of animals in geological time\nplaced on a level with that reasoning from analogy by which geologists\napply modern causes to explain geological formations. No claim could\nbe more unfounded. When the geologist studies ancient limestones built\nup of the remains of corals, and then applies the phenomena of modern\ncoral reefs to explain their origin, he brings the latter to bear on\nthe former by an analogy which includes not merely the apparent\nresults, but the causes at work, and the conditions of their action,\nand it is on this that the validity of his comparison depends, in so\nfar as it relates to similarity of mode of formation. But when we\ncompare the development of an animal from an embryo cell with the\nprogress of animals in time, though we have a curious analogy as to\nthe steps of the process, the conditions and causes at work are known\nto be altogether dissimilar, and therefore we have no evidence\nwhatever as to identity of cause, and our reasoning becomes at once\nthe most transparent of fallacies. Farther, we have no right here to\noverlook the fact that the conditions of the embryo are determined by\nthose of a previous adult, and that no sooner does this hereditary\npotentiality produce a new adult animal than the terrible external\nagencies of the physical world, in presence of which all life exists,\nbegin to tell on the organism, and after a struggle of longer or\nshorter duration it succumbs to death, and its substance returns into\ninorganic nature--a law from which even the longer life of the species\ndoes not seem to exempt it. All this is so plain and manifest that it\nis extraordinary that evolutionists will continue to use such partial\nand imperfect arguments. Another example may be taken from that\napplication of the doctrine of natural selection to explain the\nintroduction of species in geological time, which is so elaborately\ndiscussed by Sir C. Lyell in the last edition of his 'Principles of\nGeology.' The great geologist evidently leans strongly to the theory,\nand claims for it the 'highest degree of probability;' yet he\nperceives that there is a serious gap in it, since no modern fact has\never proved the origin of a new species by modification. Such a gap,\nif it existed in those grand analogies by which we explain geological\nformations through modern causes, would be admitted to be fatal.\n\n\"A third illustration of the partial character of these hypotheses may\nbe taken from the use made of the theory deduced from modern physical\ndiscoveries, that life must be merely a product of the continuous\noperation of physical laws. The assumption, for it is nothing more,\nthat the phenomena of life are produced merely by some arrangement of\nphysical forces, even if it be admitted to be true, gives only a\npartial explanation of the possible origin of life. It does not\naccount for the fact that life as a force or combination of forces is\nset in antagonism to all other forces. It does not account for the\nmarvellous connection of life with organization. It does not account\nfor the determination and arrangement of forces implied in life. A\nvery simple illustration may make this plain. If the problem to be\nsolved were the origin of the mariner's compass, one might assert that\nit is wholly a physical arrangement both as to matter and force.\nAnother might assert that it involves mind and intelligence in\naddition. In some sense both would be right. The properties of\nmagnetic force and of iron or steel are purely physical, and it might\neven be within the bounds of possibility that somewhere in the\nuniverse a mass of natural loadstone may have been so balanced as to\nswing in harmony with the earth's magnetism. Yet we would surely be\nregarded as very credulous if we could be induced to believe that the\nmariner's compass has originated in that way. This argument applies\nwith a thousandfold greater force to the origin of life, which\ninvolves even in its simplest forms so many more adjustments of force\nand so much more complex machinery.\n\n\"Fourthly, these hypotheses are partial, inasmuch as they fail to\naccount for the vastly varied and correlated interdependencies of\nnatural things and forces, and for the unity of plan which pervades\nthe whole. These can be explained only by taking into the account\nanother element from without. Even when it professes to admit the\nexistence of a God, the evolutionist reasoning of our day contents\nitself altogether with the physical or visible universe, and leaves\nentirely out of sight the power of the unseen and spiritual, as if\nthis were something with which science has nothing to do, but which\nbelongs only to imagination or sentiment. So much has this been the\ncase, that when recently a few physicists and naturalists have turned\nto this aspect of the case, they have seemed to be teaching new and\nstartling truths, though only reviving some of the oldest and most\npermanent ideas of our race. From the dawn of human thought it has\nbeen the conclusion alike of philosophers, theologians, and the\ncommon-sense of mankind that the seen can be explained only by\nreference to the unseen, and that any merely physical theory of the\nworld is necessarily partial. This, too, is the position of our sacred\nScriptures, and is broadly stated in their opening verse; and indeed\nit lies alike at the basis of all true religion and all sound\nphilosophy, for it must necessarily be that 'the things that are seen\nare temporal, the things that are unseen eternal.' With reference to\nthe primal aggregation of energy in the visible universe, with\nreference to the introduction of life, with reference to the soul of\nman, with reference to the heavenly gifts of genius and prophecy, with\nreference to the introduction of the Saviour himself into the world,\nand with reference to the spiritual gifts and graces of God's\npeople--all these spring not from sporadic acts of intervention, but\nfrom the continuous action of God and the unseen world, and this we\nmust never forget is the true ideal of creation in Scripture and in\nsound theology. Only in such exceptional and little influential\nphilosophies as that of Democritus, and in the speculations of a few\nmen carried off their balance by the brilliant physical discoveries of\nour age, has this necessarily partial and imperfect view been adopted.\nNever, indeed, was its imperfection more clear than in the light of\nmodern science.\n\n\"Geology, by tracing back all present things to their origin, was the\nfirst science to establish on a basis of observed facts the necessity\nof a beginning and end of the world. But even physical science now\nteaches us that the visible world is a vast machine for the\ndissipation of energy; that the processes going on in it must have had\na beginning in time, and that all things tend to a final and helpless\nequilibrium. This necessity implies an unseen power, an invisible\nuniverse, in which the visible universe must have originated, and to\nwhich its energy is ever returning. The hiatus between the seen and\nthe unseen may be bridged over by the conceptions of atomic vortices\nof force, and by the universal and continuous ether; but whether or\nnot, it has become clear that the conception of the unseen as existing\nhas become necessary to our belief in the possible existence of the\nphysical universe itself, even without taking life into the account.\n\n\"It is in the domain of life, however, that this necessity becomes\nmost apparent; and it is in the plant that we first clearly perceive a\nvisible testimony to that unseen which is the counterpart of the seen.\nLife in the plant opposes the outward rush of force in our system,\narrests a part of it on its way, fixes it as potential energy, and\nthus, forming a mere eddy, so to speak, in the process of dissipation\nof energy, it accumulates that on which animal life and man himself\nmay subsist, and asserts for a time supremacy over the seen and\ntemporal on behalf of the unseen and eternal. I say for a time,\nbecause life is, in the visible universe, as at present constituted,\nbut a temporary exception, introduced from that unseen world where it\nis no longer the exception, but the eternal rule. In a still higher\nsense, then, than that in which matter and force testify to a Creator,\norganization and life, whether in the plant, the animal, or man, bear\nthe same testimony, and exist as outposts put forth in the succession\nof ages from that higher heaven that surrounds the visible universe.\nIn them, too, Almighty power is no doubt conditioned or limited by\nlaw, yet they bear more distinctly upon them the impress of their\nMaker; and, while all explanations of the physical universe which\nrefuse to recognize its spiritual and unseen origin must necessarily\nbe partial and in the end incomprehensible, this destiny falls more\nquickly and surely on the attempt to account for life and its\nsuccession on merely materialistic principles.\n\n\"Here again, however, I must remind you that creation, as maintained\nagainst such materialistic evolution, whether by theology, philosophy,\nor Holy Scripture, is necessarily a continuous, nay, an eternal\ninfluence, not an intervention of disconnected acts. It is the true\ncontinuity, which includes and binds together all other continuity.\n\n\"It is here that natural science meets with theology, not as an\nantagonist, but as a friend and ally in its time of greatest need; and\nI must here record my belief that neither men of science nor\ntheologians have a right to separate what God in Holy Scripture has\njoined together, or to build up a wall between nature and religion,\nand write upon it 'no thoroughfare.' The science that does this must\nbe impotent to explain nature, and without hold on the higher\nsentiments of man. The theology that does this must sink into mere\nsuperstition.\n\n\"In conclusion, can we formulate a few of the general laws, or perhaps\nI had better call them general conclusions, respecting life, in which\nall palaeontologists may agree? Perhaps it is not possible to do this\nat present satisfactorily, but the attempt may do no harm. We may,\nthen, I think, make the following affirmations:\n\n\"1. The existence of life and organization on the earth is not\neternal, nor even coeval with the beginning of the physical universe,\nbut may possibly date from Laurentian or immediately pre-Laurentian\ntimes.\n\n\"2. The introduction of new species of animals and plants has been a\ncontinuous process, not necessarily in the sense of derivation of one\nspecies from another, but in the higher sense of the continued\noperation of the cause or causes which introduced life at first. This,\nas already stated, I take to be the true theological or Scriptural as\nwell as scientific idea of what we ordinarily and somewhat loosely\nterm creation.\n\n\"3. Though thus continuous, the process has not been uniform; but\nperiods of rapid production of species have alternated with others in\nwhich many disappeared and few were introduced. This may have been an\neffect of physical cycles reacting on the progress of life.\n\n\"4. Species, like individuals, have greater energy and vitality in\ntheir younger stages, and rapidly assume all their varietal forms, and\nextend themselves as widely as external circumstances will permit.\nLike individuals also, they have their periods of old age and decay,\nthough the life of some species has been of enormous duration in\ncomparison with that of others; the difference appearing to be\nconnected with degrees of adaptation to different conditions of life.\n\n\"5. Many allied species, constituting groups of animals and plants,\nhave made their appearance at once in various parts of the earth, and\nthese groups have obeyed the same laws with the individual and the\nspecies in culminating rapidly, and then slowly diminishing, though a\nlarge group once introduced has rarely disappeared altogether.\n\n\"6. Groups of species, as genera and orders, do not usually begin with\ntheir highest or lowest forms, but with intermediate and generalized\ntypes, and they show a capacity for both elevation and degradation in\ntheir subsequent history.\n\n\"7. The history of life presents a progress from the lower to the\nhigher, and from the simpler to the more complex, and from the more\ngeneralized to the more specialized. In this progress new types are\nintroduced and take the place of the older ones, which sink to a\nrelatively subordinate place and become thus degraded. But the\nphysical and organic changes have been so correlated and adjusted that\nlife has not only always maintained its existence, but has been\nenabled to assume more complex forms, and that older forms have been\nmade to prepare the way for newer, so that there has been on the whole\na steady elevation culminating in man himself. Elevation and\nspecialization have, however, been secured at the expense of vital\nenergy and range of adaptation, until the new element of a rational\nand inventive nature was introduced in the case of man.\n\n\"8. In regard to the larger and more distinct types, we can not find\nevidence that they have, in their introduction, been preceded by\nsimilar forms connecting them with previous groups; but there is\nreason to believe that many supposed representative species in\nsuccessive formations are really only races or varieties.\n\n\"9. In so far as we can trace their history, specific types are\npermanent in their characters from their introduction to their\nextinction, and their earlier varietal forms are similar to their\nlater ones.\n\n\"10. Palaeontology furnishes no direct evidence, perhaps never can\nfurnish any, as to the actual transformation of one species into\nanother, or as to the actual circumstances of creation of a species,\nbut the drift of its testimony is to show that species come in _per\nsaltum_, rather than by any slow and gradual process.\n\n\"11. The origin and history of life can not, any more than the origin\nand determination of matter and force, be explained on purely material\ngrounds, but involve the consideration of power referable to the\nunseen and spiritual world.\n\n\"Different minds may state these principles in different ways, but I\nbelieve that, in so far as palaeontology is concerned, in substance\nthey must hold good, at least as steps to higher truths.\"\n\n\nB.--EVOLUTION AND CREATION BY LAW.\n\nEvolutionist writers have a great horror of what they term\n\"intervention.\" But they should be informed that the idea of a\nplanning Creator does not involve intervention in an extraordinary or\nmiraculous sense, any more than what we call the ordinary operations\nof nature. It is a common but childish prejudice that every discovery\nof a secondary cause diminishes so much of what is to be referred to\nthe agency of God. On the contrary, such discoveries merely aid us in\ncomprehending the manner of his action. But when evolutionists, in\ntheir zeal to get rid of creative intervention, trace all things to\nthe interaction of insensate causes, they fall into the absurdity of\nbelieving in absolute unmitigated chance as the cause of perfect\norder. Evidences of this may be found by the score in Darwin's works\non the origin of species. I quote, however, from another and usually\nclear thinker, Wallace, in a review of the Duke of Argyll's \"Reign of\nLaw,\" which appeared some years ago, but represents very well this\nphase of thought:\n\n\"'It is curious,' says the Duke of Argyll, 'to observe the language\nwhich this most advanced disciple of pure naturalism [Mr. Darwin]\ninstinctively uses, when he has to describe the complicated structure\nof this curious order of plants [the Orchids]. Caution in ascribing\nintentions to nature does not seem to occur to him as possible.\nIntention is the one thing which he does see, and which, when he does\nnot see, he seeks for diligently until he finds it. He exhausts every\nform of words and of illustration by which intention or mental purpose\ncan be described. 'Contrivance'--'curious contrivance'--'beautiful\ncontrivance'--these are expressions which occur over and over again.\nHere is one sentence describing the parts of a particular species:\n'the labellum is developed into a long nectary, _in order_ to attract\nlepidoptera, and we shall presently give reason for suspecting that\nthe nectar is _purposely_ so lodged that it can be sucked only slowly,\n_in order_ to give time for the curious chemical quality of this\nviscid matter setting hard and dry.'\" Many other examples of similar\nexpressions are quoted by the duke, who maintains that no explanation\nof these \"contrivances\" has been or can be given, except on the\nsupposition of a personal contriver, specially arranging the details\nof each case, although causing them to be produced by the ordinary\nprocesses of growth and reproduction.\n\n\"Now there is a difficulty in this view of the origin of the structure\nof orchids which the duke does not allude to. The majority of\nflowering plants are fertilized, either without the agency of insects,\nor, when insects are required, without any very important modification\nof the structure of the flower. It is evident, therefore, that flowers\nmight have been formed as varied, fantastic, and beautiful as the\norchids, and yet have been fertilized by insects in the same manner as\nviolets or clover or primroses, or a thousand other flowers. The\nstrange springs and traps and pitfalls found in the flowers of orchids\ncan not be necessary _per se_, since exactly the same end is gained in\nten thousand other flowers which do not possess them. Is it not, then,\nan extraordinary idea to imagine the Creator of the universe\n_contriving_ the various complicated parts of these flowers as a\nmechanic might contrive an ingenious toy or a difficult puzzle? Is it\nnot a more worthy conception that they are some of the results of\nthose general laws which were so co-ordinated at the first\nintroduction of life upon the earth as to result necessarily in the\nutmost possible development of varied forms?\"\n\nA moment's thought is sufficient to show that there is no essential\ndifference between the Creator contriving every detail of the\nstructure of an orchid and his producing it through some intermediate\ncause, or his commanding it into existence by his almighty word. The\nsame mental process, so to speak, of the contriver is implied in\neither case. But there is an immeasurable difference between any of\nthose ideas and that of the orchid producing its parts spontaneously\nunder the operation of insensate physical law, whatever that may be,\nalone. Again, in the same review, Wallace writes:\n\n\"The uncertainty of opinion among naturalists as to which are species\nand which varieties is one of Mr. Darwin's very strong arguments that\nthese two names can not belong to things quite distinct in nature and\norigin. The reviewer says that this argument is of no weight, because\nthe works of man present exactly the same phenomena, and he instances\npatent inventions, and the excessive difficulty of determining whether\nthey are new or old. I accept the analogy, and maintain that it is all\nin favor of Mr. Darwin's views; for are not all inventions of the same\nkind directly affiliated to a common ancestor. Are not improved\nsteam-engines or clocks the lineal descendants of some existing\nsteam-engine or clock? Is there ever a new creation in art or science\nany more than in nature? Did ever patentee absolutely originate any\ncomplete and entire invention no portion of which was derived from any\nthing that had been made or described before? It is, therefore, clear\nthat the difficulty of distinguishing the various classes of\ninventions which claim to be new is of the same nature as the\ndifficulty of distinguishing varieties and species, because neither\nare absolute new creations, but both are alike descendants of\npre-existing forms, from which and from each other they differ by\nvarying and often imperceptible degrees. It appears, then, that\nhowever plausible this writer's objections may seem, whenever he\ndescends from generalities to any specific statement his supposed\ndifficulties turn out to be in reality strongly confirmatory of Mr.\nDarwin's view.\"\n\nNow that improved steam-engines are lineal descendants of other\nsteam-engines is absolute nonsense, in any other aspect than that the\nstructure of one suggested the structure of another to a contriving\nmind. We need not affirm this of God; but we may affirm that the plans\nof the creative mind constitute the true link of connection between\nthe different states and developments of inorganic and organic\nobjects. This is the real meaning of creation by law, as distinguished\nfrom mere chance on the one hand, and arbitrary and capricious\nintervention on the other. Both of these extremes are equally\nillogical; and it can not be too frequently repeated that divine\nrevelation avoids both by maintaining with equal firmness the agency\nof the Creator, and that agency not capricious, but according to plan\nand purpose; embracing not merely the action of the divine mind\nitself, but under it of all the forces and material things created.\n\n\nC.--MODES OF CREATION.\n\nA question often asked, but not easily answered, with reference to the\ncreation of animals and plants, is--What was its precise method, and\nto what extent is such intervention conceivable. This is, it is true,\nnot a properly scientific question, since science can not inform us of\nthe act of creation. Nor is it properly a theological one, since\nrevelation appeals to our faith in the facts, without giving us much\ninformation as to the mode. It can, therefore, be answered only\nconjecturally, except in so far as the law or plan of creation can be\ninferred from what is known, either from science or revelation, as to\nthe history of life.\n\nWe may, in the first place, assume that law or plan must characterize\ncreation. The Scriptural idea of it is not reconcilable with the\nsupposition of a series of arbitrary acts any more than the scientific\nidea. The nature of these laws, as disclosed by Palaeontology, has been\nalready considered in a preceding part of this Appendix. What we may\nconjecture as to the nature of the creative act itself, from a\ncomparison of nature and revelation, may be summed up as follows:\n\n1. If we reduce organized beings to their ultimate organisms--cells or\nplastids--and with Spencer and Haeckel suppose these to be farther\ndivisible into still smaller particles or plastidules, each composed\nof several complex particles of albumen or protoplasm, we may suppose\nthe primary act of creation to consist in the aggregation of molecules\nof albuminous matter into such plastidules bearing the same relations,\nas \"manufactured articles,\" to the future cell that inorganic\nmolecules bear to crystals, and possessing within themselves the\npotencies of organic forms. This is the nearest approach that we can\nmake to the primary creative act, and its scientific basis is merely\nhypothetical, while revelation gives us no intimation as to any such\nconstitution of organized matter.\n\n2. The formulae in Genesis, \"Let the land produce,\" and \"Let the waters\nproduce,\" imply some sort of mediate creation through the agency of\nthe land and the waters, but of what sort we have no means of knowing.\nThey include, however, the idea of the origin of the lower and humbler\nforms of life from material pre-existing in inorganic nature, and also\nthe idea of the previous preparation of the land and the waters for\nthe sustenance of the creatures produced.\n\n3. The expression in the case of man--\"out of the dust\"--would seem to\nintimate that the human body was constituted of merely elementary\nmatter, without any previous preparation in organic forms. It may,\nhowever, be intended merely to inform us that, while the spirit is in\nthe image of God, the bodily frame is \"of the earth earthy,\" and in no\nrespect different in general nature from that of the inferior animals.\n\n4. The Bible indicates some ways in which creatures may be modified or\nchanged into new species, or may give rise to new forms of life. The\nhuman body is, we are told, capable of transformation into a new or\nspiritual body, different in many important respects, and the future\ngeneral prevalence of this change is an article of religious faith.\nThe Bible represents the woman as produced from the man by a species\nof fission, not known to us as a natural possibility, except in some\nof the lower forms of life. The birth of the Saviour is represented as\nhaving been by parthenogenesis, and if it had pleased God that Jesus\nwas to remain on earth as the progenitor of a new and higher type of\nman to replace that now existing, this might be regarded as the\nintroduction of a new species. To what extent the Creator may have so\nacted on the constitution of organized beings as to produce changes of\nthis kind we have no means of knowing; but if he have done so, we may\nbe sure that it has been in accordance with some definite plan or law.\n\n5. We have a right to infer from Scripture that there must be some\ncreative law which provides for the introduction of species, _de\nnovo_, from unorganized matter, and which has been or is called into\naction by conditions as yet altogether unknown to us, and as yet\ninimitable, and therefore in some sense miraculous. Whether we shall\never by scientific investigation discover the law of this kind of\ndivine intervention it is impossible to say. That all the theories of\nspontaneous generation and derivation hitherto promulgated are but\nwild guesses at it is but too evident.\n\n6. Since in inorganic nature we meet with such ultimate facts as atoms\nof different kinds and with different properties; and ether of\nnon-atomic constitution, all of which seem to be necessary to the\nexistence of the world as it is, we may expect in like manner to find\nat the basis of organic structures and phenomena varied kinds of\nultimate organisms and forces, probably much more complicated than\nthose of inorganic nature. The broad simplicity of existing theories\nof derivation and evolution is thus in itself a presumption against\ntheir truth, except as very partial explanations.\n\n7. We have no right to consider the species \"after their kinds\" of\nrevelation as coincident with the species recognized by science. Many\nof these may be merely races, the production of which in the course of\ntime and in special circumstances may fall within the powers of\ncreated species, and which may merely be the phases of such species in\ntime and place. Only the accumulation of vast additional stores of\nfacts can enable us to have any certain opinion on this point, and\ntill it is settled the doctrine of derivation must remain purely\nhypothetical.\n\n8. The inference of evolutionists that because certain forms of life\nsucceed each other in geological time, they must have been derived\nfrom each other, has an aspect of truth and simplicity; but the idea\nof law or plan in creation suggests that the link of connection may be\nof a less direct nature than mere descent with modification. This has\nbeen referred to under a previous head.\n\n9. In the scheme of revelation all the successions and changes of\norganized beings, just as much as their introduction at first, belong\nto the will and plan of God. Revelation opposes no obstacle to any\nscientific investigation of the nature and method of this plan, nor\ndoes it contemplate the idea that any discoveries of this kind in any\nway isolate the Creator from his works. Farther, inasmuch as God is\nalways present in all his works, one part of his procedure can\nscarcely be considered an \"intervention\" any more than another.\n\n10. As an illustration of the hypothetical condition of this subject,\nand of the views which may be taken as to its details, I quote from a\nmemoir of my own certain conclusions with reference to the origin of\nthe species of land plants which are found in the older geological\nformations. The conclusions stated are at the end of a detailed\nconsideration of these plants and the circumstances of their\noccurrence:\n\n\"(1.) Some of the forms reckoned as specific in the Devonian and\nCarboniferous formations may be really derivative races. There are\nindications that such races may have originated in one or more of the\nfollowing ways: (_a_) By a natural tendency in synthetic types to\nbecome specialized in the direction of one or other of their\nconstituent elements. In this way such plants as _Arthrostigma_ and\n_Psilophyton_ may have assumed new varietal forms. (_b_) By embryonic\nretardation or acceleration,[151] whereby certain species may have had\ntheir maturity advanced or postponed, thus giving them various grades\nof perfection in reproduction and complexity of structure. The fact\nthat so many Erian and Carboniferous plants seem to be on the confines\nof the groups of Acrogens and Gymnosperms may be supposed favorable\nto such exchanges. (_c_) The contraction and breaking up of floras\nwhich occurred in the Middle Erian and Lower Carboniferous may have\nbeen eminently favorable to the production of such varietal forms as\nwould result from what has been called the 'struggle for existence.'\n(_d_) The elevation of a great expanse of new land at the close of the\nMiddle Erian and the beginning of the Coal period would, by permitting\nthe extension of series over wide areas and fertile soils, and by\nremoving the pressure previously existing, be eminently favorable to\nthe production of new, and especially of improved, varieties.\n\n\"(2.) Whatever importance we may attach to the above supposed causes\nof change, we still require to account for the origin of our specific\ntypes. This may forever elude our observation, but we may at least\nhope to ascertain the external conditions favorable to their\nproduction. In order to attain even to this it will be necessary to\ninquire critically, with reference to every acknowledged species, what\nits claims to distinctness are, so that we may be enabled to\ndistinguish specific types from mere varieties. Having attained to\nsome certainty in this, we may be prepared to inquire whether the\nconditions favorable to the appearance of new varieties were also\nthose favorable to the creation of new types, or the reverse--whether\nthese conditions were those of compression or expansion, or to what\nextent the appearance of new types may be independent of any external\nconditions, other than those absolutely necessary for their existence.\nI am not without hope that the further study of fossil plants may\nenable us thus to approach to a comprehension of the laws of the\ncreation, as distinguished from those of the continued existence of\nspecies.\n\n\"In the present state of our knowledge we have no good ground either\nto limit the number of specific types beyond what a fair study of our\nmaterial may warrant, or to infer that such primitive types must\nnecessarily have been of low grade, or that progress in varietal forms\nhas always been upward. The occurrence of such an advanced and\nspecialized type as that of _Syringoxylon_ in the Middle Devonian\nshould guard us against these errors. The creative process may have\nbeen applicable to the highest as well as to the lowest forms, and\nsubsequent deviations must have included degradation as well as\nelevation. I can conceive nothing more unreasonable than the statement\nsometimes made that it is illogical or even absurd to suppose that\nhighly organized beings could have been produced except by derivation\nfrom previously existing organisms. This is begging the whole question\nat issue, depriving science of a noble department of inquiry on which\nit has as yet barely entered, and anticipating by unwarranted\nassertions conclusions which may perhaps suddenly dawn upon us through\nthe inspiration of some great intellect, or may for generations to\ncome baffle the united exertions of all the earnest promoters of\nnatural science. Our present attitude should not be that of\ndogmatists, but that of patient workers content to labor for a harvest\nof grand generalizations which may not come till we have passed away,\nbut which, if we are earnest and true to nature and its Creator, may\nreward even some of us.\"[152]\n\n\nD.--PRESENT CONDITION OF THEORIES OF LIFE.\n\nOne of the most learned and ingenious essays on this subject recently\npublished[153] states on its first page that all the varieties of\nopinion may be summed up under two heads:\n\n\"1. Those which require the addition to ordinary matter of an\nimmaterial or spiritual essence, substance, or power, general or\nlocal, whose presence is the efficient cause of life; and,\n\n\"2. Those which attribute the phenomena of life solely to the mode of\ncombination of the ordinary material elements of which the organism is\ncomposed, without the addition of any such immaterial essence, power,\nor force.\"\n\nIt is quite true that physiologists have up to this time argued out\nthese two alternatives, and that at present the second is probably the\nmore prevalent. It is however also true that neither includes or can\npossibly include the whole truth, and that enlightened theism may\nenable us to hold both, or all that is true in either. Undoubtedly we\nmust hold that a higher spiritual power or Creator is necessary to the\nexistence of life; but then this is necessary also to the existence of\ndead matter and force. So that if physiologists think proper to trace\nthe whole phenomena of life to material causes, they do not on that\naccount in any way invalidate the evidence for a spiritual Creator,\nnor for a spiritual element in the higher nature of man. Yet so\ninconceivably shallow is much of the biological reasoning of the day,\nthat it is quite common to find physiologists referring all life to\nspontaneous and uncaused material agencies, because they have\nconcluded that the arrangements of matter and force are sufficient to\nexplain it; and, on the other hand, to find theistic writers accusing\nphysiology of materialism, if it finds the causes of vital phenomena\nin material forces, as if God could be present only in those processes\nwhich we can not understand.\n\nWhat we really know as to the material basis of life may be summed up\nin a few words. Chemically, life is based on compounds of the\nalbuminous group. These are highly complex in a molecular point of\nview, and seem to be formed in nature only where certain structures,\nthose of the vegetable cell, exist under certain conditions. These\nalbuminous substances do not necessarily possess vital properties.\nThey may exist in a dead state just as other substances. Under certain\nconditions, however, those of forming part of a so-called living\norganism, they present phenomena of mechanical movement and molecular\nchange, and of transformation or transmission of force, which enable\nthem to transform themselves into various kinds of tissues, to nourish\nthese when formed, and to establish a consensus of action between\ndifferent parts of the organism; and these properties are vastly\nvaried in detail according to the kind of organism in which they take\nplace, and the conditions under which the organism exists. The\nactually living matter presents no distinct structure recognizable by\nthe microscope, and can not be distinguished chemically from ordinary\nalbumen or protoplasm; but when living it must either exist in some\npeculiar and complex molecular arrangement unknown as yet to chemistry\nand physics, or must be actuated by some force or form of force called\nvital, and not as yet isolated or reduced to known laws or\ncorrelation. It does not concern theism or theology which of these may\neventually prove to be the true view, or if it should be found, which\nis quite possible, that there is no real difference between them. In\nany case it is certain that in the lower animals, and in the merely\nphysiological properties of man himself, living matter may act\nindependently of any higher spiritual nature in the individual, though\nof course not independently of the higher power of God, which gave\nmatter its properties and sustains them in their action. It is farther\ncertain that in man the spiritual nature dominates and controls the\nvital, except when under abnormal conditions the latter unduly gains\nthe mastery, and quenches altogether the spirit. In the language of\nthe Bible, the merely vital endowments of the man belong to the flesh\n([Greek: sarx]), and to the rational mind or soul ([Greek: psyche]).\nThe higher nature which man derives directly from God is the spirit\n([Greek: pneuma]). Either of these parts of the complex humanity is\ncapable of life ([Greek: zoe]) and of immortality. Either of them is\ncapable of being in a state of death, though the import of this\ndiffers in its application to each. In Genesis, the body is composed\nof the ordinary earth-materials--the \"dust of the ground.\" The higher\nnature is seen in the \"shadow and likeness of God,\" and in the\ninbreathing of the Divine Spirit whereby man became a \"living soul\" in\na higher sense than that in which the animals possess the ordinary\n\"breath of life.\" With these views agree the later doctrines of the\nBible as to the \"trichotomy\" of \"body, soul, and spirit\" in man, and\nof the added influence of the Spirit of God as acting on humanity.\n\n\nE.--RECENT FACTS AS TO THE ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN.\n\nSeveral recent statements as to new facts supposed to prove a\npreglacial antiquity for our species have been promulgated in\nscientific journals; but so great doubt rests upon them that they do\nnot invalidate the statement that the earliest human remains belong to\nthe postglacial age. I may refer to the following:\n\nA very remarkable discovery was made in 1875 by Professor Rutimeyer,\nof Basle. In a brown coal deposit of Tertiary, or at least of\n\"interglacial\" age--whatever that may mean in Switzerland--he found\nsome fragments of wood so interlaced as to resemble wattle or\nbasket-work. Steenstrup has, however, re-examined the evidence, and\nadduces strong reasons for the conclusion that the alleged human\nworkmanship is really that of beavers.\n\nThe Swedish geologists have shown that there is no properly\nPalaeolithic age in Scandinavia, and that even the reindeer had\nprobably disappeared from Denmark and Sweden before their occupation\nby man. Some facts, however, seemed to indicate a residence of man in\nSweden before the great post-pliocene subsidence. One of the most\nimportant of these is the celebrated hut of Sodertelge, referred to in\nthis connection by Lyell. Recent observations have, however, shown\nthat this hut was really covered by a landslip, and that its age may\nnot be greater than eight centuries. Torel has recently explained this\nin the Proceedings of the Archaeological Congress of Stockholm.\n\nThe human bone found in the Victoria Cave at Settle, apparently under\na patch of boulder-clay, has been regarded as a good evidence of the\npreglacial origin of man. It has, however, always appeared to readers\nof the description as a very doubtful case; and Professor Hughes, of\nCambridge, has recently expressed the opinion that the drift covering\nthe bone may be merely a \"pocket\" of that material disengaged from a\ncavity in the limestone by the wearing of the cliff.\n\nThe same geologist has also shown reason to believe that the supposed\ncase of the occurrence of palaeolithic implements under boulder-clay\nnear Brandon, discovered by Mr. Skertchley, and paraded by Geikie as a\ndemonstration of the \"interglacial\" antiquity of man, in accordance\nwith his system of successive glacial periods, is really an error, and\nhas no foundation in the facts of the case.\n\nMr. Pengelly has endeavored to maintain the value of the deposit of\nstalagmite as a means of establishing dates, in his \"Notes of Recent\nNotices of the Geology of Devonshire,\" Part I., 1874; but, I confess,\nwith little success. He urges, in opposition to the Ingleborough Cave,\nthat at Cheddar, where, according to him, no appreciable deposit\nwhatever is taking place on the existing stalagmite. But this, of\ncourse, is evidence not applicable to the case in hand, as in the\nCheddar case no stalagmite crust whatever would be produced. There\nare, no doubt, crevices and caves in which old stalagmite is even\nbeing removed or diminished in thickness. He farther asserts that in\nKent's Cave teeth of the cave bear and other extinct animals are found\ncovered by not more than an inch and a half of stalagmite, and\nconsequently that if this were deposited at the rate of a quarter of\nan inch per annum--the supposed rate on the \"Jockey Cap\" at\nIngleborough--these animals must have lived in Devonshire only six\nyears ago, which is, of course, absurd. But he fails to perceive that\nthis mode of occurrence is quite intelligible on the supposition of a\nrapid decrease in the amount of deposition in the later part of the\nstalagmite period. He farther refers to the fact that the thicker\nmasses of stalagmite, which correspond to the places of more active\ndrip of water, are in the same position in both crusts of stalagmite.\nThis shows that the sources of water containing bicarbonate of lime\nhave been the same from the first; but it proves nothing as to the\nrate of deposit.\n\nMr. Pengelly's own estimate of the rate of deposit gives, however, a\nlength of time which is sufficient to show that there must be error\nsomewhere in his calculations. He states the aggregate thickness of\nthe two crusts at twelve feet, and then, assuming a rate of deposit of\n0.05 inch in 250 years, or one inch in 5000 years, he arrives at the\nconclusion that the whole deposit required 720,000 years for its\nformation. He is \"willing to suppose\" the mechanical deposits to have\naccumulated more rapidly; but allowing one fourth of the time for\nthem, we have nearly a million of years claimed for the residence of\nman in Devonshire, which, independently of other considerations, would\npush back the Palaeozoic trilobites and corals of that county into the\nprimitive reign of fire, and which in point of fact amounts to a\n_reductio ad absurdum_ of the whole argument.\n\nProfessor Hughes[154] refers, as a case of rapid deposition of matter\nakin to stalagmite, to the deposit of travertine in the old Roman\naqueduct of the Pont du Gard, near Avignon, where a thickness of\nfourteen inches seems to have accumulated in about 800 years. Mr. J.\nCarey has given in _Nature_, December 18, 1873, another instance where\na deposit 0.75 inch thick was formed in fifteen years in a lead mine\nin Durham. Mr. W. B. Clarke in the same journal gives a case where in\na cave at Brixton, known as Poole's Hole, a deposit one eighth of an\ninch in thickness was formed in six months. Such examples show how\nunsafe it is to reason as to the rate of deposit in by-gone times, and\nwhen climatal and local conditions may have been very different from\nthose at present subsisting.\n\nIn an able address before the biological section of the British\nAssociation in 1876, Wallace adduces the following considerations as\nbearing on these questions; and these are well worthy of attention as\nshowing that it is the necessities of evolution rather than of\ngeological facts that demand the assumption of a great antiquity for\nman, and induce so many writers to accept any evidence for this,\nhowever doubtful: (1) The great cerebral development of the so-called\nPalaeolithic men, which shows no indications of graduating into\ninferior races. (2) The great variety of the implements of these\nancient men, and the excellence of their carvings on bone and ivory,\npoint to a similar conclusion. (3) Man is not related to any existing\nspecies of ape, but in various ways to several different species. (4)\nThere is an accumulation of evidence to show that the earliest\nhistorical races excelled in many processes in the arts and in many\nkinds of culture. He instances the wonderful mechanical and\nengineering skill evidenced in the pyramids of Egypt in proof of this.\nHis conclusion is either that the origin of man by development from\napes must be pushed much farther back than any geologists at present\nhold, and I may add far beyond any probable date, or that he must have\noriginated by some \"distinct and higher agency\"--which last is no\ndoubt the true conclusion.\n\nHaeckel, in his recent work, the \"History of Creation,\" sketches the\ndevelopment of man from a monad, in twenty-two stages; but he has to\nadmit that stage twenty-first, or that of the \"Ape-like man,\" nowhere\nexists, either recent or fossil. He has to assume that this missing\nlink has perished in the submergence of an imaginary continent of\nLemuria, in the Indian Ocean; and it is instructive to observe that,\nafter deducting this, his affiliation of the races of men, as\nindicated in a map of the distribution of the species, is in the main\nvery similar to that with which we are familiar in ordinary\ncollections of maps illustrative of the Bible.\n\nThe Post-glacial, Palaeocosmic, or Palaeolithic men of Europe are not\nimprobably antediluvian; and as to their precise date we know little.\nAs to postdiluvian man, Canon Rawlinson has recently pointed out[155]\nthe remarkable convergence of all historic dates toward a time between\n2000 to 3000 years B.C., or about the date of the Biblical deluge,\nwhich may reasonably be inferred to have occurred about 3200 B.C. He\ngives the following summary of historical origins as ascertained from\nthe best data, and which accord with the representation of the Bible\nthat in the time of Abraham the great monarchies of Egypt and the East\nwere scarcely more powerful than the nomad tribe led by that\npatriarch:\n\n  Oldest date of Babylon       2300 B.C.\n    \"     \"      Assyria       1500\n    \"     \"      Iran          1500\n    \"     \"      India         1200\n    \"     \"      China         1154\n    \"     \"      Phoenicia   1700\n    \"     \"      Troad         2000\n    \"     \"      Egypt         2760\n  Sept. date of Deluge         3200\n\nHe rejects, of course, the fabulous chronologies of Egypt, China, and\nIndia as mythical, or referring to prehuman and antediluvian periods.\nIt is to be observed that while these dates place the origins of the\noldest civilized nations at periods considerably subsequent to the\ndeluge, they do not prevent us from supposing that these nations\ncommenced their existence wills an advanced civilization borrowed from\nantediluvian times, which is indeed a fair conclusion from the\nBiblical history, independently of the monumental evidence referred to\nby Wallace in a previous paragraph.\n\nThe Duke of Argyll, in his excellent little work \"Primeval Man,\" in\nwhich he discusses the arguments in favor of primitive savagery\nadvanced by Sir J. Lubbock in opposition to the views of Archbishop\nWhately in his lecture on the \"Origin of Civilization,\" shows that\nthere is no necessity to suppose a slow progress of mankind in the\narts extending over indefinite ages; and his argument in this respect\nconnects itself with the facts as to the high cerebral organization of\nPalaeocosmic men referred to above by Wallace. In summing up one\ndivision of his argument, he truly remarks: \"If we assume with the\nsupporters of the savage-theory that man has himself invented all that\nhe now knows, then the very earliest inventions of our race must have\nbeen the most wonderful of all, and the richest in the fruits they\nbore. The man who first discovered the use of fire, and the use of\nthose grasses which we now know under the name of corn, were\ndiscoverers compared with whom, as regards the value of their ideas to\nthe world, Faraday and Wheatstone are but the inventors of ingenious\ntoys. It may possibly be true, as Whately argues, that man never could\nhave discovered these things without divine instruction. If so, it is\nfatal to the savage theory. But it is equally fatal to that theory if\nwe assume the opposite position, and suppose that the noblest\ndiscoveries ever made by man were made by him in primeval times.\"\n\nI may add that this is true, however far into antiquity we may stretch\nback these primeval times.\n\nProfessor E. S. Morse, in his address to the American Association, in\n1876, as vice-president, takes as a theme the contributions of\nAmerican zoologists to theories of evolution, and closes with those\nwhich refer to what he modestly terms \"man's lowly origin.\" These\ncontributions he sums up under three heads, as bearing on the\nfollowing points: \"1. That in his earlier stages he reveals certain\npersistent characters of the ape; 2. That the more ancient men reveal\nmore ape-like features than the present existing men; and, 3. That\ncertain characteristics pertaining to early men still persist in the\ninferior races of men.\" Under the first head he gives contributions to\nthe well-known fact that embryonic stages of the human being, like\nthose of other high types, approximate to forms permanent in lower\ntypes. This is a fact inseparable from the law of reproduction; and as\nhas been already shown in the text, absolutely without logical\nsignificance as even an analogical argument in favor of evolution.\nUnder the second and third heads, he refers to cases of exceptional\nskulls and bones belonging to idiots and degraded races of men, as\nshowing tendencies to lower forms, which as a matter of course they\ndo, though with essential differences still marking them as human; and\nhe assumes without any proof that these were relatively more common in\nprimitive times, and that they are cases of reversion to a previous\nsimian stage, instead of being results of abnormal conditions in the\nindividual or variety. He sums up these arguments in the following\nparagraph:\n\n\"If we take into account the rapidly accumulating data of European\nnaturalists concerning primitive man, with the mass of evidence\npresented in these notes, we find an array of facts which irresistibly\npoint to a common origin with animals directly below us, and these\nevidences are found in the massive skulls with coarse ridges for\nmuscular attachments, the rounding of the base of the nostrils, the\nearly ossification of the nasal bones, the small cranial capacity in\ncertain forms, the prominence of the frontal crest, the posterior\nposition of the _foramen magnum_, the approximation of the temporal\nridges, the lateral flattening of the tibia, the perforation of the\nhumerus, the tendency of the pelvis to depart from its usual\nproportions; and, associated with all these, a rudeness of culture and\nthe evidence of the manifestation of the coarsest instincts. He must\nbe blind, indeed, who can not recognize the bearing of such grave and\nsuggestive modifications.\"\n\nYet Professor Morse knows that there is no true specific or even\ngeneric kinship between man and any species of ape; that the phenomena\nof idiocy and degeneracy have no real resemblance to those of distinct\nspecific types; that the resemblances of man to apes, such as they\nare, point not in a direct manner to any stock of apes, but in a\ndesultory way to several; and consequently that, if derived from any\nsuch animals, it must be from some stock altogether unknown to us as\nyet, either among recent or fossil animals. Farther, as Cope, himself\nan evolutionist, admits, while we can trace the skeletons of Eocene\nmammals through several directions of specialization in succeeding\nTertiary times, man presents the phenomenon of an unspecialized\nskeleton which can not fairly be connected with any of these lines.\nLastly, his quotation from Fiske, with reference to the supposed\neffect of a protracted infancy to develop the moral characteristics of\nman, though accompanied with the usual unfair and unreasonable sneer\n(which a naturalist like Morse should have been ashamed to quote)\nagainst men \"still capable of believing that the human race was\ncreated by miracle in a single day,\" is the feeblest possible attempt\nto bridge over the gap between the spiritual nature of man and the\nmerely psychical nature of brutes.\n\nIt is plain that if American naturalists have done nothing more in\nfavor of the lowly origin of man than that which Professor Morse has\nbeen able, evidently with much industry and pains, to gather, we need\nnot for the present abandon our claims to a higher origin. It is\nfarther significant in connection with this that Professor Huxley, in\nhis lectures in New York, while resting his case as to the lower\nanimals mainly on the supposed genealogy of the horse, which has often\nbeen shown to amount to no certain evidence,[156] avoided altogether\nthe discussion of the origin of man from apes, now obviously\ncomplicated with so many difficulties that both Wallace and Mivart\nare staggered by them. Professor Thomas, in his recent lectures,[157]\nadmits that there is no lower man known than the Australian, and that\nthere is no known link of connection with the monkeys; and\nHaeckel[158] has to admit that the penultimate link in his phylogeny,\nthe ape-like man, is absolutely unknown.\n\nIn Chapter XIII. I have not touched on the question of the absolute\norigin of language--this not being necessary to my argument. On this\ninteresting subject, however, we have, in the naming of the animals by\nthe first man, recorded in the second chapter of Genesis, not only the\nprimary truth of his superiority to them, but a farther indication\nthat the roots of human speech, other than interjectional, lie in\nonomatopoeia, and especially in the voices of animals, and that the\ngift of speech was not the slow growth of ages, but an endowment of\nman from the first, just as much as any of his other powers or\nproperties. An interesting discussion of this subject will be found in\nthe concluding chapters of Wilson's \"Prehistoric Man,\" second edition.\nFarther, the so-called \"tallies\" found with the bones of Palaeocosmic\nmen in European caves, and illustrated in the admirable work of\nChristy and Lartet, show that the rudiments even of writing were\nalready in possession of the oldest race of men known to archaeology or\ngeology. (See Wilson, _op. cit._, vol. ii., p. 54.)\n\nI have not noticed, except incidentally, the alleged discoveries of\nvery ancient human remains in America, as they all appear very\nproblematical. There is, however, some evidence of the coexistence of\nman with the mastodon and other postglacial animals in Illinois and\nelsewhere.\n\n\nF.--BEARING OF GLACIAL PERIODS UPON THE INTERPRETATION OF\nGENESIS.\n\nWhatever views may be taken as to that period of cold which occurs at\nthe close of the Tertiary and beginning of the Modern period, it can\nnot be held to have constituted any such break as to be considered, as\nit was at one time, an equivalent for the Biblical chaos. This is\nproved by the survival through this period of a very large proportion\nof the animals and plants still existing in the northern hemisphere.\nThe chronological system of animals and plants has been continuous, as\nthe Bible represents it, since their first appearance on earth.\n\nIt is further remarkable that while there is geological evidence of\nclimates colder than the present in the temperate regions, there is\nequally good proof of warmer climates even within the arctic circle\nthan those of the cold temperate regions at present. It is difficult\nto account for these vicissitudes of climate, and much controversy\nexists on the subject; but it seems certain that in the earlier\nTertiary and Cretaceous periods, for example, the supplies of heat and\nlight were so diffused over the earth as to permit the growth of a\ntemperate vegetation in Greenland, and even in Spitzbergen.\nGeologists, however unwillingly, have been obliged to admit this as\none of those great possibilities, altogether unexpected beforehand,\nwhich have been developed in the history of our planet. Various modes\nof explaining this succession of cold and warm periods have been\nadopted, all more or less hypothetical. Lyell has argued that it may\nbe explained by a different distribution of land and water and of the\nocean currents. Croll accounts for it by the varying eccentricity of\nthe earth's orbit, in connection with the precession of the equinoxes.\nEvans by a shifting of the axis of rotation of the earth. Drayson,\nBell, Warring, and others, by a change in the inclination of the\nearth's axis. Others by the secular diminution of the internal heat of\nthe earth, and of that of the sun. Others by the supposed recurrence\nof periods in which the sun gives more or less heat, or in which the\nearth is passing through colder or warmer regions of space. As the\nsubject is of interest with reference to possible correspondences of\nthese great summers and winters of the earth with the stages of the\ncreative work, it may be well to notice shortly the relative merits of\nthese theories.\n\n(1.) The hypothesis of Croll is one of the most ingenious and\nelaborate of the whole; but it has two great defects. One is that the\ncauses alleged are so uncertain and so complicated that it is\ndifficult to estimate their real value. Another is that it proves too\nmuch, namely, a regular succession of cold and warm periods throughout\ngeological time, of which we have no good evidence, and which is on\nmany grounds improbable.\n\n(2.) That the earth's axis of rotation has continued unchanged\nthroughout the whole of the geological ages seems proved by the fact\nthat the principal lines of crumpling and upheaval from the Laurentian\nperiod downward are arranged in great circles of the earth tangent to\nthe polar circle; and that the lines of deposit of sediment in the\nPalaeozoic age are coincident with the present direction of the arctic\ncurrents.\n\n(3.) Astronomers consider it improbable that the obliquity of the\necliptic has materially changed, and serious differences of opinion\nexist as to the effects which a greater or less obliquity would\nproduce on climate. It seems certain, however, that a less obliquity\nwould occasion a more uniform distribution of heat and light\nthroughout the year; and this, co-operating with other causes leading\nto a warm climate, might enable a temperate vegetation to approach the\npole more closely than at present.\n\n(4.) That the energy of the sun's radiation and the internal heat of\nthe earth have been slowly decreasing seems certain; but it is now\ngenerally admitted that these changes are so gradual that little\neffect can have been produced by them, except in the older geological\nperiods, and that they can have no connection with the great glacial\nperiod of the Post-pliocene.\n\n(5.) It is otherwise with the hypothesis that the sun's heat may, like\nthat of some variable stars, have increased and diminished. There is,\nof course, no direct evidence of this, except the small differences\nobserved in cycles of eleven and fifty-five years from the greater or\nless development of sunspots, and the analogy of observed variable\nstars. Still it is a possible cause of variations of climate. It might\nalso aid in accounting for the extraordinary evidences of desert\nconditions and desiccation presented by the salt deposits of different\ngeological periods in temperate latitudes.\n\n(6.) The theory of the passage of the earth through zones of space of\nvariable temperature is now generally abandoned, as there seems no\nreason to believe that such differences exist.\n\n(7.) The theory of Lyell that changes in the distribution of land and\nwater may, with the possible co-operation of other causes, have\nproduced the observed diversities of climate, is that which seems best\nto meet the conditions presented. It is based on the known properties\nof land and water as to the absorption, radiation, and convection of\nheat, and on the remarkable diversities of climate in similar\nlatitudes arising from this cause at present. Farther, it accords with\nthe known fact that very great changes of level have occurred in\nconnection with the glacial period. This theory undoubtedly embraces a\ntrue cause, admitted by all geologists, and it dispenses with the\nnecessity of believing in the recurrence of glacial periods at regular\nintervals. It farther accords best with the evidence afforded by\nfossils, and especially by fossil plants. It has also the merit of\ndirecting due attention to the diversities of geographical conditions\nat different periods, and of dealing with causes of change operating\nwithin the earth itself. The only doubt with respect to it is its\nsufficiency to explain the changes which have occurred, and the view\nentertained of this will depend very much on the interpretation of the\nfacts as to the intensity of the last glacial period. If moderate\nviews can be taken of this, and if means can be found, by a less\nobliquity of the ecliptic or otherwise, to furnish a continuous supply\nof light in the arctic regions, the difficulties which have been\nalleged against it would disappear.\n\n(8.) In connection with former periods of cold and warmth, and with\nthe existence of temperate and tropical vegetation in polar latitudes,\nwe should not forget that view which takes into account the probable\neffects of different conditions of the atmosphere, and the greater\nquantity of carbonic acid present in it, in early geological periods.\nThis would, of course, best apply to the palaeozoic floras, in so far\nas our present knowledge extends; but there may have been similar\nconditions in later periods. Dr. Sterry Hunt thus states this\nhypothesis:\n\n\"The agency of plants in purifying the primitive atmosphere was long\nsince pointed out by Brongniart, and our great stores of fossil fuel\nhave been derived from the decomposition, by the ancient vegetation,\nof the excess of carbonic acid of the early atmosphere, which through\nthis agency was exchanged for oxygen gas. In this connection the\nvegetation of former periods presents the curious phenomenon of plants\nallied to those now growing beneath the tropics flourishing within the\npolar circles. Many ingenious hypotheses have been proposed to account\nfor the warmer climate of earlier times, but are at best\nunsatisfactory, and it appears to me that the true solution of the\nproblem may be found in the constitution of the early atmosphere, when\nconsidered in the light of Dr. Tyndall's beautiful researches on\nradiant heat. He has found that the presence of a few hundredths of\ncarbonic-acid gas in the atmosphere, while offering almost no obstacle\nto the passage of the solar rays, would suffice to prevent almost\nentirely the loss by radiation of obscure heat, so that the surface of\nthe land beneath such an atmosphere would become like a vast\norchard-house, in which the conditions of climate necessary to a\nluxuriant vegetation would be extended even to the polar regions.\"\n\nIt is obvious that, in the production of complex effects of this kind,\nvarious causes, whether astronomical or connected with the mutations\nof the earth's crust, may have co-operated, and probably in all\nextreme cases did co-operate.\n\nIn any case it is evident that the vicissitudes of climate and the\ngreat pulsations of the crust, which have raised and depressed\nportions of the surface and changed the position of its covering of\nwaters, have been potent agents in the hands of the Creator in\neffecting the changes and succession of living beings, which are thus,\nas Genesis intimates, children of the waters and of the land, and of\nthe influences of the heavens. It is also interesting in this\nconnection to observe that the occurrence of such periods of general\nwarm climate as that in the Miocene shows that it would have been\npossible for man, under certain conditions, to have extended himself\nfar more widely in his Edenic state than we can conceive of in the\npresent condition of the earth. The modern world is perhaps even in\nthis way \"cursed\" for man's sake.\n\n\nG.--DR. STERRY HUNT ON THE CHEMISTRY OF THE PRIMEVAL EARTH.\n\nOn looking back to the reference to this subject in Chapter V., I\nthink it may be desirable to present to the reader in some more\ndefinite manner the conditions of a forming world; and I can not do\nthis in any other way so well as by quoting the words of Dr. Sterry\nHunt, as given in the abstract of his lecture on this subject\ndelivered before the Royal Institution of London in 1867:\n\n\"This hypothesis of the nature of the sun and of the luminous process\ngoing on at its surface is the one lately put forward by Faye, and,\nalthough it has met with opposition, appears to be that which accords\nbest with our present knowledge of the chemical and physical\nconditions of matter, such as we must suppose it to exist in the\ncondensing gaseous mass which, according to the nebular hypothesis,\nshould form the centre of our solar system. Taking this, as we have\nalready done, for granted, it matters little whether we imagine the\ndifferent planets to have been successively detached as rings during\nthe rotation of the primal mass, as is generally conceived, or whether\nwe admit with Chacornac a process of aggregation or concretion,\noperating within the primal nebular mass, resulting in the production\nof sun and planets. In either case we come to the conclusion that our\nearth must at one time have been in an intensely heated gaseous\ncondition, such as the sun now presents, self-luminous, and with a\nprocess of condensation going on at first at the surface only, until\nby cooling it must have reached the point where the gaseous centre\nwas exchanged for one of combined and liquefied matter.\n\n\"Here commences the chemistry of the earth, to the discussion of which\nthe foregoing considerations have been only preliminary. So long as\nthe gaseous condition of the earth lasted, we may suppose the whole\nmass to have been homogeneous; but when the temperature became so\nreduced that the existence of chemical compounds at the centre became\npossible, those which were most stable at the elevated temperature\nthen prevailing would be first formed. Thus, for example, while\ncompounds of oxygen with mercury or even with hydrogen could not\nexist, oxides of silicon, aluminium, calcium, magnesium, and iron\nmight be formed and condense in a liquid form at the centre of the\nglobe. By progressive cooling, still other elements would be removed\nfrom the gaseous mass, which would form the atmosphere of the\nnon-gaseous nucleus. We may suppose an arrangement of the condensed\nmatters at the centre according to their respective specific\ngravities, and thus the fact that the density of the earth as a whole\nis about twice the mean density of the matters which form its solid\nsurface may be explained. Metallic or metalloidal compounds of\nelements, grouped differently from any compounds known to us, and far\nmore dense, may exist in the centre of the earth.\n\n\"The process of combination and cooling having gone on until those\nelements which are not volatile in the heat of our ordinary furnaces\nwere condensed into a liquid form, we may here inquire what would be\nthe result, upon the mass, of a further reduction of temperature. It\nis generally assumed that in the cooling of a liquid globe of mineral\nmatter, congelation would commence at the surface, as in the case of\nwater; but water offers an exception to most other liquids, inasmuch\nas it is denser in the liquid than in the solid form. Hence ice floats\non water, and freezing water becomes covered with a layer of ice,\nwhich protects the liquid below. With most other matters, however,\nand notably with the various mineral and earthy compounds analogous to\nthose which may be supposed to have formed the fiery-fluid earth,\nnumerous and careful experiments show that the products of\nsolidification are much denser than the liquid mass; so that\nsolidification would have commenced at the centre, whose temperature\nwould thus be the congealing point of these liquid compounds. The\nimportant researches of Hopkins and Fairbairn on the influence of\npressure in augmenting the melting-point of such compounds as contract\nin solidifying are to be considered in this connection.\n\n\"It is with the superficial portions of the fused mineral mass of the\nglobe that we have now to do; since there is no good reason for\nsupposing that the deeply seated portions have intervened in any\ndirect manner in the production of the rocks which form the\nsuperficial crust. This, at the time of its first solidification,\npresented probably an irregular, diversified surface from the result\nof contraction of the congealing mass, which at last formed a liquid\nbath of no great depth surrounding the solid nucleus. It is to the\ncomposition of this crust that we must direct our attention, since\ntherein would be found all the elements (with the exception of such as\nwere still in the gaseous form) now met with in the known rocks of the\nearth. This crust is now everywhere buried beneath its own ruins, and\nwe can only from chemical considerations attempt to reconstruct it. If\nwe consider the conditions through which it has passed, and the\nchemical affinities which must have come into play, we shall see that\nthese are just what would now result if the solid land, sea, and air\nwere made to react upon each other under the influence of intense\nheat. To the chemist it is at once evident that from this would result\nthe conversion of all carbonates, chlorides, and sulphates into\nsilicates, and the separation of the carbon, chlorine, and sulphur in\nthe form of acid gases, which, with nitrogen, watery vapor, and a\nprobable excess of oxygen, would form the dense primeval atmosphere.\nThe resulting fused mass would contain all the bases as silicates, and\nmust have much resembled in composition certain furnace-slags or\nvolcanic glasses. The atmosphere, charged with acid gases, which\nsurrounded this primitive rock must have been of immense density.\nUnder the pressure of such a high barometric column, condensation\nwould take place at a temperature much above the present boiling-point\nof water, and the depressed portions of the half-cooled crust would be\nflooded with a highly heated solution of hydrochloric acid, whose\naction in decomposing the silicates is easily intelligible to the\nchemist. The formation of chlorides of the various bases, and the\nseparation of silica, would go on until the affinities of the acid\nwere satisfied, and there would be a separation of silica, taking the\nform of quartz, and the production of a sea-water holding in solution,\nbesides the chlorides of sodium, calcium, and magnesium, salts of\naluminium and other metallic bases. The atmosphere, being thus\ndeprived of its volatile chlorine and sulphur compounds, would\napproximate to that of our own time, but differ in its greater amount\nof carbonic acid.\n\n\"We next enter into the second phase in the action of the atmosphere\nupon the earth's crust. This, unlike the first, which was subaqueous,\nor operative only on the portion covered with the precipitated water,\nis sub-aerial, and consists in the decomposition of the exposed parts\nof the primitive crust under the influence of the carbonic acid and\nmoisture of the air, which convert the complex silicates of the crust\ninto a silicate of alumina, or clay, while the separated lime,\nmagnesia, and alkalies, being converted into carbonates, are carried\ndown into the sea in a state of solution.\n\n\"The first effect of these dissolved carbonates would be to\nprecipitate the dissolved alumina and the heavy metals, after which\nwould result a decomposition of the chloride of calcium of the\nsea-water, resulting in the production of carbonate of lime or\nlimestone, and chloride of sodium or common salt. This process is one\nstill going on at the earth's surface, slowly breaking down and\ndestroying the hardest rocks, and, aided by mechanical processes,\ntransforming them into clays; although the action, from the\ncomparative rarity of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, is less\nenergetic than in earlier times, when the abundance of this gas, and a\nhigher temperature, favored the chemical decomposition of the rocks.\nBut now, as then, every clod of clay formed from the decay of a\ncrystalline rock corresponded to an equivalent of carbonic acid\nabstracted from the atmosphere, and equivalents of carbonate of lime\nand common salt formed from the chloride of calcium of the\nsea-water.\"[159]\n\n\nH.--TANNIN AND BHEMAH.\n\nThe following synopsis of the instances of the occurrence of the words\n_tannin_ and _tan_ will serve to show the propriety of the meaning,\n\"great reptiles,\" assigned in the text to the former, as well as to\nillustrate the utility in such cases of \"comparing Scripture with\nScripture:\"\n\n                            1. TANNIN.\n\n  Exod. vii., 9.--Take thy rod and  Probably a serpent, though perhaps\n  cast it before Pharaoh, and it a  crocodile.\n  shall become a _serpent_.         (Septuagint, \"[Greek: drakon].\")\n\n  Deut. xxxii., 33.--Their vine is  Probably a species of serpent.\n  the poison of _dragons_.          (Septuagint, \"[Greek: drakon].\")\n\n  Job vii., 12.--Am I a sea, or a   Michaelis and others think,\n  _whale_, that thou settest a      probably correctly, that the Nile\n  watch over me.                    and the crocodile, both objects of\n                                    vigilance to the Egyptians, are\n                                    intended.\n                                    (Septuagint, \"[Greek: drakon].\")\n\n  Psa. lxxiv., 14.--Thou didst      Evidently refers to the destruction\n  divide the sea by thy strength.   of the Egyptians in the Red\n  Thou breakest the heads of the    Sea, under emblem of the crocodile.\n  _dragons_ in the waters.          (Septuagint, \"[Greek: drakon].\")\n\n  Psa. xci., 13.--The young lion    The association shows that a\n  and the _dragon_ thou shalt       powerful carnivorous animal is\n  trample under foot.               meant.\n                                    (Septuagint, \"[Greek: drakon].\")\n\n  Psa. cxlviii., 7.--Praise the     Evidently an aquatic creature.\n  Lord, ye _dragons_ and all deeps. (Septuagint, \"[Greek: drakon].\")\n\n  Isa. xxvii., 1.--He shall slay    A large predaceous aquatic animal\n  the _dragon_ in the midst of the  (the crocodile), used here as\n  sea [river].                      an emblem of Egypt.\n                                    (Septuagint, \"[Greek: drakon].\")\n\n  Isa. li., 9.--Hath cut Rahab and  Same as above.\n  wounded the _dragon_.\n\n  Jer. li., 34.--[Nebuchadnezzar]   A large predaceous animal.\n  hath swallowed me up as a         (Septuagint, [Greek: \"drakon.\"])\n  _dragon_.\n\n  Ezek. xxix., 3.--Pharaoh, king    In the Hebrew _tanim_ appears by\n  of Egypt, the great _dragon_      mistake for _tannin_. This is\n  that lieth in the rivers.         clearly the crocodile of the Nile.\n                                    Verses 4 and 5 show that it is a\n                                    large aquatic animal with _scales_.\n                                    (Septuagint, [Greek: \"drakon.\"])\n\n                            2. TAN.\n\n  Psa. xliv., 19.--Thou hast sore   Some understand this of shipwreck;\n  broken us in the place of         but, more probably, the\n  _dragons_.                        place of dragons is the desert.\n                                    (Septuagint, [Greek: \"kakosis.\"])\n\n  Isa. xxxiv., 13.--[Bozrah in      An animal inhabiting ruins, and\n  Idumea] shall be a habitation of  associated with the ostrich.\n  _dragons_ and a court of owls [or (Septuagint, [Greek: \"seiren.\"])\n  ostriches].\n\n  Isa. xliii., 20.--The wild        Evidently an animal of the dry\n  beasts shall honor me,            deserts.\n  the _dragons_ and the ostriches,  (Septuagint, [Greek: \"seiren.\"])\n  because I give water in the\n  wilderness.\n\n  Isa. xiii., 22.--Dragons in       Represented as inhabiting the\n  their pleasant palaces.           ruins of Babylon, and associated\n                                    with wild beasts of the desert.\n                                    (Septuagint, [Greek: \"xchinos.\"])\n\n  Isa. xxxv., 7.--And the parched   An animal making its lair or nest\n  ground shall become a pool, and   in dry, parched places.\n  the thirsty land springs of       (Septuagint, [Greek: \"hornis.\"])\n  water; in the habitation of\n  _dragons_, where each lay, shall\n  be grass with reeds and rushes.\n\n  Job xxx., 29.--I am a brother of  The association indicates an animal\n  _dragons_ and a companion of      of the desert, and the context\n  ostriches.                        that its cry is mournful.\n                                    (Septuagint, [Greek: \"seiren.\"])\n\n  Jer. ix., 11; x., 22.--I will     Same as above. See also Jeremiah\n  make Jerusalem heaps, a den of    xlix., 33; li., 37; and Mal. i., 3,\n  _dragons_.                        where the word is in the female\n                                    form (_tanoth_).\n                                    (Septuagint, [Greek: \"drakon\"] and\n                                    [Greek: \"strouthos.\"])\n\n  Lam. iv., 3.--Even the            In the Hebrew text the word is\n  _sea-monsters_ draw out the       _tannin_, evidently an error for\n  breast, they give suck to their   _tanim_. The suckling of young, and\n  young ones. The daughter of my    association of ostriches, agree with\n  people is become cruel, like      this. (Septuagint, \"[Greek: drakon].\")\n  the ostriches in the wilderness.\n\n  Micah i., 8.--I will make a       The wailing cry accords with the\n  wailing like the _dragons_, and   view of Gesenius that the jackal is\n  mourning like the owls            meant.\n  [ostriches].                      (Septuagint, \"[Greek: drakon].\")\n\nWe learn from the above comparative view that the _tannin_ is an\naquatic animal of large size, and predaceous, clothed with scales, and\na fit emblem of the monarchies of Egypt and Assyria. In two places it\nis possible that some species of serpent is denoted by it. We must\nsuppose, therefore, that in Genesis i. it denotes large crocodilian\nand perhaps serpentiform reptiles. The _tan_ is evidently a small\nmammal of the desert.\n\nI omitted to notice in the text a criticism of my explanation of the\nword _bhemah_ in \"Archaia,\" made in Archdeacon Pratt's \"Scripture and\nScience not at Variance\" (edition of 1872). He opposes to the meaning\nof \"herbivorous animals\" which I have sought to establish, two\nexceptional passages. In one of these, Deut. xxviii., 26, the word is\nused in its most general sense for all beasts, which the context shows\ncan not be its meaning in Gen. i. In the other, Prov. xxx., 30, he\nsays it is applied to the lion. The actual expression used, however,\nmerely implies that the lion is \"mighty among _bhemah_,\" the\ncomparison being probably between the strength of the lion and that of\noxen, antelopes, and other strong and active creatures. It does not\naffirm that the lion is one of the _bhemah_. While I have every\nrespect for the erudition of Archdeacon Pratt, and highly value his\nbook, I must regard this objection as an example of a style of\nbiblical exposition much to be deprecated, though too often employed.\n\n\nI.--ANCIENT MYTHOLOGIES.\n\nThe current views respecting the relations of ancient mythologies with\neach other and with the Bible have been continually shifting and\noscillating between extremes. The latest and at present most popular\nof these extreme views is that so well expounded by Dr. Max Mueller in\nhis various essays on these subjects, and which traces at least the\nIndo-European theogony to a mere personification of natural objects.\nThe views given in the text are those which to the author appear alone\ncompatible with the Bible, and with the relations of Semitic and Aryan\ntheology; but, as the subject is generally regarded from a quite\ndifferent point of view, a little further explanation may be\nnecessary.\n\n1. According to the Bible, spiritual monotheism is the primitive faith\nof man, and with this it ranks the doctrine of a malignant spirit or\nbeing opposed to God, and of a primitive state of perfection and\nhappiness. It is scarcely necessary to say that these doctrines may be\nfound as sub-strata in all the ancient theologies.\n\n2. In the Hebrew theology the fall introduces the new doctrine of a\nmediator or deliverer, human and divine, and an external symbolism,\nthat of the cherubic forms, composite figures made up of parts of the\nman, the lion, the ox, and the eagle. These forms are referred back to\nEden, where they are manifestly the emblems of the perfections of the\nDeity, lost to man by the fall, and now opposed to his entrance into\nEden and access to the tree of life, the symbol of his immortal\nhappiness. Subsequently the cherubim are the visible indications of\nthe presence of God in the tabernacle and temple; and in the\nApocalypse they reappear as emblems of the Divine perfections, as\nreflected in the character of man redeemed. The cherubim, as guardians\nof the sacred tree, and of sacred places in general, appear in the\nworship of the Assyrians and Egyptians, as the winged lions and bulls\nof the former, and the sphinx of the latter. They can also be\nrecognized in the sepulchral monuments of Greek Asia and of Etruria.\nFarther, it was evidently an easy step to proceed from these cherubic\nfigures to the adoration of sacred animals. But the cherubic emblems\nwere connected with the idea of a coming Redeemer, and this was with\nequal ease perverted into hero-worship. Every great conqueror,\ninventor, or reformer was thus recognized as in some sense the \"coming\nman,\" just as Eve supposed she saw him in her first-born. In addition\nto this, the sacredness of the first mother as the mother of the\npromised seed of the woman, led to the introduction of female deities.\n\n3. The earliest ecclesiastical system was the patriarchal, and this\nalso admitted of corruption into idolatry. The great patriarch,\nvenerable by age and wisdom, when he left this earth for the spirit\nworld, was supposed there, in the presence of God, to be the special\nguardian of his children on earth. Some of the gods of Egypt and of\nGreece were obviously of this character, and in China and Polynesia we\nsee at this day this kind of idolatry in a condition of active\nvitality.\n\n4. As stated in the text, the mythology of Egypt and Greece bears\nevident marks of having personified certain cosmological facts akin to\nthose of the Hebrew narrative of creation. In this way ancient\nidolators disposed of the prehistoric and pre-Adamite world, changing\nit into a period of gods and demigods. This is very apparent in the\nremarkable Assyrian Genesis recovered by the late George Smith from\nthe clay tablets found in the ruined palace of Assurbanipal.\n\n5. In all rude and imaginative nations, which have lost the distinct\nidea of the one God, the Creator, nature becomes more or less a\nsource of superstitions. Its grand and more rare phenomena of\nvolcanoes, earthquakes, thunder-storms, eclipses, become supernatural\nportents; and as the idea of power associates itself with them, they\nare personified as actual agents and become gods. In like manner, the\nmore constant and useful objects and processes of nature become\npersonified as beneficent deities. This may be, to a great extent, the\ncharacter of the Aryan theology; but, except where all ideas of\nprimitive religion and traditions of early history have been lost, it\ncan not be the whole of the religion of any people. The Bible\nnegatively recognizes this source of idolatry, in so constantly\nreferring all natural phenomena to the divine decree. In connection\nwith this, it is worthy of remark that rude man tends to venerate the\nnew animal forms of strange lands. Something of this kind has probably\nled some of the American Indians to give a sort of divine honor to the\nbear. It was in Egypt that man first became familiar with the strange\nand gigantic fauna of Africa, whose effect on his mind in primitive\ntimes we may gather from the book of Job. In Egypt, consequently,\nthere must have been a strong natural tendency to the adoration of\nanimals.\n\nThe above origins of idolatry and mythology, as stated or implied in\nthe Bible, of course assume that the Semitic monotheistic religion is\nthe primitive one. The first deviations from it probably originated in\nthe family of Ham. A city of the Rephaim of Bashan was in the days of\nAbraham named after Ashtoreth Karnaim--the two-horned Astarte, a\nfemale divinity and prototype of Diana, and perhaps an historic\npersonage, in whom both the moon and the domestic ox were rendered\nobjects of worship. This is the earliest Bible notice of\nidolatry.[160] In Egypt a mythology of complex diversity existed at\nleast as far back. We must remember, however, that Egypt is Cush as\nwell as Mizraim, and its idolatry is probably to be traced, in the\nfirst instance, to the Nimrodic empire, from which, as from a common\ncentre, certain new and irreligious ideas seem to have been propagated\namong all the branches of the human family. It is quite probable that\nthe correspondences between Egyptian, Greek, and Hindoo myths go back\nas far as to the time when the first despotism was erected on the\nplain of Shinar, and when able but ungodly men set themselves to erect\nnew political and social institutions on the ruins of all that their\nfathers had held sacred. In addition to this, the mythology and\nlanguage of the Aryans alike bear the impress of the innovating and\nrestless spirit of the sons of Japhet.\n\nI have stated the above propositions to show that the Bible affords a\nrational and connected theory of the origin of the false religions of\nantiquity; and to suggest as inquiries in relation to every form of\nmythology--how much of it is primitive monotheism, how much\ncherub-worship, how much hero-worship, how much ancestor-worship, how\nmuch distorted cosmogony, how much pure idealism and superstition,\nsince all these are usually present. I may be allowed further to\nremind the reader how much evidence we have, even in modern times, of\nthe strong tendency of the human mind to fall into one or another of\nthese forms of idolatry; and to ask him to reflect that really the\nonly effectual conservative element is that of revelation. How strong\nan argument is this for the necessity to man of an inspired rule of\nreligious faith.\n\n[The above note was in substance contained in the Appendix to\n\"Archaia\" in 1860, and its correctness has, I think, been confirmed by\nsubsequent discoveries.]\n\n\nK.--ASSYRIAN AND EGYPTIAN TEXTS.\n\nProgress is continually being made in the decipherment and publication\nof these, and new facts are coming to light in consequence as to the\nreligions of the early postdiluvian period.\n\nAccording to the late George Smith and to Mr. Sayce, in their\ncontributions to Bagster's \"Records of the Past,\" the earliest\nmonumental history of Babylonia reveals two races, the Akkadian or\nUrdu, a Turanian race, with an agglutinate language of the Finnish or\nTartar type, and the Sumir or Keen-gi, believed to be Shemitic. The\nrace of Akkad seems to have invented the cuneiform writing at a very\nearly period, and it no doubt represents the primitive Cushites of the\nBible, to whom is attributed the empire of Nimrod, whose first cities\nwere Babel and Erech and Akkad and Calneh. Very ancient inscriptions\nof this early Chaldean or Cushite race exist, probably earlier than\nthe time of Abraham. That of king Urukh, who is called \"a very ancient\nking,\" on an inscription of Nabonadius, 555 B.C., represents himself\nas building temples to several gods and goddesses, so that in his time\nthere was already a developed polytheism, unless, indeed, he was\nhimself the inventor or introducer of much of it. Yet one can gather\nfrom the probably contemporary Creation and Deluge tablets translated\nby Mr. Smith, that a Supreme God was still recognized, and that the\nsubordinate deities, though their worship was probably gaining in\nimportance, were still only local and created beings. Yet it was\nundoubtedly from this embryo idolatry that Abraham dissented, and was\nthus led to leave his native land.\n\nIn like manner, in the early Egyptian Hymn to Amen Ra, translated by\nMr. Goodwin, though we have the gods mentioned, they are inferior\nbeings, and not higher in position than the angels of the Old\nTestament, while Ra himself is \"Lord of Eternity, Maker Everlasting,\"\nand is praised as\n\n    \"Chief creator of the whole earth,\n    Supporter of affairs above every god,\n    In whose goodness the gods rejoice.\"\n\nThus, although there can be little doubt that Ra was a sun-god, there\ncan be as little that he is the Il or El of the Shemitic peoples, and\nthat his worship represents that of the one God, the Creator. It seems\nprobable also that there was an esoteric doctrine of this kind among\nthe priests and the educated, however gross the polytheism of the\nvulgar. In short, the state of things in Assyria and Egypt was not\ndissimilar from that prevailing at this day in India, where learned\nmen may fall back upon the ancient Vedas, and maintain that their\nreligion is monotheistic, while the common people worship innumerable\ngods. All this points to a primitive monotheism, just as the peculiar\nforms of adoration given to saints and the Virgin Mary in the Greek\nand Roman churches historically imply a primitive Christianity on\nwhich these newer beliefs and rites have been engrafted.\n\n\nL.--SPECIES AND VARIETAL FORMS WITH REFERENCE TO THE UNITY OF\nMAN.\n\nIn the concluding chapters of \"Archaia\" the nature of species, as\ndistinguished from varieties, was discussed, and specially applied to\nthe varieties and races of man. This discussion has been omitted from\nthe text of the present work; but, in an abridged form, is introduced\nhere, with especial reference to those more recent views of this\nsubject now prevalent in consequence of the growth of the philosophy\nof evolution; but which I feel convinced must, with the progress of\nscience, return nearer to the opinions held by me in 1860, and\nsummarized below.\n\nWe can determine species only by the comparison of individuals. If all\nthese agree in all their characters except those appertaining to sex,\nage, and other conditions of the individual merely, we say that they\nbelong to the same species. If all species were invariable to this\nextent, there could be no practical difficulty, except that of\nobtaining specimens for comparison. But in the case of very many\nspecies there are minor differences, not sufficient to establish\nspecific diversity, but to suggest its possibility; and in such cases\nthere is often great liability to error. In cases of this kind we have\nprincipally two criteria: first, the nature and amount of the\ndifferences; secondly, their shading gradually into each other, or the\ncontrary. Under the first of these we inquire--Are they no greater in\namount than those which may be observed in individuals of the same\nparentage? Are they no greater than those which occur in other species\nof similar structure or habits? Do they occur in points known in\nother species to be readily variable, or in points that usually remain\nunchanged? Are none of them constant in the one supposed species, and\nconstantly absent in the other? Under the second we ask--Are the\nindividuals presenting these differences connected together by others\nshowing a series of gradations uniting the extremes by minute degrees\nof difference? If we can answer these questions--or such of them as we\nhave the means of answering--in the affirmative, we have no hesitation\nin referring all to the same species. If obliged to answer all or many\nin the negative, we must at least hesitate in the identification; and\nif the material is abundant, and the distinguishing characters clear\nand well defined, we conclude that there is a specific difference.\n\nSpecies determined in this way must possess certain general properties\nin common:\n\n1. Their individuals must fall within a certain range of uniform\ncharacters, wider or narrower in the case of different species.\n\n2. The intervals between species must be distinctly marked, and not\nslurred over by intermediate gradations.\n\n3. The specific characters must be invariably transmitted from\ngeneration to generation, so that they remain equally distinct in\ntheir limits if traced backward or forward in time, in so far as our\nobservation may extend.\n\n4. Within the limits of the species there is more or less liability to\nvariation; and this, though perhaps developed by external\ncircumstances, is really inherent in the species, and must necessarily\nform a part of its proper description.\n\n5. There is also a physiological distinction between species, namely,\nthat the individuals are sterile with one another, whereas this does\nnot apply to varieties; and though Darwin has labored to break down\nthis distinction by insisting on rare exceptional cases, and\nsuggesting many supposed ways by which varieties of the same species\nmight possibly attain to this kind of distinctness, the difference\nstill remains as a fact in nature; though one not readily available in\npractically distinguishing species.\n\nThese general properties of species will, I think, be admitted by all\nnaturalists as based on nature, and absolutely necessary to the\nexistence of natural history as a science, independently of any\nhypotheses as to the possible changes of specific forms in the lapse\nof time. I now proceed to give a similar summary of the laws of the\nvarieties which may exist--always be it observed, within the limits of\nthe species.\n\n1. The limits of variation are very different in different species.\nThere are many in which no well-marked variations have been observed.\nThere are others in which the variations are so marked that they have\nbeen divided, even by skilful naturalists, into distinct species or\neven genera. I do not here refer to differences of age and sex. These\nin many animals are so great that nothing but actual knowledge of the\nrelation that subsists would prevent the individuals from being\nentirely separated from one another. I refer merely to the varieties\nthat exist in adults of the same sex, including, however, those that\ndepend on arrest of development, and thus make the adult of one\nvariety resemble in some respects the young of another; as, for\ninstance, in the hornless oxen, and beardless individuals among men.\nIf we inquire as to the causes on which the greater or less\ndisposition to vary depends, we must, in the first place, confess our\nignorance, by saying that it appears to be in a great measure\nconstitutional, or dependent on minute and as yet not distinctly\nappreciable structural, physiological, and psychical characters.\nDarwin states that Pallas long ago suggested, from the known facts\nthat the seeds of hybrid plants and grafted trees are very variable,\nthe theory that mixture of breeds tends to produce variability; but\nDarwin does not seem to attach much importance to this, and admits our\ninability to explain the origin of these differences.[161] We know,\nhowever, certain properties of species that are always or usually\nconnected with great liability to variation. The principal of these\nare the following: 1. The liability to vary is, in many cases, not\nmerely a specific peculiarity; it is often general in the members of a\ngenus or family. Thus the cats, as a family, are little prone to vary;\nthe wolves and foxes very much so. 2. Species that are very widely\ndistributed over the earth's surface are usually very variable. In\nthis case the capacity to vary probably adapts the creature to a great\nvariety of circumstances, and so enables it to be widely distributed.\nIt must be observed here that hardiness and variability of\nconstitution are more important to extensive distribution than mere\nlocomotive powers, for matters have evidently been so arranged in\nnature that, where the habitat is suitable, colonists will find their\nway to it, even in the face of difficulties almost insurmountable. 3.\nConstitutional liability to vary is sometimes connected with or\ndependent on extreme simplicity of structure, in other cases on a high\ndegree of intelligence and consequent adaptation to various modes of\nsubsistence. Those minute, simply organized, and very variable\ncreatures, the Foraminifera, exemplify the first of these apparent\ncauses; the crafty wolves furnish examples of the second. 4.\nSusceptibility to variation is farther modified by the greater or less\nadaptability of the digestive and locomotive organs to varied kinds of\nfood and habitat. The monkeys, intelligent, imitative, and active, are\nnevertheless very limited in range and variability, because they can\ncomfortably subsist only in forests, and in the warmer regions of the\nearth. The hog, more sluggish and less intelligent, has an omnivorous\nappetite, and no very special requirements of habitat, and so can vary\ngreatly and extend over a large portion of the earth. Farther, in\nconnection with this subject it may be observed that the conditions\nfavorable to variation are also in the case of the higher animals\nfavorable to domestication, while it may also be affirmed that, other\nthings being equal, animals in a domesticated state are much more\nliable to vary than those in a wild state, and this independent of\nintentional selection. Darwin admits this, and gives many examples of\nit.\n\n2. Varieties may originate in two different ways. In the case of wild\nanimals it is generally supposed that they are gradually induced by\nthe slow operation of external influences; but it is certain that in\ndomesticated animals they often appear suddenly and unexpectedly, and\nare not on that account at all less permanent. A large proportion of\nour breeds of domestic animals appear to originate in this way. A very\nremarkable instance is that of the \"Niata\" cattle of the Banda\nOrientale, described by Darwin in his \"Voyage of a Naturalist.\" These\ncattle are believed to have originated about a century ago among the\nIndians to the south of the La Plata, and the breed propagates itself\nwith great constancy. \"They appear,\" says Darwin, \"externally to hold\nnearly the same relation to other cattle which bull-dogs hold to other\ndogs. Their forehead is very short and broad, with the nasal end\nturned up, and the upper lip much drawn back; their lower jaws project\noutward; when walking they carry their heads low on a short neck, and\ntheir hinder legs are rather longer compared with the front legs than\nis usual.\" It is farther remarkable in respect to this breed that it\nis, from its conformation of head, less adapted to the severe droughts\nof those regions than the ordinary cattle, and can not, therefore, be\nregarded as an adaptation to circumstances. In his later work on\nanimals under domestication, Darwin gives many other instances of the\norigination of breeds of cattle and other animals in this abrupt and\nmysterious manner, and without any selection, though he strongly leans\nto the conclusion that slow and gradual changes are the most frequent\ncauses of variation. It is to be observed, however, that very slow\nchanges are in more danger of being accidentally diverted or\nobliterated by crossing, and that the first stages of an incipient\nchange may be too unimportant to be permanent.\n\nMany writers on the subject of the Unity of Man assume that any marked\nvariety must require a long time for its production. Our experience in\nthe case of the domestic animals teaches the reverse of this view; a\nvery important point too often overlooked.\n\n3. The duration or permanence of varieties is very different. Some\nreturn at once to the normal type when the causes of change are\nremoved. Others perpetuate themselves nearly as invariably as species,\nand are named races. It is these races only that we are likely to\nmistake for true species, since here we have that permanent\nreproduction which is one of the characteristics of the species. The\nrace, however, wants the other characteristics of species as above\nstated; and it differs essentially in having branched from a primitive\nspecies, and in not having an independent origin. It is quite evident\nthat in the absence of historical evidence we must be very likely to\nerr by supposing races to have really originated in distinct\n\"primordial forms.\" Such error is especially likely to arise if we\noverlook the fact of the sudden origination of such races, and their\ngreat permanency if kept distinct. There are two facts which deserve\nespecial notice, as removing some of the difficulty in such cases. One\nis that well-marked races usually originate only in domesticated\nanimals, or in wild animals which, owing to accidental circumstances,\nare placed in abnormal circumstances. Another is, that there always\nremains a tendency to return, in favorable circumstances, to the\noriginal type. This tendency to reversion is much underrated by Darwin\nand his followers; yet they constantly recur to it as a means of\nproving possible derivation, and their writings abound in examples of\nit. Perhaps the most remarkable of these reversions are those which\noccur when varieties destitute of all the markings of the original\nstock are crossed and reproduce those markings, which Darwin shows to\noccur in pigeons and domestic fowls. The domesticated races usually\nrequire a certain amount of care to preserve them in a state of\npurity, both on this account and on account of the readiness with\nwhich they intermix with other varieties of the same species. Many\nvery interesting facts in illustration of these points might be\nadduced. The domesticated hog differs in many important characters\nfrom the wild boar. In South America and the West Indies it has\nreturned, in three centuries or less, to its original form.[162] The\nhorse is probably not known in a state originally wild, but it has run\nwild in America and in Siberia. In the prairies of North America,\naccording to Catlin[163] they still show great varieties of color. The\nsame is the case in Sable Island, off the coast of Nova Scotia[164]\nwhere herds of wild horses have existed since an early period in the\nsettlement of America. In South America and Siberia they have assumed\na uniform chestnut or bay color. In the plains of Western America they\nretain the dimensions and vigor of the better breeds of domesticated\nhorses. In Sable Island they have already degenerated to the level of\nHighland ponies; but in all countries where they have run wild, the\nelongated and arched head, high shoulders, straight back, and other\nstructural characters probably of the original wild horse, have\nappeared. We also learn from such instances that, while races among\ndomesticated animals may appear suddenly, they revert to the original\ntype, when unmixed, comparatively slowly; and this especially when the\nvariation is in the nature of degeneracy.\n\n4. Some characters are more subject to variation than others. In the\nhigher animals variation takes place very readily in the color and\ntexture of the skin and its appendages. This, from its direct relation\nto the external world, and ready sympathy with the condition of the\ndigestive organs, might be expected to take the lead. In those\ndomesticated animals which are little liable to vary in other\nrespects, as the cat and duck, the color very readily changes. Next\nmay be placed the stature and external proportions, and the form of\nsuch appendages as the external ear and tail. All these characters are\nvery variable in domestic animals. Next we may place the form of the\nskull, which, though little variable in the wild state, is nearly\nalways changed by domestication. Psychological functions, as the\nso-called instincts of animals, are also very liable to change, and to\nhave these changes perpetuated in races. Very remarkable instances of\nthis have been collected by Sir C. Lyell[165] and Dr. Prichard.\nLastly, important physiological characters, as the period of\ngestation, etc., and the structure of the internal organs connected\nwith the functions of nutrition, respiration, etc., are little liable\nto change, and remain unaffected by the most extreme variations in\nother points; and it is, no doubt, in these more essential and\ninternal parts that the tendency survives to return under favorable\ncircumstances to the original type.\n\n5. Varieties or races of the same species are fully reproductive with\neach other, which is not the case with true species. Mutual sterility\nof varieties of the same species is an exceptional peculiarity, if it\never truly exist; and, on the other hand, the cross-fertilization of\nvarieties of the same species, whether in animals or plants, tends to\nvigorous life, and also to return to the primitive or average type. On\nthe other hand, intermixture of distinct species rarely, if ever,\noccurs freely in nature. It is generally a result of artificial\ncontrivance. Again, hybrids produced from species known to be distinct\nare either wholly barren, or barren _inter se_, reproducing only with\none of the original stocks, and rapidly returning to it; or if ever\nfertile _inter se_, which is somewhat doubtful, rapidly run out. It\nhas been maintained by Pallas and others, and Darwin leans to this\nidea, that there is still another possibility, namely, that of the\nperfect and continued fertility of such mixed races, especially after\nlong domestication; but their proofs are derived principally from the\nintermixture of the races of dogs and of poultry, which are cases\nactually in dispute at present, as to the original unity or diversity\nof the so-called species.\n\nIf we apply these considerations to man, our conclusion must be that,\neven in his bodily frame, he is not merely specifically but ordinally\ndistinct from other animals, and that the differences between races of\nmen are varietal rather than specific. This view is confirmed by the\nfollowing facts:\n\n1. The case of man is not that of a wild animal; and it presents many\npoints of difference even from the case of the domesticated lower\nanimals. According to the Bible history, man was originally fitted to\nsubsist on fruits, to inhabit a temperate climate, and to be exempt\nfrom the necessity of destroying or contending with other animals.\nThis view unquestionably accords very well with his organization. He\nstill subsists principally on vegetable food, is most numerous in the\nwarmer regions of the earth; and, when so subsisting in these regions,\nis naturally peaceful and timid. On the whole, however, his habits of\nlife are artificial--more so than those of any domesticated animal. He\nis, therefore, in the conditions most favorable to variation. Again,\nman possesses more than merely animal instincts. His mental powers\npermit him to devise means of locomotion, of protection, of\nsubsistence, far superior to those of any mere animal; and his\ndominant will, insatiable in its desires, bends the bodily frame to\nuses and exposes it to external influences more various than any\ninferior animal can dream of. Man is also more educable and plastic in\nhis constitution than other animals, owing both to his being less\nhemmed in by unchanging instincts, and to his physical frame being\nless restricted in its adaptations. If a single species, he is also\nmore widely distributed than any other; and there are even single\nraces which exceed in their extent of distribution nearly all the\ninferior animals. Nor is there anything in his structure specially to\nlimit him to plains, or hills, or forests, or coasts, or inland\nregions. All the causes which we can suppose likely to produce\nvariation thus meet in man, who is himself the producer of most of the\ndistinct races that we observe in the lower animals. If, therefore, we\ncondescend to compare man with these creatures, it must be under\nprotest that what we learn from them must be understood with reference\nto his greater capabilities.\n\n2. The races of men are deficient in some of the essential characters\nof species. It is true that they are reproduced with considerable\npermanency; though a great many cases of spontaneous change, of\natavism, or return to the character of progenitors, and of slow\nvariation under changed conditions, have been recorded. But the most\nmanifest deficiency in true specific characters is in the invariable\nshading-off of one race into another, and in the entire failure of\nthose who maintain the distinction of species in the attempt\naccurately to define their number and limits. The characters run into\neach other in such a manner that no natural arrangement based on the\nwhole can apparently be arrived at; and when one particular ground is\ntaken, as color, or shape of skull, the so-called species have still\nno distinct limits; and all the arrangements formed differ from each\nother, and from the deductions of philology and history. Thus, from\nthe division of Virey into two species, on the entirely arbitrary\nground of facial angle, to that of Bory de St. Vincent into fifteen,\nwe have a great number and variety of distinctions, all incapable of\nzoological definition; or, if capable of definition, eminently\nunnatural. There are, in short, no missing links between the varieties\nof men corresponding to that which obtains between man and lower\nanimals.\n\n3. The races of men differ in those points in which the higher animals\nusually vary with the greatest facility. The physical characters\nchiefly relied on have been color, character of hair, and form of\nskull, together with diversities in stature and general proportion.\nThese are precisely the points in which our domestic races are most\nprone to vary. The manner in which these characters differ in the\nraces of men may be aptly illustrated by a few examples of the\narrangements to which they lead.\n\nDr. Pickering, of the U. S. Exploring Expedition[166]--who does not,\nhowever, commit himself to any specific distinctions--has arranged the\nvarious races of men on the very simple and obvious ground of color.\nHe obtains in this way four races--the White, the Brown, the\nBlackish-brown, the Black. The distinction is easy; but it divides\nraces historically, philologically, and structurally alike; and unites\nthose which, on other grounds, would be separated. The white race\nincludes the Hamite Abyssinian, the Semitic Arabian, the Japhetic\nGreek. The Ethiopian or Berber is separated from the cognate\nAbyssinian, and the dark Hindoo from the paler races speaking like him\ntongues allied to the Sanscrit. The Papuan, on the other hand, takes\nhis place with the Hindoo; while the allied Australian must be content\nto rank with the Negro; and the Hottentot is promoted to a place\nbeside the Malay. It is unnecessary to pursue any farther the\narrangement of this painstaking and conscientious inquirer. It\nconclusively demonstrates that the color of the varieties of the human\nrace must be arbitrary and accidental, and altogether independent of\nunity or diversity of origin.\n\nSome use has been made, by the advocates of diversity of species, of\nthe quality of the hair in the different races. That of the Negro is\nsaid to be flat in its cross section--in this respect approaching to\nwool; that of the European is oval; and that of the Mongolian and\nAmerican round.[167] The subject has as yet been very imperfectly\ninvestigated; but its indications point to no greater variety than\nthat which occurs in many domesticated animals--as, for instance, the\nhog and sheep. Nay, Dr. Carpenter states[168]--and the writer has\nsatisfied himself of the fact by his own observation--that it does not\nexceed the differences in the hair from different parts of the body of\nthe same individual. The human hair, like that of mammals in general,\nconsists of three tissues: an outer cortical layer, marked by\ntransverse striae, having in man the aspect of delicate lines, but in\nmany other animals assuming the character of distinct joints or\nprominent serrations; a layer of elongated, fibrous cells, to which\nthe hair owes most of its tenacity; and an inner cylinder of rounded\ncells. In the proportionate development of these several parts, in the\nquantity of coloring matter present, and in the transverse section,\nthe human hair differs very considerably in different parts of the\nbody. It also differs very markedly in individuals of different\ncomplexions. Similar but not greater differences obtain in the hair of\nthe scalp in different races; but the flatness of the Negro's hair\nconnects itself inseparably with the oval of the hair of the ordinary\nEuropean, and this with the round observed in some other races. It\ngenerally holds that curled and frizzled hair is flatter than that\nwhich is lank and straight; but this is not constant, for I have found\nthat the waved or frizzled hair of the New Hebrideans, intermediate\napparently between the Polynesians and Papuans, is nearly circular in\noutline, and differs from European hair mainly in the greater\ndevelopment of the fibrous structure and the intensity of the color.\nLarge series of comparisons are required; but those already made point\nto variation rather than specific difference. Some facts also appear\nto indicate very marked differences as occurring in the same race from\nconstant exposure or habitual covering; and also the occasional\nappearance of the most abnormal forms, without apparent cause, in\nindividuals. The differences depending on greater or less abundance or\nvigor of growth of the hair are obviously altogether trivial, when\ncompared with such examples as the hairless dogs of Chili and hairless\ncattle of Brazil, or even with the differences in this respect\nobserved in individuals of the same race of men.\n\nConfessedly the most important differences of the races of men are\nthose of the skeleton, in all parts of which variations of proportion\noccur, and are of course more or less communicated to the muscular\ninvestments. Of these, as they exist in the pelvis, limbs, etc., I\nneed say nothing; for, manifest though they are, they all fall far\nwithin the limits of variation in familiar domestic animals, and also\nof hereditary malformation or defect of development occurring in the\nEuropean nations, and only requiring isolation for its perpetuation as\na race. The differences in the skull merit more attention, for it is\nin this and in its enclosed brain that man most markedly differs from\nthe lower animals, as well as race from race. It is in the form rather\nthan in the mere dimensions of the skull that we should look for\nspecific differences; and here, adopting the vertical method of\nBlumenbach as the most characteristic and valuable, we find a greater\nor less antero-posterior diameter--a greater or less development of\nthe jaws and bones of the face. The skull of the normal European, or\nCaucasian of Cuvier, is round oval; and the jaws and cheek-bones\nproject little beyond its anterior margin, when viewed from above. The\nskull of the Mongolian of Cuvier is nearly round, and the cheek-bones\nand jaws project much more strongly in front and at the sides. The\nNegro skull is lengthened from back to front; the jaws project\nstrongly, or are prognathous; but the cheek-bones are little\nprominent. For the extremes of these varieties, Retzius proposed the\nnames of brachy-kephalic or short-headed, and dolicho-kephalic or\nlong-headed, which have come into general use. The differences\nindicated by these terms are of great interest, as distinctive marks\nof many of the unmixed races of men; but, when pushed to extremes,\nlead to very incorrect generalizations--as Professor D. Wilson has\nwell shown in his paper on the supposed uniformity of type in the\nAmerican races--a doctrine which he fully refutes by showing that\nwithin a very narrow geographical range this primitive and unmixed\nrace presents very great differences of cranial form.[169] Exclusive\nof idiots, artificially compressed heads, and deformities, the\ndifferences between the brachy-kephalic and dolicho-kephalic heads\nrange from equality in the parietal and longitudinal diameter to the\nproportion of about 14 to 24. As stated by some ethnologists, these\ndifferences appear quite characteristic and distinct; but, so soon as\nwe attempt any minute discrimination, all confidence in them as\nspecific characters disappears. In our ordinary European races similar\ndifferences, and nearly as extensive, occur. The dolicho-kephalic head\nis really only an immature form perpetuated; and appears not only in\nthe Negro, but in the Esquimau, and in certain ancient and modern\nCeltic races. The brachy-kephalic head, in like manner, is\ncharacteristic of certain tribes and portions of tribes of Americans,\nbut not of all; of many northern Asiatic nations; of certain Celtic\nand Scandinavian tribes; and often appears in the modern European\nraces as an occasional character. Farther, as Retzius has well shown,\nthe long heads and prominent jaws are not always associated with each\nother; and his classification is really the testimony of an able\nobserver against the value of these characters. He shows that the\nCeltic and Germanic races (in part) have long heads and straight jaws;\nwhile the Negroes, Australians, Oceanians, Caribs, Greenlanders, etc.,\nhave long heads and prominent jaws. The Laplanders, Finns, Turks,\nSclaves, Persians, etc., have short heads and straight jaws; while the\nTartars, Mongolians, Incas, Malays, Papuans, etc., have short heads\nand prominent jaws.\n\nAnother defect in the argument often based on the diverse forms of\nheads is its want of acknowledgment of the ascertained and popularly\nknown fact that these forms in different tribes or individuals of the\nsame race are markedly influenced by culture and habits of life. In\nall races ignorance and debasement tend to induce a prognathous form,\nwhile culture tends to the elevation of the nasal bones, to an\northognathous condition of the jaws, and to an elevation and expansion\nof the cranium.[170]\n\nAgain, no adequate allowance has been made in the case of these forms\nof skull for the influence of modes of nurture in infancy. Dr. Morton,\nobserving that the brachy-kephalic American skull was often unequal\nsided, and the occiput much flattened, suggests that this is \"an\nexaggeration of the natural form produced by the pressure of the\ncradle-board in common use among the American natives.\" Dr. Wilson has\nnoticed the same unsymmetrical character in brachy-kephalic skulls in\nBritish barrows, and has suspected some artificial agency in infancy;\nand says, in reference to the American instances, \"I think it\nextremely probable that further investigation will tend to the\nconclusion that the vertical or flattened occiput, instead of being a\ntypical characteristic, pertains entirely to the class of artificial\nmodifications of the natural cranium familiar to the American\nethnologist.\"\n\nWhile the points in which the races of men vary are those in which\nlower animals are most liable to undergo change, the several races\ndisplay a remarkable constancy in those which are usually less\nvariable. Prichard and Carpenter have well shown this in relation to\nphysiological points, as, for instance, the age of arriving at\nmaturity, the average and extreme duration of life, and the several\nperiods connected with reproduction. The coincidence in these points\nalone is by many eminent physiologists justly regarded as sufficient\nevidence of the unity of the species.\n\n4. It may also be affirmed, in relation to the varieties of man, that\nthey do not exceed in amount or extent those observed in the lower\nanimals. If with Frederick Cuvier, Dr. Carpenter, and many other\nnaturalists, we regard the dog as a single species, descended in all\nprobability from the wolf, we can have no hesitation in concluding\nthat this animal far exceeds man in variability.[171] But this is\ndenied by many, not without some show of reason; and we may,\ntherefore, select some animal respecting which little doubt can be\nentertained. Perhaps the best example is the common hog (_Sus\nscrofa_), an undoubted descendant of the wild boar, and a creature\nespecially suitable for comparison with man, inasmuch as its possible\nrange of food is very much the same with his, which is not the case\nwith any other of our domesticated animals; and as its headquarters as\na species are in the same regions which have supported the greatest\nand oldest known communities of men. We may exclude from our\ncomparison the Chinese hog, by some regarded as a distinct species\n(_Sus Indicus_), though no wild original is known, and it breeds\nfreely with the common hog. The color of the domestic hog varies, like\nthat of man, from white to black; and in the black hog the skin as\nwell as the hair partakes of the dark color. The abundance and\nquality of the hair vary extremely; the stature and form are equally\nvariable, much more so than in man. Blumenbach long ago remarked that\nthe difference between the skull of the ordinary domestic hog and that\nof the wild boar is quite equal to that observed between the Negro and\nEuropean skulls. Darwin shows that it is much greater, and illustrates\nthis by an amusing pair of portraits. The breeds of swine even differ\nin directions altogether unparalleled in man. For instance, both in\nAmerica and Europe solid-hoofed swine have originated and become a\npermanent variety; and there is said to be another variety with five\ntoes.[172] These are the more remarkable, because, in the American\ninstances, there can be no doubt that it is the common hog which has\nassumed these abnormal forms.\n\n5. All varieties or races of men intermix freely, in a manner which\nstrongly indicates specific unity. We hold here, as already stated,\nthat no good case of a permanent race arising from intermixture of\ndistinct species of the lower animals has been adduced; but there is\nanother fact in relation to this subject which the advocates of\nspecific diversity would do well to study. Even in varieties of those\ndomestic animals which are certainly specifically identical, as the\nhog, the sheep, the ox--although crosses between the varieties may\neasily be produced--they are not readily maintained, and sometimes\ntend to die out. What are called good crosses lead to improved energy,\nand continual breeding in and in of the same variety leads to\ndegeneracy and decay; but, on the other hand, crosses of certain\nvarieties are proved by experience to be of weakly and unproductive\nquality; and every practical book on cattle contains remarks on the\ndifficulty of keeping up crosses without intermixture with one of the\npure breeds. It would thus appear that very unlike varieties of the\nsame species display in this respect, in an imperfect manner, the\npeculiarities of distinct species. It is on this principle that I\nwould in part account for some of the exceptional facts which occur in\nmixed races of men.\n\nWhat, then, are the facts in the case of man? In producing crosses of\ndistinct species, as in the case of the horse and ass, breeders are\nobliged to resort to expedients to overcome the natural repugnance to\nsuch intermixture. In the case of even the most extreme varieties of\nman, if such repugnance exists, it is voluntarily overcome, as the\nslave population of America testifies abundantly. By far the greater\npart of the intermixtures of races of men tend to increase of vital\nenergy and vigor, as in the case of judicious crosses of some domestic\nanimals. Where a different result occurs, we usually find sufficient\nsecondary causes to account for it. I shall refer to but one such\ncase--that of the half-breed American Indian. In so far as I have had\nopportunities of observation or inquiry, these people are prolific,\nmuch more so than the unmixed Indian. They are also energetic, and\noften highly intellectual; but they are of delicate constitution,\nespecially liable to scrofulous diseases, and therefore not\nlong-lived. Now this is precisely the result which often occurs in\ndomestic animals, where a highly cultivated race is bred with one that\nis of ruder character and training; and it very probably results from\nthe circumstance that the progeny may inherit too much of the delicacy\nof the one parent to endure the hardships congenial to the other; or,\non the other hand, too much of the wild nature of the ruder parent to\nsubsist under the more delicate nurture of the more cultivated. This\ndifficulty does not apply to the intermixture of the Negro and the\nEuropean, though between the pure races this is a cross too abrupt to\nbe likely to be in the first instance successful.\n\n6. The races of man may have originated in the same manner with the\nbreeds of our domesticated animals. There are many facts which render\nit probable that they did originate in this way. Take color, for\ninstance. The fair varieties of man occur only in the northern\ntemperate zone, and chiefly in the equable climates of that zone. In\nextreme climates, even when cold, dusky and yellow colors appear. The\nblack and blackish-brown colors are confined to the inter-tropical\nregions, and appear in such portions of all the great races of mankind\nas have been long domiciled there. Diet and degree of exposure have\nalso evidently very much to do with form, stature, and color. The\ndeer-eating Chippewayan of certain districts of North America is a\nbetter developed man than his compatriots who subsist principally on\nrabbits and such meaner fare; and excess of carbonaceous food, and\ndeficiency of perspiration or of combustion in the lungs, appear\neverywhere to darken the skin.[173] The Negro type in its extreme form\nis peculiar to low and humid river valleys of tropical Africa. In\nAustralasia similar characters appear in men of a very different race\nin similar circumstances. The Mongolian type reappears in South\nAfrica. The Esquimau is like the Fuegian. The American Indian, both of\nSouth and North America, resembles the Mongol; but in several of the\nmiddle regions of the American continent men appear who approximate to\nthe Malay. Everywhere and in all races coarse features and deviations\nfrom the oval form of skull are observed in rude populations. Where\nmen have sunk into a child-like simplicity, the elongated forms\nprevail. Where they have become carnivorous, aggressive, and actively\nbarbarous, the brachy-kephalic forms abound. These and many other\nconsiderations tend to the conclusion that these varieties are\ninseparably connected with external conditions. It may still be\nasked--Were not the races created as they are, with especial reference\nto these conditions? I answer no--because the differences are of a\ncharacter in every respect like those that appear in other true\nspecies as the results of influences from without.\n\nFarther, not only have we varieties of man resulting from the slow\noperation of climatal and other conditions, but we have the sudden\ndevelopment of races. One remarkable instance may illustrate my\nmeaning. It is the hairy family of Siam, described by Mr. Crawford and\nMr. Yule.[174] The peculiarities here consisted of a fine silky coat\nof hair covering the face and less thickly the whole body, with at the\nsame time the entire absence of the canine and molar teeth. The person\nin whom these characters originated was sent to Ava as a curiosity\nwhen five years old. He married at twenty-two, his wife being an\nordinary Burmese woman. One of two children who survived infancy had\nall the characters of the father. This was a girl; and on her marriage\nthe same characters reappeared in one of two boys constituting her\nfamily when seen by Mr. Yule. Here was a variety of a most extreme\ncharacter, originating without apparent cause, and capable of\npropagation for three generations, even when crossed with the ordinary\ntype. Had it originated in circumstances favorable to the preservation\nof its purity, it might have produced a tribe or nation of hairy men,\nwith no teeth except incisors. Such a tribe would, with some\nethnologists, have constituted a new and very distinct species; and\nany one who had suggested the possibility of its having originated\nwithin a few generations as a variety would have been laughed at for\nhis credulity. It is unnecessary to cite any further instances. I\nmerely wish to insist on the necessity of a rigid comparison of the\nvariations which appear in man, either suddenly or in a slow or\nsecular manner, with the characters of the so-called races or species.\n\n7. If we turn from the merely physical constitution of man, and\ninquire as to his psychical and spiritual endowments, it would be easy\nto show, as Dr. Carpenter and others have done, in opposition to\nDarwin, that on the one hand an impassable barrier separates man from\nthe lower animals, and that on the other there is an essential unity\namong the races of men. But this subject I have discussed fully in the\nconcluding chapters of my \"Story of the Earth.\"\n\nIf man is thus so very variable, and if many of his leading varieties\nhave existed for a very long time, does not the fact that we have but\none species afford very strong evidence that species change only\nwithin fixed limits, and do not pass over into new specific types.\nViewed in this way, variability within the specific limits becomes in\nitself one of the strongest arguments against the doctrine of descent\nwith modification as a mode of origination of new species.\n\nLet us now add to all this the farther consideration, so well\nillustrated in the \"Reliquiae Aquitanicae\" of Christy and Lartet, that\nthe oldest-known men of the caves and gravels may be placed in one of\nthe varieties, and this the most widely distributed, of modern man,\nand we have a further argument which tells most strongly against the\nassumption either of the extreme antiquity or of the unlimited\nvariability of the human species.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Argyll's \"Primeval Man.\"]\n\n[Footnote 2: Essays on Theism, 1875.]\n\n[Footnote 3: John i., 9.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Hebrews xi., 3.]\n\n[Footnote 5: I avail myself of the condensed translation in Bancroft's\n\"Native Races,\" vol. iii. The original French translation of Brasseur du\nBourbourg is more full.]\n\n[Footnote 6: The Feathered Serpent is perhaps the representative of the\nDragon and Serpent in the Semitic version; but has not the same evil\nimport, and his color gave sacredness to blue and green stones, as the\nturquois and emerald, both in North and South America, and perhaps also\nin Asia and Africa.]\n\n[Footnote 7: I do not think it necessary to attach any value to the\ndoubts of certain schools of criticism as to the Mosaic authorship of\nthe Pentateuch. Whatever quibbles may be raised on isolated texts, no\nrational student can doubt that we have in these books a collection of\nauthentic documents of the Exodus. They are absolutely inexplicable on\nany other supposition.]\n\n[Footnote 8: \"Cosmos,\" Otte's translation.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Hamilton, \"Royal Preacher.\"]\n\n[Footnote 10: Harvey, \"Nereis Boreali Americana.\"]\n\n[Footnote 11: Osburn, \"Monumental History of Egypt.\"]\n\n[Footnote 12: On this subject I may refer naturalists to the intimate\nacquaintance with animals and their habits, indicated by manner of their\nuse as sacred emblems, and as symbols in hieroglyphic writing. Another\nillustration is afforded by the Mosaic narrative of the miracles and\nplagues connected with the exodus. The Egyptian king, on this occasion,\nconsulted the _philosophers_ and _augurs_. These learned men evidently\nregarded the serpent-rod miracle as but a more skilful form of one of\nthe tricks of serpent-charmers. They showed Pharaoh the possibility of\nreddening the Nile water by artificial means, or perhaps by the\ndevelopment of red algae in it. They explained the inroad of frogs on\nnatural principles, probably referring to the immense abundance\nordinarily of the ova and tadpoles of these creatures compared with that\nof the adults. But when the dust of the land became gnats (\"lice\" in our\nversion), this was a phenomenon beyond their experience. Either the\nspecies was unknown to them, or its production out of the dry ground was\nan anomaly, or they knew that no larvae adequate to explain it had\npreviously existed. In the case of this plague, therefore, comparatively\ninsignificant and easily simulated, they honestly confessed--\"This is\nthe finger of God.\" No better evidence could be desired that the savans\nhere opposed to Moses were men of high character and extensive\nobservation. Many other facts of similar tendency might be cited both\nfrom Moses and the Egyptian monuments.]\n\n[Footnote 13: That in Genesis, chap. ii.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Kitto's Cyclopaedia, art. \"Creation.\"]\n\n[Footnote 15: Much that is very silly has been written as to the extent\nof the supposed \"optical view\" taken by the Hebrew writers; many worthy\nliterary men appearing to suppose that _scientific_ views of nature must\nnecessarily be different from those which we obtain by the evidence of\nour senses. The very contrary is the fact; and so long as any writers\nstate correctly what they observe, without insisting on any fanciful\nhypotheses, science has no fault to find with them. What science most\ndetests is the ignorant speculations of those who have not observed at\nall, or have observed imperfectly. It is a leading excellence of the\nHebrew Scriptures that they state facts without giving any theories to\naccount for them. It is, on the contrary, the circumstance that\nunscientific writers will not be content to be \"optical,\" but must\ntheorize, that spoils much of our modern literature, especially in its\ndescriptions of nature.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Prof. Hitchcock.]\n\n[Footnote 17: McCosh, \"Typical Forms and Special Ends.\"]\n\n[Footnote 18: I adopt that view of the date of Job which makes it\nprecede the Exodus, because the religious ideas of the book are\npatriarchal, and it contains no allusions to the Hebrew history or\ninstitutions. Were I to suggest an hypothesis as to its origin, it would\nbe that it was written or found by Moses when in exile, and published\namong his countrymen in Egypt, to revive their monotheistic religion,\nand cheer them under the apparent desertion of their God and the evils\nof their bondage.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Tyndall seems to hold this.]\n\n[Footnote 20: Newton.]\n\n[Footnote 21: John v., 17; Rom. viii., 22; Heb. i., 2; 2 Peter iii.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Heb. i., 2.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Eph. iii., 9.]\n\n[Footnote 24: 1 Tim. i., 17.]\n\n[Footnote 25: Eph. iv., 11.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Job xxxviii. and xxxix.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Romans i., 20.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Essays on Theism.]\n\n[Footnote 29: Herschel, Dissertation on the Study of Natural Philosophy;\nMaxwell, Lecture before the British Association.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Carpenter, \"Human Physiology.\"]\n\n[Footnote 31: Asah.]\n\n[Footnote 32: McDonald, \"Creation and the Fall.\"]\n\n[Footnote 33: Literally, \"ages\" or \"time-worlds,\" as they have been\ncalled.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Genesis i., 8, 26-28.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Job xxxviii., 37.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Gen. i., 14; Deut. xvii., 3.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Gen. xxviii., 17; Job xv., 15; Psa. ii., 4.]\n\n[Footnote 38: Not \"created,\" as some read. The verb is _kana_, not\n_bara_.]\n\n[Footnote 39: The usual Septuagint rendering is _Abyssus_.]\n\n[Footnote 40: Smith, \"Assyrian Genesis.\" Brasseur de Bourbourg's\ntranslation of the \"Popol Vuh\" of the ancient Central American Indians.]\n\n[Footnote 41: It is impossible to avoid recognizing in the Greek\nTheogony, as it appears in Hesiod and the Orphic poems, an inextricable\nintermingling of a cosmogony akin to that of Moses with legendary\nstories of deceased ancestors; and this has, I must confess, always\nappeared to me to be a more rational way of accounting for it than its\nreference to mere nature-myths. Chaos, or space, for the chaos of Hesiod\ndiffers from that of Ovid, came first, then Gaea, the earth, and\nTartarus, or the lower world. Chaos gave birth to Erebos (identical with\nthe Hebrew Ereb or Erev, evening) and Nyx, or night. These again give\nbirth to Aether, the equivalent of the Hebrew expanse or firmament, and\nto Hemera, the day, and then the heavenly bodies were perfected. So far\nthe legend is apparently based on some primitive history of creation,\nnot essentially different from that of the Bible. But the Greek Theogony\nhere skips suddenly to the human period; and under the fables of the\nmarriage of Gaea and Uranos, and the Titans, appears to present to us\nthe antediluvian world, with its intermarriages of the sons of God and\nmen, and its Nephelim or Giants, with their mechanic arts and their\ncrimes. Beyond this, in Kronos and his three sons, and in the strange\nhistory of Zeus, the chief of these, we have a coarse and fanciful\nversion of the story of the family of Noah, the insult offered by Ham to\nhis father, and the subsequent quarrels and dispersion of mankind. The\nZeus of Homer appears to be the elder of the three, or Japheth, the real\nfather of the Greeks, according to the Bible; but in the time of Hesiod\nZeus was the youngest, perhaps indicating that the worship of the\nEgyptian Zeus, Ammon or Ham, had already supplanted among the Greeks\nthat of their own ancestor. But it is curious that even in the Bible,\nthough Japhet is said to be the greater, he is placed last in the lists.\nAfter the introduction of Greek savans and literati to Egypt, about B.C.\n660, they began to regard their own mythology from this point of view,\nthough obliged to be reserved on the subject. The cosmology of Thales,\nthe astronomy of Anaxagoras, and the history of Herodotus afford early\nevidence of this, and it abounds in later writers. I may refer the\nreader to Grote (History of Greece, vol. i.) for an able and agreeable\nsummary of this subject; and may add that even the few coincidences\nabove pointed out between Greek mythology and the Bible, independently\nof the multitudes of more doubtful character to be found in the older\nwriters on this subject, appear very wonderful, when we consider that\namong the Greeks these vestiges of primitive religion, whether brought\nwith them from the East or received from abroad, must have been handed\ndown for a long time by oral tradition among the people; but obscure\nthough they may be, the circumstance that some old writers have ridden\nthe resemblances to death affords no excuse for the prevailing neglect\nof them in more modern times.]\n\n[Footnote 42: Pages 21, 22, and 109, _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 43: The minor planets discovered in more recent times between\nMars and Jupiter form an exception to this; but they are of little\nimportance, and exceptional in other respects as well. To give their\narrangement and the motions of the satellites of Uranus, would require\nthe further assumption of some unknown disturbing cause.]\n\n[Footnote 44: Nichol's \"Planetary System.\"]\n\n[Footnote 45: Proctor's Lectures, etc.]\n\n[Footnote 46: This translation is as literal as is consistent with the\nbold abruptness of the original. The last idea is that of a cylindrical\nseal rolling over clay, and leaving behind a beautiful impression where\nall before was a blank.]\n\n[Footnote 47: Professor Dana thus sums up the various meanings of the\nword _day_ in Genesis: \"_First_, in verse 5, the _light_ in general is\ncalled day, the darkness night. _Second_, in the same verse, _evening\nand morning_ make the first day, before the sun appears. _Third_, in\nverse 14, day stands for _twelve hours_, or the period of daylight, as\ndependent on the sun. _Fourth_, same verse, in the phrase \"days and\nseasons,\" day stands for a period of _twenty-four hours_. _Fifth_, at\nthe close of the account, in verse 4 of the second chapter, day means\nthe _whole period of creation_. These uses are the same that we have in\nour own language.\"\n\nWarring, in his book \"The Miracle of To-day,\" has suggested that the\nMosaic days are _epochal_ days, each considered as the close and\nculmination of a period. This is an ingenious suggestion, and very well\ncoincides with the day-period theory as defended in the text.]\n\n[Footnote 48: Psalm xc.]\n\n[Footnote 49: It may be desirable to give here, in a slightly\nparaphrased version, but strictly in accordance with the views of the\nbest expositors, the essential part of the passage in Hebrews, chap.\niv.:\n\n\"For God hath spoken in a certain place\" (Gen. ii., 2) of the seventh\nday in this wise--'And God did rest on the seventh day from all his\nworks;' and in this place again--'They shall not enter into my rest'\n(Psa. xcv., 11). Seeing, therefore, it still remaineth that some enter\ntherein, and they to whom it (God's Sabbatism) was first proclaimed\nentered not in, because of disobedience (in the fall, and afterward in\nthe sin of the Israelites in the desert), again he fixes a certain day,\nsaying in David's writings, long after the time of Joshua--'To-day, if\nye hear his voice, harden not your hearts.' For if Joshua had given them\nrest in Canaan, he would not afterward have spoken of another day. There\nis therefore yet reserved a keeping of a Sabbath for the people of God.\nFor he that is entered into his rest (that is, Jesus Christ, who has\nfinished his work and entered into his rest in heaven), he himself also\nrested from his own works, as God did from his own. Let us therefore\nearnestly strive to enter into that rest.\"\n\nIt is evident that in this passage God's Sabbatism, the rest intended\nfor man in Eden and for Israel in Canaan, Christ's rest in heaven after\nfinishing his work, and the final heavenly rest of Christ's people, are\nall indefinite periods mutually related, and can not possibly be natural\ndays.]\n\n[Footnote 50: For the benefit of those who may value ancient authorities\nin such matters, and to show that such views may rationally be\nentertained independently of geology, I quote the following passage from\nOrigen: \"Cuinam quaeso sensum habenti convenienter videbitur dictum, quod\ndies prima et secunda et tertia, in quibus et vespera nominatur, et\nmane, fuerint sine sole, et sine luna et sine stellis: prima autern dies\nsine coelo.\" So St. Augustine expressly states his belief that the\ncreative days could not be of the ordinary kind: \"Qui dies, cujusmodi\nsint, aut perdifficile nobis, aut etiam impossibile est cogitare, quanto\nmagis discere.\" Bede also remarks, \"Fortassis hic diei nomen, totius\ntemporis nomen est, et omnia volumina seculorum hoc vocabulo includit.\"\nMany similar opinions of old commentators might be quoted. It is also\nnot unworthy of note that the cardinal number is used here, \"one day\"\nfor first day; and though the Hebrew grammarians have sought to found on\nthis, and a few similar passages, a rule that the cardinal may be\nsubstituted for the ordinal, many learned Hebraists insist that this use\nof the cardinal number implies singularity and peculiarity as well as\nmere priority.]\n\n[Footnote 51: It is to be observed, however, that on the so-called\nliteral day hypothesis the first Sabbath was not man's seventh day, but\nrather his first, since he must have been created toward the close of\nthe sixth day.]\n\n[Footnote 52: \"Footprints of the Creator.\"]\n\n[Footnote 53: This idea occurs in Lord Bacon's \"Confession of Faith,\"\nand De Luc also maintains that the Creator's Sabbath must have been of\nlong continuance.]\n\n[Footnote 54: See the quotation from Job, _supra_.]\n\n[Footnote 55: This is not strictly correct, as many animals, especially\nof the lower tribes, extend back to the early tertiary periods, long\nbefore the creation of man; a fact which of itself is irreconcilable\nwith the Mosaic narrative on the theory of literal or ordinary days.]\n\n[Footnote 56: Since this was written, the bones of many Batrachian\nreptiles have been found in the Carboniferous, both in Europe and\nAmerica. No reptilian remains have yet been found in the Devonian\nrocks.]\n\n[Footnote 57: _Biblical Repository_, 1856. See also an excellent paper\nby Prof. C. H. Hitchcock, _Bibliotheca Sacra_, 1867.]\n\n[Footnote 58: Rhode, quoted by McDonald, \"Creation and the Fall,\" p. 62;\nEusebius, Chron. Arm.]\n\n[Footnote 59: Suidas, Lexicon--\"Tyrrenia.\"]\n\n[Footnote 60: Diodorus Siculus, bk. i. Prichard, Egyptian Mythology.]\n\n[Footnote 61: \"Asiatic Researches.\"]\n\n[Footnote 62: This name is exactly identical in meaning with the Hebrew\nJehovah Elohim.]\n\n[Footnote 63: Mueller, Sanscrit Literature.]\n\n[Footnote 64: The theology of the Institutes is clearly primitive\nSemitic in its character; and therefore, if the Bible is true, must be\nolder than the Aryan theogony of the Rig-Veda, as expounded by Mueller,\nwhatever the relative age of the documents.]\n\n[Footnote 65: \"Recent Advances in Physical Science.\"]\n\n[Footnote 66: Croll's \"Climate and Time\" contains some interesting facts\nas to this.]\n\n[Footnote 67: See the discussion of this in the author's \"Story of the\nEarth,\" and in Sir William Thomson's British Association Address, 1876.]\n\n[Footnote 68: Daniell's Meteorological Essays; Prout's Bridgewater\nTreatise; art. \"Meteorology,\" Encyc. Brit.; \"Maury's Physical Geography\nof the Sea.\"]\n\n[Footnote 69: Kaemtz, \"Course of Meteorology.\"]\n\n[Footnote 70: Encyc. Brit., art. \"Meteorology.\"]\n\n[Footnote 71: It is not meant that the word _rakiah_ occurs in these\npassages, but to show how by other words the idea of stretching out or\nextension rather than solidity is implied. The verb in the first two\npassages is _nata_, to spread out.]\n\n[Footnote 72: See also Humboldt, \"Cosmos,\" vol. ii., pt. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 73: Heb., \"they refine.\"]\n\n[Footnote 74: \"His pavilion round about him was dark waters and thick\nclouds of the skies,\" Psa. xviii. This expression explains that in the\ntext.]\n\n[Footnote 75: Or \"He darkens the depths of the sea.\"]\n\n[Footnote 76: Translation of these lines much disputed and very\ndifficult. Gesenius and Conant render it, \"His thunder tells of him; to\nthe herds even of him who is on high.\"]\n\n[Footnote 77: I take advantage of this long quotation to state that in\nthe case of this and other passages quoted from the Old Testament I have\ncarefully consulted the original; but have availed myself freely of the\nrenderings of such of the numerous versions and commentaries as I have\nbeen able to obtain, whenever they appeared accurate and expressive, and\nhave not scrupled occasionally to give a free translation where this\nseemed necessary to perspicuity. In the book of Job, I have consulted\nprincipally the translation appended to Barnes's Commentary, Conant's\ntranslation, 1857, and those of Tayler Lewis and Evans in Schaff's\nedition of Lange, 1874.]\n\n[Footnote 78: The word is one of those that pervade both Semitic and\nIndo-European tongues: Sanscrit, _ahara_; Pehlevi, _arta_; Latin,\n_terra_; German, _Erde_; Gothic, _airtha_; Scottish, _yird_; English,\n_earth_.--Gesenius.]\n\n[Footnote 79: Psalm xcv.]\n\n[Footnote 80: Gesenius.]\n\n[Footnote 81: Perhaps \"changed,\" metamorphosed, as by fire. Conant has\n\"destroyed.\"]\n\n[Footnote 82: \"Dust\" in our version, literally lumps or \"nuggets.\"]\n\n[Footnote 83: The vulgar and incorrect idea that the vulture \"scents the\ncarrion from afar,\" so often reproduced by later poets, has no place in\nthe Bible poetry. It is the bird's keen eye that enables him to find his\nprey.]\n\n[Footnote 84: Lyell's \"Principles of Geology.\"]\n\n[Footnote 85: Stanford, London, 1875.]\n\n[Footnote 86: In further explanation of these general geological\nchanges, see \"The Story of the Earth and Man,\" by the author.]\n\n[Footnote 87: \"Tenera herba, sine semine saltem\nconspicuo.\"--Rosenmueller, \"Scholia.\"]\n\n[Footnote 88: Haughton, Address to the Geological Society, Dublin.]\n\n[Footnote 89: See McDonald, \"Creation and the Fall.\" Professor Guyot, I\nbelieve, deserves the credit of having first mentioned, on the American\nside of the Atlantic, the doctrine respecting the introduction of plants\nadvocated in this chapter.]\n\n[Footnote 90: \"Eozoic\" of this work. Professor Dana in the latest\nedition of his Manual uses the name \"Archaean.\"]\n\n[Footnote 91: This may refer to an eclipse, but from the character of\nthe preceding verses more probably to the obscurity of a tempest. It is\nremarkable that eclipses, which so much strike the minds of men and\naffect them with superstitious awe, are not distinctly mentioned in the\nOld Testament, though referred to in the prophetical parts of the New\nTestament.]\n\n[Footnote 92: Perhaps rather the high places of the waters, referring to\nthe atmospheric waters.]\n\n[Footnote 93: The rendering \"sweet influences\" in our version may be\ncorrect, but the weight of argument appears to favor the view of\nGesenius that the close bond of union between the stars of this group is\nreferred to. I think it is Herder who well unites both views, the\nPleiades being bound together in a sisterly union, and also ushering in\nthe spring by their appearance above the horizon. Conant applies the\nwhole to the seasons, the bands of Orion being in this view those of\nwinter.]\n\n[Footnote 94: It would be unfair to suppress the farther probability\nthat the writer intends specially to indicate that the sacred crocodile\nof the Nile was itself a creature of Jehovah, and among the humbler of\nthose creatures.]\n\n[Footnote 95: The interesting discovery, by Mr. Beale and others, of\nseveral species of mammalia in the Purbeck, and that of Professor Emmons\nof a mammal in rocks of similar age in the Southern States of America,\ndo not invalidate this statement; for all these, like the _Microlestes_\nof the German trias and the _Amphitherium_ of the Stonesfeld slate, are\nsmall marsupials belonging to the least perfect type of mammals. The\ndiscovery of so many species of these humbler creatures, goes far to\nincrease the improbability of the existence of the higher mammals.]\n\n[Footnote 96: It is very interesting, in connection with this, to note\nthat nearly all the earliest and greatest seats of population and\ncivilization have been placed on the more modern geological deposits, or\non those in which stores of fuel have been accumulated by the growth of\nextinct plants.]\n\n[Footnote 97: See Appendix.]\n\n[Footnote 98: See Appendix for farther discussion of this subject.]\n\n[Footnote 99: See Lyell, Principles of Geology, \"Introduction of\nSpecies.\"]\n\n[Footnote 100: For the exposition of the details of the fall, I beg to\nrefer the reader to McDonald's \"Creation and the Fall,\" to Kitto's\n\"Antediluvians and Patriarchs,\" and to Kurtz's \"History of the Old\nCovenant.\"]\n\n[Footnote 101: The Bible specifies, perhaps only as the principal of\nthese arts, music and musical instruments by Jubal, metallurgy by\nTubalcain, the domestication of cattle and the nomade life by Jabal. It\nis highly probable that these inventors are introduced into the Mosaic\nrecord for a theological reason, to point out the folly of the worship\nrendered to Phtha, Hephaestos, Vulcan, Horus, Phoebus, and other\ninventors, either traditionary representatives of the family of Lamech,\nor other heroes wrongly identified with them. Very possibly their sister\nNaamah, \"the beautiful,\" is introduced for the same reason, as the true\noriginal of some of the female deities of the heathen.]\n\n[Footnote 102: I can not for a moment entertain the monstrous\nsupposition of many expositors that the \"sons of God\" of these passages\nare angels, and the \"Nephelim\" hybrids between angels and men.]\n\n[Footnote 103: See Lange's \"Commentary on Genesis.\"]\n\n[Footnote 104: The Russian surveys of 1836 made it one hundred and eight\nEnglish feet; but later authorities reduce it to eighty-three feet six\ninches below the Black Sea.]\n\n[Footnote 105: Kitto's \"Bible Illustrations\"--Book of Job.]\n\n[Footnote 106: See article \"Rephaim\" in Kitto's \"Journal of Sacred\nLiterature.\" But Gesenius and others regard it, not as an ethnic name,\nbut as a term for the \"shades\" or spirits of the dead. See Conant on\nJob.]\n\n[Footnote 107: On the Biblical view of this subject, the so-called\nAryan mythology, common to India and Greece, is either a derivative from\nthe Cushite civilization, or a spontaneous growth of the Japetic stock\nscattered by the Cushite empire. The Semitic and Hamitic mythologies are\nderived from the primeval cherubic worship of Eden, corrupted and mixed\nwith deification of natural objects and stages of the creative work, and\nwith adoration of deified ancestors and heroes.]\n\n[Footnote 108: Genesis 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters. See also our\nprevious remarks on the deluge.]\n\n[Footnote 109: Genesis iv.]\n\n[Footnote 110: Japheth is \"enlargement,\" his sons are Scythians and\ninhabitants of the isles, varying in language and nationality; and Noah\npredicts, \"God shall enlarge Japheth, he shall dwell in the tents of\nShem, Ham shall be his servant.\" These are surely characteristic\nethnological traits for a period so early. On the rationalist view, it\nmay be supposed that this prediction was not written until the\ncharacters in question had developed themselves; but since the greatest\nenlargement of Japheth has occurred since the discovery of America,\nthere would be quite as good ground for maintaining that Noah's prophecy\nwas interpolated after the time of Columbus.]\n\n[Footnote 111: The language of this people, the stem of the\nIndo-European languages, is, though in a later form, probably that of\nthe Aryan or Persepolitan part of the trilingual inscriptions at\nBehistun and elsewhere in Persia.]\n\n[Footnote 112: Edkins, \"China's Place in Philology.\"]\n\n[Footnote 113: Reginald S. Poole has adduced very ingenious arguments,\nmonumental, astronomical, and mythological, for the date B.C. 2717.]\n\n[Footnote 114: It is curious that almost simultaneously with the\nappearance of Bunsen's scheme a similiar view was attempted to be\nmaintained on geological grounds. In a series of borings in the delta of\nthe Nile, undertaken by Mr. Horner, there was found a piece of pottery\nat a depth which appeared to indicate an antiquity of 13,371 years. But\nthe basis of the calculation is the rate of deposit (3-1/2 inches per\ncentury) calculated for the ground around the statue of Rameses II. at\nMemphis, dated at 1361 B.C.; and Mr. Sharpe has objected that no mud\ncould have been deposited around that statue from its erection until the\ndestruction of Memphis, perhaps 800 years B.C. Farther, we have to take\ninto account the natural or artificial changes of the river's bed, which\nin this very place is said to have been diverted from its course by\nMenes, and which near Cairo is now nearly a mile from its former site.\nThe liability to error and fraud in boring operations is also very well\nknown. It has farther been suggested that the deep cracks which form in\nthe soil of Egypt, and the sinking of wells in ancient times, are other\nprobable causes of error; and it is stated that pieces of burnt brick,\nwhich was not in use in Egypt until the Roman times, have been found at\neven greater depths than the pottery referred to by Mr. Horner. This\ndiscovery, at first sight so startling, and vouched for by a geologist\nof unquestioned honor and ability, is thus open to the same doubts with\nthe Guadaloupe skeletons, the human bones in ossiferous caverns, and\nthat found in the mud of the Mississippi; all of which have, on\nexamination, proved of no value as proofs of the geological antiquity of\nman.]\n\n[Footnote 115: 5004 B.C.]\n\n[Footnote 116: Perhaps the earliest certain date in Egyptian history is\nthat of Thothmes III. of the eighteenth dynasty, ascertained by Birch on\nastronomical evidence as about 1445 B.C. (about 1600, Manetho); and it\nseems nearly certain that before the eighteenth dynasty, of which this\nking was the fifth sovereign, there was no settled general government\nover all Egypt.]\n\n[Footnote 117: The Egyptians seem, like our modern cattle-breeders, to\nhave taken pride in the initiation and preservation of varieties. Their\nsacred bull, Apis, was required to represent one of the varieties of the\nox; and one can scarcely avoid believing that some of their deified\nancestors must have earned their celebrity as tamers or breeders of\nanimals. At a later period, the experiments of Jacob with Laban's flock\nfurnish a curious instance of attempts to induce variation.]\n\n[Footnote 118: See for evidence of these views early notices in Genesis,\nand Lenormant and Osburne on Egyptian Monuments and History.]\n\n[Footnote 119: There is no good reason to believe the flint implements\nmentioned by Delanouee and others, as found on the banks of the Nile, to\nbe older than the historic period.]\n\n[Footnote 120: Wilson, \"Prehistoric Man,\" 2d edition, p. 68.]\n\n[Footnote 121: Southall has accumulated a great number of these facts in\nhis book on the antiquity of man.]\n\n[Footnote 122: Professor Issel, quoted in _Popular Science Monthly_.]\n\n[Footnote 123: Wilson has remarked the striking similarity of the\npottery of these people to American fictile wares. This similarity\napplies also to the early Cyprian art.]\n\n[Footnote 124: I agree with Gladstone's conclusions as to the date and\ncountry of Homer.]\n\n[Footnote 125: I suggested these terms in my lectures published under\nthe title \"Nature and the Bible,\" 1875.]\n\n[Footnote 126: Since these words were written I have read the remarkable\nbook of Edkins on the Chinese language, which supplies much additional\ninformation.]\n\n[Footnote 127: Donaldson has pointed out (British Association\nProceedings, 1851) links of connection between the Slavonian or\nSarmatian tongues and the Semitic languages, which in like manner\nindicate the primitive union of the two great branches of languages.]\n\n[Footnote 128: \"Man and his Migrations.\" See also \"Descriptive\nEthnology,\" where the Semitic affinities are very strongly brought out.]\n\n[Footnote 129: I can scarcely except such terms as \"Japetic\" and\n\"Japetidae,\" for Iapetus can hardly be any thing else than a traditional\nname borrowed from Semitic ethnology, or handed down from the Japhetic\nprogenitors of the Greeks.]\n\n[Footnote 130: See art. \"Philology,\" Encyc. Brit.]\n\n[Footnote 131: Grammatical structure is no doubt more permanent than\nvocabulary, yet we find great changes in the latter, both in tracing\ncognate languages from one region to another, and from period to period.\nThe Indo-Germanic languages in Europe furnish enough of familiar\ninstances.]\n\n[Footnote 132: It is fair, however, to observe that the Bible refers the\nfirst great divergence of language to a divine intervention at the Tower\nof Babel. The precise nature of this we do not know; but it would tend\nto diminish the time required.]\n\n[Footnote 133: Lecture in the Royal Institution, March 24, 1876.]\n\n[Footnote 134: \"Antiquity of Man,\" 4th ed.]\n\n[Footnote 135: Southall, _Op. cit._]\n\n[Footnote 136: The Mentone skeleton described by Dr. Riviere gives\nevidence of these facts.]\n\n[Footnote 137: Mr. Pengelly declines to admit this; but assigns no cause\nfor the breaking up of portions of the old floor, which he merely refers\nin general terms to \"natural causes.\"]\n\n[Footnote 138: This whole subject of supposed preglacial or interglacial\nmen is still in great confusion and uncertainty, and is complicated with\nquestions, still debated, as to the ages of the supposed glacial and\npostglacial deposits.]\n\n[Footnote 139: _Quarterly Journal of Science_, April, 1875.]\n\n[Footnote 140: Lyell's \"Manual of Elementary Geology.\"]\n\n[Footnote 141: For a full discussion of this subject, see the \"Story of\nthe Earth and Man.\"]\n\n[Footnote 142: Such a table, with an admirable exposition of the entire\nsuccession, as at present known, is given in the Appendix to Lyell's\n\"Students' Manual of Geology.\"]\n\n[Footnote 143: Lyell, basing his calculations on the surveys of Messrs.\nHumphreys and Abbott, but others give very different estimates.]\n\n[Footnote 144: A perfectly parallel example is that of the growth of the\npeninsula of Florida in the modern period, by the same processes now\nadding to its shores; and this has afforded to Professor Agassiz a still\nmore extended measure of the Post-tertiary period.]\n\n[Footnote 145: Reade, of Liverpool, has recently given a much slower\nrate--one foot in 13,000 years--as a result of recent English surveys;\nbut I have not seen his precise data, and the result certainly differs\nfrom those of all other observations.]\n\n[Footnote 146: I am quite aware that it may be objected to all this that\nit is based on merely negative evidence; but this is not strictly the\ncase. There are positive indications of these truths. For example, in\nthe Mesozoic epoch the lacertian reptiles presented huge elephantine\ncarnivorous and herbivorous species--the Megalosaurus, Iguanodon, etc.;\nflying species, with hollow bones and ample wings--the Pterodactyles;\nand aquatic whale-like species--Pliosaurus, Ichthyosaurus, etc. These\ncreatures actually filled the offices now occupied by the mammals; and,\nthough lacertian in their affinities, they must have had circulatory,\nrespiratory, and nervous systems far in advance of any modern reptiles\neven of the order of Loricates.]\n\n[Footnote 147: \"Story of the Earth\"--concluding chapters.]\n\n[Footnote 148: This was written in 1860 for the first edition of\n\"Archaia.\" I see no reason to change it now, and its vindication will\nbe, found in the Appendix.]\n\n[Footnote 149: Heb. iv., 9; 2 Peter iii., 13.]\n\n[Footnote 150: Hamilton.]\n\n[Footnote 151: In the manner illustrated by Hyatt and Cope.]\n\n[Footnote 152: Report on Fossil Plants of the Upper Silurian and\nDevonian, 1871.]\n\n[Footnote 153: Drysdale's \"Protoplasmic Theories of Life.\"]\n\n[Footnote 154: Lecture before the Royal Institution of London.]\n\n[Footnote 155: _Leisure Hour_, 1876.]\n\n[Footnote 156: See critique in _International Review_, January, 1877.]\n\n[Footnote 157: Reported in _Nature_, 1876.]\n\n[Footnote 158: \"History of Creation.\"]\n\n[Footnote 159: See also Hunt, \"Chemical and Geological Essays,\" p. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 160: Except, perhaps, Job xxxi., 27.]\n\n[Footnote 161: \"Animals and Plants under Domestication,\" p. 406.]\n\n[Footnote 162: Prichard. This is admitted by Darwin, who gives other\nexamples, though he insists much on the climatal variations which still\nremain in feral pigs.]\n\n[Footnote 163: \"North American Indians.\"]\n\n[Footnote 164: Haliburton's \"Nova Scotia;\" Gilpin's Lecture on Sable\nIsland.]\n\n[Footnote 165: \"Principles of Geology;\" \"Natural History of Man.\" See\nalso a very able article on the \"Varieties of Man,\" by Dr. Carpenter, in\nTodd's Cyclopaedia.]\n\n[Footnote 166: \"The Races of Men,\" etc. Boston, 1848.]\n\n[Footnote 167: Browne, of Philadelphia, quoted by Kneeland and others.]\n\n[Footnote 168: Todd's Cyclopaedia, art. \"Varieties of Man.\"]\n\n[Footnote 169: \"Prehistoric Man.\"]\n\n[Footnote 170: Carpenter in Todd's Cyclopaedia.]\n\n[Footnote 171: For an interesting inquiry into the origin of the dog,\nsee the article in Todd's Cyclopaedia already referred to; and the\nsubject is fully discussed by Darwin, who leans to the theory of the\ndiversity of origin in dogs.]\n\n[Footnote 172: Prichard, Bachman, Cabell.]\n\n[Footnote 173: A curious note, by Dr. John Rae, on the change of\ncomplexion in the Sandwich Islanders, consequent on the introduction of\nclothing, may be found in the \"Montreal Medical Chronicle,\" 1856, and\nthe \"Canadian Journal\" for the same year.]\n\n[Footnote 174: Latham's \"Descriptive Ethnology.\"]\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\nAbraham, 25, 270.\n\nAbrahamic Genesis, 18.\n\nAbyss, 104.\n\n\"Accommodation,\" theory of, 61.\n\nAdaptation in nature, 78.\n\nAEons of creation, 132.\n\nAgassiz on prophetic types, 350.\n  on species, 342.\n\nAnimals, higher, creation of the, 230.\n  lower, creation of the, 211.\n\nAntediluvians, 253.\n\nAntiquity of man, 263, 386.\n  of man, geological evidence of the, 294.\n  of man, history in relation to the, 271.\n  of man, language in relation to the, 285.\n  of the earth, 154, 331.\n\n_Aretz_ (earth), 94, 175.\n\nArgyll, Duke of, on creation by law, 373.\n  Duke of, on the origin of civilization, 391.\n\nAryan race, 16, 267.\n\nAssyrian Genesis, 19, 108.\n  Texts, 412.\n\nAstronomy of the Bible, 207.\n\nAtmosphere, constitution of the, 157.\n  creation of the, 160.\n\nAugustine on creative days, 134.\n\n_Aur_ (light), 115.\n\n\nBabel, 258, 266.\n\n_Bara_ (create), 90.\n\nBeaumont, De, on continents, 184.\n\nBede on creative days, 133.\n\nBeginning, the, 87, 95.\n\n_Behemoth_, 233.\n\n_Bhemah_ (herbivores), 231, 406.\n\nBirds, creation of, 216, 219.\n\nBronn on the origin of species, 339.\n\nBronze, age of, 279.\n\nBunsen's chronology, 273.\n\n\nCainozoic period, 331.\n\nCarnivora, creation of, 232.\n\nCaverns, human remains in, 298.\n\nCentres of creation, 238.\n\nChaos, 100, 107.\n  chemistry of, 112.\n\nChinese language, 288.\n\nComparisons and conclusions, 322.\n\n\"Conflict of the Bible with science,\" 44.\n\nContinents, their origin, 182.\n\nCosmogony, Assyrian, 108.\n  Egyptian, 106, 198.\n  Greek, 109.\n  Hebrew, its character, 70.\n  Hebrew, its objects, 35.\n  Hebrew, its origin, 46.\n  Indian, 110, 148.\n  Persian, 147.\n  Phoenician, 107.\n\nCranial characters of primitive men, 298.\n\nCreation, 90.\n  by law, 373.\n  centres of, 238.\n  days of, 115.\n  modes of, 375, 377.\n  of birds, 216, 219.\n  of carnivora, 232.\n  of great reptiles, 213.\n  of herbivora, 231.\n  of higher animals, 230.\n  of lower animals, 211.\n  of man, 235.\n  of plants, 186.\n\nCroll, calculations of erosion, 334.\n  glacial theory of, 396.\n\n\nDana on creation of plants, 196.\n  on creative days, 144.\n  on tertiary fauna, 234.\n\nDarwin on species, 338.\n\nDay of creation, first, 115.\n  of creation, second, 157.\n  of creation, third, 174.\n  of creation, fourth, 199.\n  of creation, fifth, 211.\n  of creation, sixth, 230.\n  of creation, seventh, 249.\n\nDays of creation, 115.\n  of creation compared with geological periods, 155.\n  prophetic, 65.\n\nDeath before the fall, 355.\n\n\"Deep,\" the, 104.\n\nDeluge, the, 256.\n\n_Deshe_ (herbage), 186.\n\nDesign in nature, 78.\n\nDesolate void, 100.\n\nDrysdale on theories of life, 383.\n\nDupont on Belgian caves, 308.\n\n\nEarth, the, 94, 102, 175.\n  its foundations, 177.\n\nEcclesiastes, chap. i., 74.\n\nEden, conditions of, 237, 252.\n  site of, 237-252.\n\nEdkins on the Chinese language, 286, 288.\n\nEgypt, early history of, 272.\n\nEgyptian Cosmogony, 106, 198.\n  Texts, 412.\n\n_Elohim_, 89, 97.\n\nEvans on the erosion of valleys, 313.\n\nEvening of creative days, 138.\n\nEvolution as applied to animals, 226, 363.\n\nExcavation of valleys, 315.\n\nExodus xxiv., 10, 163.\n\n\nFall of man, 250.\n\nFinal causes, 355.\n\nFirmament, the, 162.\n\nFluidity, original, of the earth, 110.\n\nForbes on creation of man, 250.\n\nFoundations of the earth, 177.\n\nFrontal, cave of, 308.\n\n\nGenesis, chap. i., translated, 66.\n  chap. i., 1, 87.\n  chap. i., 2, 100.\n  chap. i., 3 to 5, 115.\n  chap. i., 6 to 8, 157.\n  chap. i., 10 to 11, 174.\n  chap. i., 14 to 19, 199.\n  chap. i., 20 to 23, 211.\n  chap. i., 24 to 31, 230.\n  chap. ii., 1 to 3, 299.\n  chap. iv., 23, 46.\n  chap. x., 22, 263.\n  the Abrahamic, 18.\n  the Assyrian, 20.\n  the Mosaic, 27.\n  the Quiche, 22.\n\nGeology, principles of, 325.\n\nGlacial periods, theories of, 395.\n\nGod, personality of, 11.\n\n\"Grass\" in Genesis i., 186.\n\nGreek myths, 109.\n\nGreen on the forms of continents, 184.\n\n\nHaeckel on the affiliation of races, 289.\n  on man and apes, 389.\n\nHamite races, 268.\n\nHarmony of revelation and science, 342.\n\nHavilah, productions of, 255.\n\n_Hay'th-eretz_ (wild beast), 232.\n\nHeavens, the, 92, 165.\n\nHerbivora, creation of, 231.\n\nHindoos, cosmogony of the, 149.\n\nHitchcock on creative days, 141.\n\nHorner on the alluvium of the Nile, 274.\n\nHughes on the excavation of valleys, 315.\n  on interglacial periods, 295.\n  on stalagmite, 388.\n  on the Victoria Cave, 387.\n\nHumboldt on Hebrew poetry, 39.\n\nHunt on the chemistry of the primeval earth, 400.\n\nHurakon, 107.\n\nHut of Sodertelge, 386.\n\n\nIce-freshets in America, 314\n\nIncandescence of the earth, 110, 119.\n\nIndia, cosmogony of, 149.\n\n\nJaphetic races, 267, 268.\n\nJehovah, 96.\n\nJob ix., 5, 176.\n  ix., 9, 206.\n  xxii., 15, 257.\n  xxviii., 179.\n  xxviii., 26, 73.\n  xxxvi., 166.\n  xxxvii., 14, 161.\n  xxxviii., 166, 177, 206.\n\nJones, Sir W., on Indian cosmogony, 149.\n\n\nKent's Cavern, 302.\n\nKurtz on days of vision, 49.\n\n\nLamech, his poem, 46.\n\nLand, its creation, 174.\n  geological history of, 182.\n\nLanguages, unity of, 285, 291.\n\nLa Place, nebular hypothesis of, 119.\n\nLatham on African languages, 288.\n  on the radiation of languages, 289.\n\nLaws of nature, in the Bible, 73.\n\nLemuria, 289.\n\nLeviticus xi., 212.\n\nLife, succession of, 331, 337.\n  theories of, 383.\n\nLight, 115, 121.\n\nLogos, 96.\n\nLuminaries, 199.\n\nLyell on the cause of the glacial period, 397.\n  on the delta of the Mississippi, 333.\n  on the pleistocene period, 297.\n\n\nMammals, creation of, 231.\n\nMammoth age, 299.\n\nMan, antiquity of, 386.\n  creation of, 235.\n  neocosmic, 285.\n  palaeocosmic, 285, 319.\n\nMan, unity of, 263, 414.\n\nManetho, chronology of, 273.\n\nMargite, cave of, 308.\n\nMenes, his epoch, 273.\n\nMesozoic period, 218, 331.\n\nMiller on creative days, 135.\n\nMining noticed in the Bible, 179.\n\nMississippi, delta of the, 333.\n\nMist watering the ground, 189.\n\nModern period of geology, 251.\n\nModes of creation, 377.\n\nMoffatt on African languages, 292.\n\nMorse on the evolution of man, 391.\n\nMosaic Genesis, 27.\n\nMueller's classification of religions, 14.\n\nMythology, ancient, its origin, 408.\n  of the atmosphere, 171.\n  as related to the Bible, 109, 261.\n\n\nNature, study of, 244.\n\nNeocosmic man, 285.\n\n\"Neolithic\" men, 278.\n\nNiagara, excavation of, 312.\n\nNimrod, 259.\n\nNoah, sons of, 266.\n\n\nPalaeocosmic men, 285, 319.\n\n\"Palaeolithic\" men, 278.\n\nPalaeozoic animals, 217.\n  period, 231.\n\nParallelism of Scripture and geology, 343.\n\nPattison on the antiquity of man, 318.\n\nPengelly on Kent's Cavern, 302.\n  on stalagmite, 387.\n\nPeriods, creative, 126.\n  geological, 330.\n\nPersians, cosmogony of the, 147.\n\nPhilological evidence of the antiquity of man, 285.\n\nPictet on the origin of species, 339.\n\nPierce on the forms of continents, 184.\n\nPillars of the earth, 177.\n\nPlants, creation of, 186.\n\nPlastids and plastidules, 377.\n\nPratt, Archdeacon, on _bhemah_, 406.\n\nPrayer and law, 171.\n\nProgress in nature, 75, 337.\n\nProverbs, viii., 74, 96, 176.\n\nPsalm viii., 208.\n  viii., 1, 94.\n  xviii., 178.\n  xix., 208.\n  xc., 108.\n  civ., 164, 175, 178, 224.\n  cxix., 90, 74.\n  cxix., 20, 176.\n  cxxxix., 84.\n  cxlvii., 208.\n  cxlviii., 6, 73.\n\nPurpose in nature, 78.\n\n\nQuiche Genesis, 22, 107.\n\n\n_Rakiah_ (the expanse), 162.\n\nRawlinson on historical dates, 390.\n\nReconciliation of the Bible and geology, 342.\n\nReindeer age, 299.\n\nReligion, Aryan, 16.\n  Turanian, 15.\n  Semitic, 16.\n\n_Remes_ (creeping things), 215.\n\n_Rephaim_, 257.\n\nReptiles, 213, 215.\n\nRevelation, idea of, 12.\n\nRiver valleys, excavation of, 314.\n\nRuach Elohim, 106.\n\nRutimeyer on interglacial men, 386.\n\n\nSabbath, the, as related to ages of creation, 130.\n  of the Creator, 249.\n\nSchliemann on Troy, 282.\n\n_Shamayim_ (heavens), 92.\n\nShemite races, 16.\n\n_Sheretz_ (swarming creature), 211.\n\nSomme, gravels of the, 313.\n\nSong of creation, 66.\n\nSpecies, Agassiz on, 61.\n  Bronn on, 339.\n  distinct from varieties, 414.\n  in Genesis i., 215.\n  origin of, 368, 378.\n\nSpirit of God in creation, 106.\n\nStalagmite, deposition of, 310, 385.\n\n_Stereoma_, 162.\n\nStone, ages of, 281.\n\n\nTable of Biblical periods, 352.\n  of geological periods, 330.\n\nTait, Prof., on the age of the earth, 154.\n\n_Tannin_ (great reptile), 213, 405.\n\nTennyson on types in nature, 222.\n\nTheories of the origin of genesis, 51.\n\nThomson, Sir Wm., on the age of the earth, 154.\n\nTime, geological, 321, 332.\n\nTorel on the Sodertelge hut, 386.\n\nTroy, as described by Schliemann, 282.\n\nType in nature, 82, 222.\n\n\nUnity of man, 263, 414.\n  of nature, 36.\n\nUniverse, the unseen, 11.\n\n\nVariation, laws of, 414.\n\nVeda, its cosmogony, 110.\n\nVegetation, its creation, 186.\n  of Eozoic period, 192.\n\nVictoria Cave, 386.\n\nVision of creation, 65.\n\nVoid, the, 100.\n\n\nWallace on evolution, 373.\n  on primitive man, 389.\n\nWaters above the heavens, 159.\n\n\"Whales, great,\" 213.\n\nWilson on American skulls, 427.\n  on ancient pottery, 283.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\nBy PRINCIPAL DAWSON.\n\n\nEARTH AND MAN. The Story of the Earth and Man. By J. W. DAWSON,\nLL.D., F.R.S., F.G.S., Principal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill\nUniversity, Montreal. With Twenty Illustrations. 12mo, Cloth, $1\n50.\n\n     An admirable book. It is a clear and interesting _resume_ of\n     the results of geological investigation, told in simple\n     language, devoid of technicalities. The unscientific reader\n     will obtain more knowledge of geology in one hour's reading\n     of this book than he will in a week's study of more\n     elaborate and professional books upon the same subject. It\n     is vigorously written, and with a certain picturesqueness\n     that is exceedingly attractive. The chapters upon primitive\n     man are peculiarly interesting.--_Saturday Evening Gazette_,\n     Boston.\n\n     The pleasantly written volume before us tells the story of\n     the paleontology and physical geography of the earth in\n     prehuman ages, and closes with a discussion of the theories\n     of the appearance, late in geological time, of man upon the\n     earth. Dr. Dawson's sketch of paleontology will, we feel\n     sure, be found interesting by all readers.--_Athenaeum_,\n     London.\n\n     Since Hugh Miller's time no scientific geologist has done\n     more than Principal Dawson to extend popular interest in\n     this branch of study, to secure attention to its educational\n     value, or to remove misapprehensions which exist in some\n     quarters as to the relations of science and Scripture on\n     geological questions.--_Leisure Hour_, London.\n\n     We have read his book with profound interest. It is\n     intelligible, candid, modest.--_Boston Transcript._\n\n\nORIGIN OF THE WORLD. The Origin of the World, according to\nRevelation and Science. By J. W. DAWSON, LL.D., F.R.S., F.G.S.,\n&c. 12mo, Cloth.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nPUBLISHED BY HARPER & BROTHERS, NEW YORK.\n\nHARPER & BROTHERS _will send either of the above works by mail,\npostage prepaid, to any part of the United Slates, on receipt of\nthe price._\n\nBy ALEXANDER WINCHELL,\n\n\nSKETCHES OF CREATION: a Popular View of some of the Grand\nConclusions of the Sciences in Reference to the History of Matter\nand of Life. Together with a Statement of the Intimations of\nScience respecting the Primordial Condition and the Ultimate\nDestiny of the Earth and the Solar System. By ALEXANDER WINCHELL,\nLL.D. With Illustrations. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.\n\n\nA GEOLOGICAL CHART: exhibiting the Classification and Relative Positions\nof the Rocks, and the Various Phenomena of Stratigraphical Geology;\ntogether with an Indication of Geological Equivalents, the most\nimportant American and Foreign Synonyms, the Economical Products of the\nRocks, and numerous Typical Localities; with an Actual Section from the\nAtlantic to the Rocky Mountains, near the Parallel of Thirty-nine\nDegrees. By ALEXANDER WINCHELL, LL.D. Mounted on roller, $10 00.\n\n_With a Key._ 8vo, Paper, 25 cents.\n\n\nTHE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION; its Data, its Principles, its\nSpeculations, and its Theistic Bearings. By ALEXANDER WINCHELL,\nLL.D. 12mo, Cloth, $1 00.\n\n\nRECONCILIATION OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION. By ALEXANDER WINCHELL,\nLL.D. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.\n\n\n_Published by HARPER & BROTHERS, New York._\n\nHARPER & BROTHERS _will send any of the above works by mail,\npostage prepaid, to any part of the United States, on receipt of\nthe price._","title":"The Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":133882}