IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 11.25 ■tt Itt 12.2 2.0 lit u 14.0 Photographic Sciences CarporaliGn 23 WBT MAIN STMtT WIBSTIR,N.Y. 145M (716)173-4303 ^^ ^\ WrS CIHM/ICMH Series. CIHM/ICMH de Canadian Institute for Historical IMicroreproductions / Institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquas Taehnleal and ■IbNograpMe NotM/N«tM taehniquM at biMtographiquM TiM Inttltut* Hm atMmpMd to obtain tho boat original copy availabia for fHming. Faaturoa of thia copy wliicli may ba biblioorapliieaily uniqua, whieh may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or which may aigniflcantly changa tha uauai mathod of filming, arc chackad balow. D D D D D D Colourad oovara/ Couvartura da couiaur r~1 Covart damagad/ Couvartura andommag4a Covars raatorad and/or laminated/ Couvartura rattaurAa at/ou palliculAa I — I Covar titia missing/ La titra da couvartura manqua I I Colourad maps/ Cartas giographlquas an couiaur Colourad ink (i.a. othar than biua or black)/ Encra da couiaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) r~n Colourad platas and/or iiluatrations/ Planchas at/ou illustrations an couiaur Bound with othar matarial/ Ralii avac d'autras documents Tight binding may causa sitadows or distortion along intarior margin/ Lareliura sarrte paut causar da I'ombra ou da la distortion la long da la marga intiriaura Blank laavas addad during rastoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar possibla. thasa hava iMan omittad from filming/ II sa paut qua cartainas pagas blanches ajoutias tors d'una rastauration apparalssam dans la taxta. mais, iorsqua cala Atait possibla, cas pagas n'ont pas itA fiim«as. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires: L'Institut a mterofHm* la maUleur exemplaire qu1i lui a §U possible do so procurer. Les cMtaNs da eet exemplaire qui sent peut*Atre untouee du point do vue MbNographique, qui peuvent modifier utf image reprodulte, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthoda normale de f ilmagt sent indiquAs ci-dessous. r~| Coloured pages/ Pagee de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagAas Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurAes at/ou peiliculAes Pages discoloured, stainsd or foxei Pages dAcolorAes, tacheties ou piquAes □ Pages damaged/ Pages |~n Pages restored and/or laminated/ ryl Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ □ Pages detached/ Pages d«tach«es FyK Showthrough/ LJlJ Transparence r~l Quality of print varies/ n Quality inAgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du material supplAmentaire rn Only edition available/ T s T VI M : b< ri( re m Seule Mition disponibie Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etv., have been refiimed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuiiiet d'errata, une pelure. etc.. ont Att fiimtes A nouveau de fapon it obtenir la meiileure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de rAduction indiqu* ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X J 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X to the of: roprodiMMd thanks Library of tha PubHc Arehivas of Canada L'axampMra fNm* fut raproduH grioa i la U MbHotMqua daa Arehivas pubNquas du Canada Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia consldarlng tha condition and lafllblllty of tha original oofiy and in kaaping with tha filming contract spadflcatlona. Original coplas In printsd papar coviirs ara fNmad beginning with tha front oovar and ending on tha last page %vith a printed or illustrated Impres- slon, or the beck cover when appropriate. All other orlglnel copies ere filmed beginning on the first pege with e printed or lllustrsted Impres- sion, snd snding on the hMt pege with e printed or lllustrsted Imprssston. Ths Isst rscordsd frsms on eech microfiche shell contein the symbol ->^- (msening "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (msening "END"), whichever eppMes. Lss Images suhmntee ont 4tA reproduites evec le plus grand sdn, uompta tenu do le condMon et do le netteti do renempialre fllmA, et en conf ormM evec lea conditions du contrst ds filmsge. Lee exempkilree origineux dont le couverture en pepier eet imprim4e sent fllm4s en commen^ent per le premier plot et en terminent soit per le demMre pege qui comporte une empreinte d'impreesion ou d'lllustretlon, soit per le sscond plot, selon le ems. Tous les sutres exemplelres origineux sent film4s en commen^nt per la premiere pege qui comporte une empreinte d'impreesion ou d'illustrstion et en terminent per le demlAre pege qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suhrents sppsrattra sur Is dsrnlAra Imege do cheque microfiche, selon le ces: le symbole —»> slgnHis "A 8UIVRR", Is symbols y signlfis "FIN". Maps, plates, chsrts, stc., msy be filmed at different reduction retios. Thoss too lerge to be entirely included In one exposurs ere filmed beginning in the upper left hend comer, left to right end top to bottom, as many fremes as rsquirsd. Ths following diagrams Illustrate the method: Les cartes, pienches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre fllmte A dss tsux ds reduction diffirsnts. Lorsqus Is document est trop grend pour Atre reprodult en un ssul cllchA, II est filmA A pertir de I'engle supArleur gauche, do geuche A droKe, et de heut en bes, sn prenent le nombre d'Imeges nAcesselre. Les disgrammes suivants lllustrsnt la mAthode. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 ABCHAIA i B > \o r ARCHAIA; 09, STUDIES OF THE COSMOGONY AND NATURAL HISTORY OV TH> HEBEEW 8CRIPTUEES BY J. W. DAWSON, LL.D., F.G.S., FBUOIPAL or H'GILL OOLUGB, author or " ACADIAN OIOLOOT," AO. 'Tkt tw* III M UM (Thnlocr urf CPw I oo) MT w fin, ■et kj karlag lay put !■ eoauaoa, kat bcnan, tWagk rntMj dirCTM !■ tktir Uom, bo«k p>iat to * mjriltrioaa aad larWU* origta of tfca world."— WaiwHl . iUontTral : B. DAWSON <& SON. fLon&on * SAMPSON LOW. SON ft CO. 1860. PA dp D2 /* Entered, according to the Act of the Prorincial Parliament, la the year one thonMu&d eight hwidred and flflf-ninei bj B. Pawboh k Sox, in the office of the Begistrar of the Pro- Tinee of Oaaada. JfOmi MTIU, PBIXTBBi BT. nOHOUJ BTBUT. 02036'* n(,yi ■ n ■" ► ( \ /^ liamentylB f-nine, bj if tlwPro- mif fndI(ms%lU8f|t ftdtu Sit ffbmmar OhnutKaJb, 9tact, ooTuvoB onnxAX) oi bbruh vomxK aiobioa, no. A« ▲ riTBOv ov OiVASuv Bonvoi avd LmniTirsa, who oxaom Tm xiaxiR Founoir nr Bbxtibk Aiobioa st hii maovAi) . QVALnmM AS A ITATMICAV, A SOHOIiAB, AVD ▲ KAV OV Mmrca^ Iv mmovT oy shs host sivoni bmfbot, avd ov obatititdi fOB PBBSOBIX KnrSBBSB, SB tire abiifior. FBEEAGE. ->r i ~nn nnnnni ' ii 'rin i - ii m This work ia not intended as a treatiae on elementarj Geology, with Theological applications, nor as an attempt to establish a scheme of reconciliation between Qeology and the Bible. It is the resnlt of a series of ex^tical stadiee of the first chapter of Genesis, in connection with the numerous incidental references to nature and creation in other parts of the Holy Scriptures. These studies were undertaken primarily for the private information of the author; and are now published as affording the best answer which he can give to the numerous questions on this subject addressed to him in his capacity of a teacher of Geology. A farther use to be served by such a work, even Sifter all the numerous treatises already published, is that of affording to geolo^ts and the readers of geological works, a digest of the oosmical doctrines to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, when treated striowiy according to the methods of interpretation pn^per to such documents. PUFAOB. but with the aotaal itate of geological eoienoe AiU in view. On the other hand, biblical stadents and christians gene- rallj, may bo interested in noUng the aspects in which the scriptural cosmogony presents itself to a working nataralist, regarding it fW)m the stand-point afforded by the mass of facta and principles accumulated by modem ccience. The author has availed himsdf of all the critical and expository helps within his reach ; but has carefully avoided that parade of contradictory authorities, which, by an easy but useless show of erudition, often swells such ^orks to unnecessary dimensions. He has trusted principally to a «areful comparison, in the original, of all the scriptural references to every fact and term in question. This pro- cess, though tedious, has proved capable of yielding answers to many doubtful questions, more positive and satisfactory than those which could be obtained in any other way. He doeb not, however, pretend to have exhausted the sub- ject ; and is quite aware that, in an investigation connected with so many widely different branches of knowledge, he may have to crave the indulgence of the reader for many errors and omissions. The author must further express his conviction, that a fitting audience for such topics can (e found only among those who are imbued with a knowledge of natural science PllfAOl. ■oqoired by its own peenluur methods of inyestigation, and who also entertain, on its special and very different e?i- denoe, a firm fidth in the inestimable spiritual revelttions of the Word of Gk>d. However highly he may respect and love natoralists who have given no attention to the claims of scriptural Christianity, or theologians who know nothing of nature, he does not expect from either a fiill appreciation of his views. Still less can he hope for the approval of that shallow rShool which decries '' Bible phi- losophy" as a thing of a by-gone time, and attempts to raise an insurmountable barrier between the domains of faith and reason, by excluding from naWe the idea of creative power, or from reli^on the noble cosmogony of the Bible. His utmost hopes will be realized, if he can secure the approbation of those higher minds in which the love of God is united with the study of his works ; and aid in some small d^ree in redeeming the subject from the narrow views which are, unhappily, too prevalent. The work is issued in Canada, because the writer desires to contribute his mite to the growing literature of British America, and has found in Montreal a house sufficiently enterpricdng to undertake the risk of publication. J. W. D. MoGiLL OOLLIOI, Montre^ November, 1869. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I.— Intboduotobt, 9 II. — Objxots, Ghabaotbb and Autbobitt of THB Hebbew Gobkooony, IT III. — Obnebal Views of Natubb contained in THE Hebbbw Sobiptubbs, 49 ly. — The Bbqinning, 61 v. — The Desolate Void, 71 VI. — ^LlGBT, 86 YIL^Dats of Gbeation, 98 YIII. — The Atmosphbbe, 130 IX.— TaB Dby Land, 14t X. — The Pibst Vegetation, 160 XI. — ^LUMINABIES, 176 XII. — The Lowbb Animals, 187 XIII. — The Hioheb Anixals, 206 XIV.— Man, 214 XV. — The Rest of the Obeatob, 232 XVI. — Unity and Antiquity of Man, 246 Xyil.— OOMPABISONS AND GOMOLUSIONS, 316 OONTENTS. appendix a.— authintioitt akd glnuutlkisb of thl Mosaic Books, 361 B.— RlLATION or THl HUKAN AHD TflBTIABT Periods, 363 0.— Obioutai. Fluioitt or thi Earth, 366 D.—Azoio Rooks, 367 E.^Anoiint Floras, 369 F. — DiTiLOPHKNT or Spxcirio Forms bt Natu- ral Law, 370 O.— Tmi TANmNiH, 388 ' E.— RiCBNT Elitatiox or Wbstbrm and Obn- TBAL Asia, and Spbcuio Obntbbb or Obbation, 390 I. — ^Primitivb Unity or L anquaob, 391 E.— Ancient Mytholooibs, 394 L.— •SuFPOSBD Txbtiabt Baobs Of Men, 397 h \'V= ■\y '■ u :?'■'*. ■'fr "'■"S^.' '■■■■i^/ ARCHAIA. CHAPTER I. INTBODUOTOBT. Mobs than thirfy centuries ago, a numerous serf-popu- lation emancipated itself from Egyptian bondage, and, after forty years of wandering desert life, settled itself perma- nently on the hills and in the valleys of Palestine. The voice of the ruling race, indistinctly conveyed to us from that distant antiquity, maintains that the fugitive slaves were an abject and contemptible herd ; but the leader of the exodus informs us, that, though cruelly trodden down by a haughly despot, they were of noble parentage, the heirs of high hopes and promises. Their migration is certainly the most remdxkLble national movement in the world's history, — -remarkable, not merely in its events and immediate circumstances, but in its remote political, lite- rary, and moral results. The rulers of Egypt, polished, enlightened, and practical men, were yet the devotees of a complicated system of hero and relio worship, vitiating and 10 ABOHAIA. degrading all their higher aims. The slayes, leaving all this behind them, rose in their religious opinions to a pure and spiritual monotheism ; and their leader presented to them a law unequalled up to our time in its union of jus- tice, patriotism, and benevolence, and established among them, for the first time in the world's history, a free con- stitutional republic. Nor is this all ; unexampled though such results are elsewhere, in the case of serfs suddenly emancipated. The Hebrew law-giver has interwoven his institutions in a grand historical composition, including a cosmogony, a detailed account of the affiliation and ethno- logical relations of the races of men, and a narrative of the fortunes of his own people ; intimating not only that they were a favoured and chosen race, but that of them was to arise a great deliverer who would bless all nations with pardon and with peace. The lawgiver passed to his rest. His laws and litera- ture, surviving through many vicissitudes, produced in each succeeding age a new harvest of poetry and history, leavened with their own spirit. In the meantime the learning and the superstition of Egypt faded from the eyes of men. The splendid political and military organisations of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Macedon, arose and crumbled into dust. The wonderful literature of Greece blazed forth and expired. That of Rome, a reflex and copy of the former, had reached its culminating point. The world, with all iiiS national liberties crushed out, its religion and its philo- sophy corrupted and enfeebled to the last degree by an ;/ ' INTBODUOTOBT. 11 endleas soooesaion of borrowings and intermixturef, Uy proftrate under the iron heel of Rome. Then appeared among the now obsoore remnant of Israel, one who an- nounoed himself as the Prophet like unto Moses, promised of old ; but a prophet whose mission it was to redeem not Israel only, but the world. Adopting the whole of the saered literature of the Hebrews, and proving his mission by its words, he sent forth a few plain men to write its closing books, and to plant it on the ruins of all the time- honoured beliefs of the nations, — ^beliefs supported by a splendid and highly organised priestly system and by des- potic power, and gilded by all the highest efforts of poetry and art. The story is a very familiar one ; but it is marvellous beyond all others. Nor is the modem history of the Bible less wonderful. Exhumed from the rubbish of the middle ages, it has entered on a new career of victory. It has stimulated the mind of modern Europe to all its highest efforts ; and has been the charter of its civil and religious liberties. Its wondrous revelation of all that man most deures to know, in the past, in the present, and in his future destinies, has gone home to the hearts of men in aU ranks of society and in all countries. In many great nations it is the only rule of religious faith. In every civilised oountry it is the ham of all that is most valuable in reli- gion. Where it has been withheld from the people, civiti- sation in its higher aspects has languished, and superstition, infidelity, and tyranny have hdd their ground. Where h 12 AEOHAIA. has been a household book, liberty has taken root, and the higher nature of man has been developed to the full. Driven from many other countries by tyrannical interfer- ence with liberty of thought and discussion, or by a short- sighted ecolesiasticism, it has taken up its special abode with the greatest commercial nation of our time ; and scattered by its agency broadcast over the world, it is read by every nation under heaven in its own tongue, and is slowly but surely preparing the way for wider and greater changes than any that have heretofore resulted from its influence. Explain it as we may, the Bible is a great literary miracle; and no amount of inspiration or authority that can be claimed for it, is more strange or incredible than the actual history of the book. Tet there are in the world many influences directly antagonistic to the Bible, and many others that tend to its n^lect, or to an under-estimate of its value. Tyranny hates it, because the Bible so strongly maintains the indi- vidual value and rights of man as man. The spirit of caste dislikes it for the same reason. Anarchical license, on the ether hand, finds nothing but discouragement in it. Priest- eraft gnashes its teeth at it, as the very embodiment of private judgment in religion, and because it so scornfully ignores human authority in matters of conscience, and human intervention between man and his Maker. Scep- ticism sneers at it, because it requires faith and humility, and threatens ruin to the unbeliever, It launches its thun- ders against every form of violenoe, or fraud, or allurement, INTRODUOTOBT. 18 that seeks to profit by wrong or to pander to the vices of mankind ; all these consequently are its foes. These are terrible opponents; but their hostility %m to have been anticipated, and the book has often met and conquered them in the time past. Another class of influences of much more respectable character, are sometimes in our day brought into opposition to the Bible, or perhaps I should rather say into competition with it. The immense mass of modem literature has some effect in casting the Bible into the shade, and in making it less the book of the people. It is true that this literature in all its higher forms derives in great part its tone from the Holy Scriptures, yet it buries the book itself. Again, the Bible commits itself to certain facts in history, and there has been much earnest battling on its truth and authority in this respect. At one time it was not unusual to impugn its historical accuracy on the evidence of the Greek historians; and on many points scarcely any corroborative evidence could be cited in favour of the Hebrew writers. In our own time much of this difficulty has been removed, and an immense amount of learned research has been reduced to waste paper, by the circumstance that the stones of Memphis and Nineveh have literally risen up to bear testimony in favour of the Bible ; and scarcely any sane man now doubts the value of the Hebrew history. The battle-ground has in consequence been shifted farther back, to points concerning the affiliation of the races of men, and the absolute antiquity of man's residence on the earth ; questions on which we can scarcely 14 ABOHAIA. expect to find much monumental or icientiflo eyidenoe. Lastly, the Bible commits itself to certain cosmolo^oal doctrines and statements, respecting the system of nature and details of that system, more or less approaching to the domain which geology occupies in its investigations of the past history of the earth; and at every stage in the progress of modem science, independently of the mischief done by smattorers and sceptics, earnest bigotry on the one hand, and earnest scientific enthusiasm on the other, have oome into collision. One stumbling-block after another has, it is true, been removed to the satisfaction of all par- ties ; but the field of conflict has thereby apparently only changed ; and we still have some christians in consequence regarding the revelations of natural science with suspicion, and some scientific men cherishing a sullen resentment against what they regard as an intolerant inter-meddling of theology with the domain of Intimate investigation. There can be no question that the whole subject is at the present moment in a more satisfactory state than ever previously ; that much has been done for the solution of difficulties ; that theologians admit the great service which in many cases science has rendered to the interpretation of the Bible, and that naturalists feel themselves free from andue trammels. Above all, there is a very general dis- position to admit the distinctness and independence of the fields of re\'olation and natural science, the possibility of their arriving at some of the same truths, though in very different ways, and the folly of expecting them fully UrtftOOITOTOKT. U •tid maaifesUy to agt«e, in the present state of our ilh fotmatioli. The literature of thu kind of natural history has also become tery extensive, and there are few penKniMi who do not at least know that there are methods of reooli- ta&lag the cosmogony of Moses with that obtained fWM the stndy of nature. For this very reason the time is jfkvourable for an nnprejndioed discussion of the questions involved ; Snd for presenting on the one hand to naturalil^ a summary of what the Bible does actually teach respeotiig; the early history of the earth and man, and on the othUr to those whose studies lie in the book which they regard as the word of God, rather than in the material universe which they r^ard as his work, a view of the points in which the teaching of the Bible comes into contact with natural science, at its present stage of progress. These are the ends whidh I propose to myself in the following pages, and which I shall endeavour to pursue in a spirit of fair and truthfbl investigation ; paying regard on the one hand to the claims and influence of the venerable Book of God, and on the other to the rights and l^itimate results of modem scien- tific inquiry. The plan which I have sketched out for the treatment of the subject, corresponds with the title of the work, and befits the present state of our knowledge, whether of nature or revelation. I have adopted the method not of a teacher but an enquirer, endeavouring in the outset to settle certain preliminary points essential to the right understanding of the subject, and then to sifb carefully the scriptural cosmo- 16 ABOHATA. gony, as it appears not only in Genesis bat in OTeiy other book of the Bible, with reference to its true oosmioal import, and apparent agreement or disoordanoe with modem inter- pretations of nature arrived at by the very different methods «f inductive science. If in pursuing this investigation I have proceeded more boldly and unreservedly than has been aastomary, I plead the desire to discover truth rather than to follow in old paths ; and if the results reached should appear strange or startling to the reader, whether scientific, theological, or neither of these, he is asked to bear in mind that there may be truths which have not fallen within the range of his previous studies, and to weigh oarefuUy the evidence, even though this also should be foreign to his isual methods of inquiry. CHAPTER II. . , OBJECTS, OHABAOTER AND AUTHORITY OF THE SOBIP- TUBAL VIEWS OF THE COSMOS. "There are two books from which I collect mj dirinity; besideB that written one of God, another of his servant nature — that unirersal and public manuscript that lies ezpansed unto the eyes of all." — Sir T. Browne. There are some questions, simple enough in themselves, respecting the general charaoter and object of the references to nature and creation in the scriptures, which yet are so variously and vaguely answered, that they deserve some con- sideration, before entering on the detailed study of the subject. These are — (1). The object of the introduction of such subjects into the Hebrew sacred books. (2). The diaracter and structure of the narrative of creation and other cosmologioal statements, in a literary point of view (3). The degree of authority to be attached to such state- ments, on the supposition that the Bible is theologically truthful. (1). The object of the introduction of cosmogony and references to nature in the Bible. Man as a " religious animal " desires to live not merely in the present, but in the future also and the past. This is a psychological peculiarity which, as much as any other, mrrks his sepa- ration from the lower animals, and which in his utmost 18 ABOHAIA. degradation he never wholly losea. No people is so rude M to be destitate of some hopes or fears in reference to the fbtare — some traditions as to the distant past. Every reli- gioui system that has had any influence over the human mind has included such ideas. Nor are we to regard this M an accident. It depends on fixed principles in the human oonstitution, which crave as their proper aliment such infor- mation ; and if it cannot be obtained, the mind, rather than want it, invents for itself. We might infer from this very circumstance, that a true religion, emanating from the Creator, would supply this craving; and might content ourselves with affirming that, on this ground alone, it be- hoved revelation to have a cosmogony. But the religion of tho Hebrews especially required to be explicit as to the origin of the earth and all thitigi therein. Its peculiar dogma is that of one only God, the Oreator, requiring the solo homage of his creatures. The heathen for the most part acknowledged in some form • a supreme god, but they also gave divine honours to subordi- nate gods, to deceased ancestors and heroes, and to natural phenomena, in such a manner as practically to obscure their ideas of the Creator, or altogether to set aside his worship. The influence of such idolatry was the chief antagonism which the Hebrew monotheism had to encounter ; and we learn from the history of the nation how often the worship- pers of Jehovah were led astray by its allurements. To guard against this danger, it was absolutely necessary that no place should be left for the introduction of polytheism, OBJECTS, ITO., Of mi OOflMOaOMT. tf by placing the whole work of oreation and providenoe nnder the aole juriMliotion of the One Ood. Moeee conieqaently takes strong ground on these points. He first insists on the creation of all things by the fiat of the Saprema. Next he specifies the elaboration and arrangement of all the powers of inanimate nature, and the introduction of every form of organic existence, as the work of the same First Oaose. Lastly, he insists on the creation of a primal human pair, and on the descent from them of all the bran- dies of the human race, including of course those ancestors and magnates who up to his time had been honoured with ^theosis ; and on the same principle he explains the golden age of Eden, the fall, the cherubic emblems, the deluge, and other facts in human history interwoven by the heathen with their idolatries. He thus grasps the whole material of ancient idolatry, reduces it within the compass of mono- theism, and shows its relation to the one true primitive religion, which was that not only of the Hebrews but of right that of the whole world, whose prevailing polytheism consisted in perversions of its truth or unity. For such reasons the early chapters of Genesis are so far from being of the character of digressions from the scope and intention of the book, that they form a substratum of doctrine abso- lutely essential to the Hebrew faith, and equally so to its development in Christianity. The references to nature in the Bible, however, and especially in its poetical books, far exceed the absolute requirements of the reasons above stated ; and this leads to 20 ARCHAIA. another and very interesting view, namely, the tendency of monotheism to the development of truthful and exalted ideas of nature. The Hebrew theology allowed no attempt at visible representations of the Creator or of his works for purposes of worship. It thus to a great extent prevented that oonneotion of imitative art with religion which flou- rished in heathen antiquity, and has been introduced into certain forms of Christianity. But it cultivated the higher arts of poetry and song, and taught them to draw their inspiration from nature as the only visible revelation of Deity. Henoe the growth of a healthy " physico-theology," excluding all idolatry of natural phenomena, but inviting to their examination as manifestations of God, and leading to conceptions of the unity of plan in the cosmos, of which polytheism, even in its highest literary eflForts, was quite incapable. In the same manner the Bible has always proved itself an active stimulant of natural science, connect- ing such studies, as it does, with our higher religious sen- timents ; while polytheism and materialism have acted as repressive influences, the one because it obscures the unity of nature, the other because, in robbing it of its presiding Divinity, it gives a cold and repulsive, corpse-like aspect, chilling to the imagination, and incapable of attracting the general mind. Naturalists should not forget their obligations to the Bible in this respect, and should on this very ground prefer its teachings to those of modern pantheism and positiv- ism, and still more to those of mere priestly authority. OBJECTS, ETC., OF THE OOSMOGONT. 21 Very few minds are content with simple materialism, and those who must have a God, if they do not recognise the Jehovah of the Hebrew scriptures as the Creator and Su- preme Ruler of the universe, are too likely to seek for him in the dimness of human authority and tradition, or of pantheistic philosophy ; both of them more akin to ancient heathenism than to modern civilization, and in their ulti- mate tendencies, if not in their immediate consequences, quite as hostile to progress in science as to evangelical Christianity. Every student of human nature is aware of the influence in favour of the appreciation of natural beauty and sub- limity, which the Bible impresses on those who are deeply imbued with its teaching ; even where that same teaching has induced what may be regarded as a puritanical dislike of imitative art, at least in its religious aspects. On the other hand naturalists cannot refuse to acknowledge the surpassing majesty of the views of nature presented in the Bible. No one has expressed this better than Humboldt : — " It is characteristic of the poetry of the Hebrews that, as a reflex of monotheism, it always embraces the universe in its unity, comprising both terrestrial life and the lumi- nous realms of space j it dwells but rarely on the indivi- duality of phenomena, preferring the contemplation of great masses. The Hebrew poet does not depict nature as a self-dependent object, glorious in its individual beauty, but always as in relation or subjection to a higher spiritual power. Nature is to him a work of creation and order — 22 ABOHAIA. the living ezpreflsion of the omnipresenoe of the Diyini^ in the visible w- ■idering that they are based on a revelation of the nature and order of the creative work which supplied to the Hebrew mind the place of those geological wonders which have • OosmoB, " Otto's translation." OBJECTS, ETC., OF TAX 008MOOONT. 9t astonished and enlarged in the minds of modern nations. A living divine, himself well read in nature, truly says :— "If men of piety were also men of science, and if men of science were to read the scriptures, there would be more faith on the earth and also more philosophy."* In a similar strain, the patient botanist of the marine algsQ thus pleads for the joint claims of the Bible and nature : — " Unfortu- nately it happens that in the educational course prescribed to our divines, natural history has no place, for which reason many are ignorant of the important bearings which the book of nature has on the book of revelation. They do not consider, apparently, that both are from God — ^both are his faithful witnesses to mankind. And if this be so, is it reasonable to suppose that either, without the other, can be fully underatood ? It is only necessary to glance at the absurd commentaries in reference to natural objects which are to be found in too many annotations of the Holy So/ip- tures, to be convinced of the benefit which the clergy would themselves derive from a more extended study of the works of creation. And to missionaries especially, a minute fami- liarity with miural objects must be a powerful assistance in awakening the attention of the savage, who, after his manner, is a close observer, and likely to detect a fallacy in his teacher, should the latter attempt a practical illustration of his discourse without sufficient knowledge. These are not days in which persons who ought to be our guides in matters of doctrine can afford to be behind the rest of the * Hamilton, " Royal Preacher." AII0HAIA4 world in knowledge ; nor can they safely sneer at the know- ledge whioh pnffeth up, tintO, like the Apostle, they hate Boundod its depths and proved its shallowness."* It is trtily much to be desired that divines and commentators, instead of trying to distort the tepresentations of nature in the Bible into the supposed requirements of a barbarous age, or of setting aside modern discoveries as if they could have no connection with scripture truth, would study natural objects and laws sufficiently to bring themselves in this respect to the level of the Hebrew writers. Such knowledge Would be cheaply purchased even by the sacrifice of a part of their verbal and literary traiuing. It is well that this point is now attracting the attention of the christian world, and it is but just to admit that some of our more eminent riigious writers — as, for example, Hamilton and Guthrie— have produced noble examples of accurate illustrations of scripture derived from nature. Such examples redeem the church from the charge so eloquently urged by Prof. Peirce, of Harvard, in the following paragraph f :— " Is religion then, so false to God as to avert its face from science ? Is the church willing to declare a divorce of this holy marriage tie ? Can she afford to renounce the external proofs of a God having sympathy with man ? Dare she excommuni- cate science, and answer, at the judgment, for the souls which are thus reluctantly compelled to infidelity ? We reject the authority of the blind scribes and pharisees who * Harvey, " Nereis Boreali Americana." t Proceedings American Association, 1864. 0BJS0T8, no., or vhi oosmogont. 25 have hidden themselves firom the light of Heaven under siieh a darkness of bigotry. We claim oar jnst righta and our share in the ohnroh. The man oS science is a man, and knows sin as mnoh as other men, and equally with other men he needs the salvation of the gospel. We ao> knowledge that the revelations of the physical world are addressed to the head, and do not minister to the wants of the heart; we acknowledge that science has no authority to interfere with the Scriptures and perplex the holy writ with forced and impossible constructions of language. This admission does not derogate from, the dignity of science ; and we claim that the sanctity of the Bible is equally un> disturbed by the denial that it was endowed with authority ^yver the truths of physical science. But we, nevertheless, as sons of men, claim our share in its messages of forgive* iiess, and will not be hindered of our inheritance by the unintelligible technicalities of sectarianism ; as children, we kneel to the church and implore its sustenance, and entreat the constant aid and countenance of those great and good men who are its faithful servants and its surest Sap- port, whose presence and cheering sympathies axe a perpe> tual benediction, and among whom shine the brightest %hts of science as well as of religion. Moreover, as ioientifie men, we need the Bible to strengthen and confirm Wf fiulh in a snpreme intellectual Pow«r, to assure ua that #e are not ittposii^ our forms of tlrought upon a ftrtaiteqii tfdffibination of disloeated atoms, but that we may 0tad|y His works humbly, hopefully, and trusting that th* ABOHAIAr sory is not yet exhaasted, but that there is still left an infinite vein o( spiritual ore to be worked by Amerioan intellect." It cannot be denied that the Bible, in its re- ferences to nature, fully recognizes the claims thus strongly set forth ; and which may be urged by the unlettered pea- sant who merely looks on nature, as well as by the savant who penetrates into its laws. (2). Character of the Scriptural Cosmogony in a literary point of view. A respectable physicist, but some- vrhat shallow naturalist and theologian of our day,, has said of the first chapter of Genesis : " It cannot be history — it may be poetry." Its claims to be history we shall investi- gate under another head, but it is pertinent to our present inquiry to ask whether it can be poetry. That its substance or matter is poetical, no one who has read it once can believe ; but it cannot be denied that in its form it ap- proaches somewhat to that kind of thought-rhythm or paral- lelism which gives so peculiar a character to Hebrew poetry. We learn from many scripture passages, especially in the proverbs, that this poetical parallelism need not ne- cessarily be connected with poetical thought ; that in truth it might be used, as rhyme is sometimes with us, to aid the memory. The oldest acknowledged verse in scripture is a case in point. Lamech, who lived before the flood, appears to have slain a man in self-defence, or at least in an encounter in which he himself was wounded ; and he attempts to define the nature of the crime in the following words : — 0BJI0T8, ITO., or THE 008MOOOMT. 27 ** Adah and Zillah, hear my Toiee ; Te wires of Lamech hearken to my speech :— I bare slain a man to my woanding, And a young man to my hurt ; If Gain shall be avenged sevenfold, Truly Lamech seventy and seven told." All this is prosaic enough in matter, but the form into which it is thrown gives it a certain dignity, and impresses it on the memory ; which last object was probably what the author of this sole fragment of antediluvian literature had in view. He succeeded too— for the sentiment was handed down, probably orally; and Moses incorporates it in his narration, perhaps on account of its interest as the first record of the distinction between wilful murder like that of Cain and justifiable homicide. It is interesting also to observe the same parallelism of style, no doubt with the same objects, in many old Egyptian monumental inscrip- tions, which, however grandiloquent, are scarcely poetical..* Now in the first chapter of Genesis and the first three verses of chapter second, being the formal general narrative olf creation, on which, as we shall see, every other statement on the subject in the Bible is based, we have this peculiar parallelism of style. If we ask why ; the answer must, I think, be — to give dignity and symmetry to what would otherwise be a dry abstract, and still more to aid memory. This last consideration, perhaps indicating that this chapter, like the apology of Lamech, had been handed down orally * Osburn, Monumental History of Egypt. V ABOHAU. for a long period, is the strongest of all the arguments for the 80-oalled " document hypothesis," which supposes the ' earlier chapters of Genesis to have been merely compiled by Moses from earlier literaiy fragments. I by no means wish to maintain this hypothesis, now much less in favour than formerly ; but on the other hand I cannot believe that it would in any way, if established, invalidate the inspiration of these chapters ; since there were prophets and holy men inspired of Qod before Moses, and if anything revealed to them remained extant in his time, it had a right to appear in its proper place in the sacred literature. The form of the narrative, however, in no way impairs its precision or accuracy of statement. On this Eichorn well says : " There lies at the foundation of the first chapter a carefully designed plan, all whose parts are carried out with much art, whereby its appropriate place is assigned to every idea " ; and we may add, whereby every idea is expressed in the simplest and fewest words, yet with marvellous accu- racy, amounting to an ahnost scientific precision of diction, for which both the form into which it is thrown, and the homogeneous and simple character of the Hebrew language, are very well adapted. Much of this indeed remains in the English version, though our language is less perfectly suited than the Hebrew for the concise announcement of general tru^ths of this description. Our translators have, however, deviated greatly firom the true sense of many important words, especially where they have taken the septuagint translation iot their goide^ ae in the. words " firmament," 0BJ1CT8, ITO., or TBI OOBMOGONT. 29 "whales," "creeping things," fto. These <)nora will ht noticed in subsequent pages. In the mean time I m%y merely add, that the labours of the ablest biblical oritioa ^ve us every reason to conclude that the received text of Qenesis preserves, almost without an iota of change, th« beautiful simplicity of its first chapter ; and that we now have it in a more perfect state than that in which it was presented to the translators of most of the early versions.* It must also be admitted that the object in view waft best served by that direct reference to the creative flak, and ignoring of all secondary causes, which are conspicuona in this narrative. This is indeed the general tone of the Bible in speaking of natural phenomena ; and this mode of proceeding is in perfect harmony with its claims to divine authority. Had not this course been chosen, no other oould have been adopted, in strict consistency with truth, short of a full revelation of the whole system of nature, in the details of all its laws and processes. Had this altemt- tive been adopted, who could have read or comprehended the vast encyclopedia which would have been produced. The moral ends of a revelation would have been sacrificed, and we would have been excluded from the fresh and ex- citing exploration of actual nature. Regarded from this point of view — the plenary inspiration of the book — the scriptural references to creation profess to furnish a very general outline, for theological purposes, of the principal features of a vast region unexplored when they * DavidsoD^ " Biblical Criticism," p. 410. See also Appendix A, AROHAIA. were written, and into which human reeearch has yet pene- trated along only a few lines. Natural Boience, in following out these lines of observation, has reached some of the objects delineated in the scriptural sketch ; of others it has obtained distant glimpses; many are probably unknown, and we can appreciate the true yalue and dimensions rela- tiyely to the whole of very few. So vast indeed are the subjects of the bold sketch of the Hebrew prophet, that natural science cannot pretend as yet so to fill in the out- line as quite to measure the accuracy of its proportions. Yet the lines, though few, are so boldly c^awn, and with so much apparent unity and symmetry, i;hat we almost involuntarily admit that they are accurate and complete This may appear to be underrating the actual progress of science relatively to this great foreshadowing outline ; but I know that those most deeply versed in the knowledge of nature will be the least dispobed to quarrel with it, what ever skepticism they may entertain as to the greater general completeness of the inspired record. Another point which deserves a passing notice here, is the theory of Dr. Kurtz and others, that the Mosaic nar- rative represents a vision of creation, analogous to those prophetic visions which appear in the later books of scrip- ture. This is beyond all question the most simple and probable solution of the origin of the document, when viewed as inspired, but we shall have to recur to it on a future page. (3). What 18 the precise degree of authority to he at- OBJI0T8, na, Of TBI OOBMOCIOMT. 91 4aehed to the Motaic cotmogony f It b either an iiiq>irMi fevelation of the Divine procedure in creation, or it u a Iffoduct of homan imagination or research, or a deliberate firand. To no part of the Bible do these altematiyee more strictly apply than to its first chapter. This " cannot be history " in the strict acceptation of the term. It relates to eventa which no human eye witnessed, respecting which no human testimony could give any inffmnation. It represents the lOreation of man as the last of a long series of events, of which it professes to inform us. The knowledge of these events cannot have been a matter of human experience. If at all entitled to confidence, the narrative must, therefore, be received as an inspired document, not handed down by any doubtful tradition, but existing as originally transfused into human language from the mind of the Author of nature himself. This view is in no way affected by the hypothesis already mentioned, that the first chapters of Genesis were compiled by Moses from more ancient doc a ments. This merely throws back the revelation to a higher antiquity, and requires us to suppose the agency of two inspired men instead of one. It would be out of place here to enter into any argument for the inspiration of scripture, or to attempt to define the nature of that inspiration. I merely wish to impress on the mind of the reader, that without the admission of its reality, or at least its possibility, it will be useless to pro- ceed any farther with our inquiry, except as a matter of at ABOBAIA. oarioui antiqnariaD researoh. We most also on this ground diitinguigh between the olaims of the scriptaree and thoM <^ tradition or seoular history, when they refer to the uom foots. The traditions and cosmogonies of some ancient nations have many features in common with the Bible nar- rative ; and, on the supposition that Moses compiled from older doouments, they may be portions of this more ancient ■aored truth, but clothed in the varied garments of the fklse and fancifHil mythological creeds which have sprung up in later and more degenerate times. Such fragments may safely be received as secondary aids to the understand- ing of the authentic record, but it would be folly to seek in them for the whole truth. They are but the scattered masses of ore, by tracing which we may sometimes open up new and rich portions of the vein of primitive lore frtmi which they have be«i derived. It is, however, quite neces- sary here formally to inquire iT there are any hypotheses short of that of plenary inspiration, which may allow us to attach any value whatever to this most ancient document I know but two views of this kind that are worthy of any attention. 1. The Mosaic account of creation may be a result of ancient scientific inquiries, analc^us to those of modern geology. 2. It may be an allegorical or poetical mythus, not intended to be historical, but either devised for some extra- neous purpose, or consisting of the conjectures of some gifted intellect. OBJECTS, STO., Of TBI OOSMOOOlfT. These altemaiiyes we may shortly oonsider, though tht materials for their ftiU disoassion oan be famished only by facts to be subsequently stated. I am not aware that tht first of these views has been maintained by any modem writer. Some eminent soientifio men are, however, di»< posed to adopt such an explanation of the ancient Hindoo hymns, as well as of the cosmogony of Pythagoras, whioh bears evidence of this origin ; and it may be an easy step to infer that the Hebrew cosmogony was derived from some similar source. Not many years ago, such a supposition would have been regarded as almost insane. Then the science of antiquity was only another name for the phib gophy of Greece and Rome. But in recent times we have seen Egypt disclose the ruins of a mighty civilisation, more grand and massive though less elegant than that of Greece, and which had reached its acme ere Greece had received its alphabet — a civilisation which, according to the scrip- ture ^ ^3tory, is derived from that of the primeval Gushite empire, which extended from the plains of Shinar over att south-eastern Asia, but was crushed at its centre before the dawn of secular history. We have now little reason to doubt that Moses, when he studied the learning of Egypt, held converse with men who saw more clearly and deeply into nature's mysteries than did Thales or Pythagoras, or even AristoUe.* Still later, the remnants of old Nineveh * On this subject I may refer naturalists to the intimate acquaintance with animals and their habits, indicated by the manner of their use as sacred emblems, and as symbols in hiero* 34 AROHAIA. have been exhumed from their long sepulture, and anti- quaries have been astonished by the discovery that know- ledge and arts, supposed to belong exclusively to far more recent times, were, in the days of the early Hebrew kings, and probably very long previously, firmly established on the banks of the Tigris. Such discoveries, when compared with hints furnished by the scriptures, tend greatly to exalt our ideas of the state of civilisation at the time when they were written ; and we shall perceive, in the course of our glyphic writing. Another illustration is afforded by the Mosaic narrative of the miracles and plagues connected with the exodus The Egyptian king, on this occasion, consulted the philosophers and augurs. These learned men evidently regarded the serpent-rod miracle as but a more skilful form of one of the tricks of serpent charmers. They showed Pharaoh the possibility of reddening the Nile water by artificial means, or perhaps by the develop- ment of red algae in it. They explained the inroad of frogs on Batural principles, probably referring to the immense abundance ordinarily of the ova and tadpoles of these creatures compared with that of the adults. But when the dust of the land became gnats (lice in our version) this was a phenomenon beyond their experience. Either the species was unknown to them, or its production out of the dry ground was an anomaly, or they knew that no larvae adequate to explain it had previously existed. In the case of this plague, therefore, comparatively insignificant and easily simulated, they honestly confessed — "This is the finger of God." No better evidence could be desired, that the savans here opposed to Moses, were men of high character and extensive observation. Many other facts of similar tendency might be cited both from Moses and the Egyptian monuments. OBJKOTS, ETC., OF THE OOSMOOOMT. 35 inquiry, many additional reasoDj for believing that th^ ancient Israelites were much farther advanced in natural science than is commonly supposed. We have, however, no positive proof of snch a theory, and it is subject to many grave objections. The narrative itself makes no pretension to a scientific origin, it quotes no authority, and it is connected with no philosophical speculations or deductions. It bears no internal evidence of having been the result of inductive inquiry, but appeals at once to faith in the truth of the great ultimate doctrine of absolute creation, and then proceeds to detail the steps of the process, in the manner of history as recorded by a witness, and not in the manner of science tracing back effects to their causes. Further, it refers to conditions of our planet respecting which science has even now attained to no conclusions supported by evidence, and is not in a position to make dogmatic assertions. The tone of all the ancient cosmogonies has in these respects a resemblance to that of the scriptures, and bears testimony to a general impression pervading the mind of antiquity, that there was a divine and authoritative testimony to the facts of creation, distinct from history, philosophical speculation, or induc- tion. Under this head, though perhaps belonging rather to the domain of absolute infidelity than to that of scripture exegesis, it may be proper to mention the bold attempt of the authors of the " Types of Mankind^^ to assign a human origin to Genesis 1st. These writers admit the antiquity 86 AROHAIA. of the first chapter, though assigning the rest of the book to a oomparatiyely modem date. They say : — " The ' document Jehovah ' * does not especially concern our present subject ; and it is incomparable with the grander conception of the more ancient and unknown writer of Qenesis 1st. With extreme felicity of diction and concise- ness of plan, the latter has defined the most philosophical yiews of antiquity upon cosmogony ; in fact so well, that it has required the palseontological discoveries of the nine- teenth century — at least 2500 years after his death — to overthrow his septenary arrangement of ' Creation ' ; which, after all, would still be correct enough in general principles, were it not for one individual oversight, and one unlucky blunder ; not exposed, however, until long after his era, by post-Copemican astronomy. The oversight is where he wrote (Gen. i. 6— -8) : * Let there be raquii ' ; i. e., a firmament; which proves that his notions of 'sky' (solid like the concavity of a copper basin with stars set as bril- liants in the metal), were the same as those of adjacent people of his time : indeed, of all men before the publiofr< tion of Newton's Prindpia and of Laplace's Micaniqtte Celeste. The blunder is where he conceives that aur, ' light,' and iom, *day' (Gen. i. 14 — 18), could have been physi* cally possible three whole days before the ' two great lumi- naries,' Sun and Moon, were created. These venial errors deducted, Mb majestic song beautifully illustrates the sim- ple procesTi of ratiocination through which — often without * See Appendix A- OBJECTS, STO., or TkfS OOSMOOONT. n the slightest historical proof of interoourae — different < Types of Mankind,' at distinct epocha», and in countries widely apart, had arrived, naturally, at oosmogonio oonola- nons similar to the doctrines of that H'ibraical school of which his harmonic and melodious numbers remain a mag- nificent memento. " That process seems to have been the following. The ancients knew, as we do, that man is upon the earth ; and they were persuaded, as we are, that his appearance was preceded by unfathomable depths of time. Unable (as we are still) to measure periods antecedent to man by any chronological standard, the ancients rationally reached die tabulation of some events anterior to man, through indttc- fxon — ^a method not original with Lord Bacon, because known to St. Paul ; ' for his unseen things from the crea* tion of the world, his power and godhead, are clearly seen, beinff understood by the things that are made ' (Rom. i. 20). Man, they felt, could not have lived upon earth without animal food; ergo, 'cattle' preceded him; t(^ther with birds, reptiles, fishes, &c. Nothing living, they knew, could have existed without light and heat ; ergo, the sola/r system antedated animal life, no less than the wgeta/tion indispensable for animal 8U|^)ort. But terrestrial plants cannot grow without eairth; ergo, that dry land had to be separated from pre-existent 'waters.' Their geological speculations inclining rather to the JVeptuiMan than to the PhUonia/n theory — fox Werner ever preceded Hutton— IIm ancients found it difieult to ' divide tiie watoi lirom 88 AKCHAIA. the waters ' without interposing a metallic substance that ' divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters that were above the firmament ' ; so they infer- red, logically, that 2k firmament must have been actually created for this object. \E. g., * The windows of the skies * (Gen. vii. 11); * the waters above the skies' (Ps. cxlviii. 4).] Before the ' waters ' (and here is the peculiar error of the genesiacal bard), some of (lie ancients claimed the pre- existence of light (a view adopted by the «yriter of Genesis 1st) ; whilst others abseiled that 'chaos ' prevailed. Both schools united, however, in the conviction that darkness — Erebus — anteceded all other created things. What, said these ancients, can have existed before the 'darkness?' Ens entium, the Creator, was the humbled reply. Elohim is the Hebrew vocal expression of that climax ; to define whose attributes, save through the phenomena of creation, is an attempt we leave to others more presumptuous than cnrselves." The problem here set to the "unknown" aathor of Genesis, is a hard one : — given the one fact that " man is " to find in detail how the world was formed in a series of preceding ages of vast duration. Is it possible that such a problem could have been so worked out as to have endured the test of 3000 years, and the scrutiny of modem science? But there is an " oversight " in one detail, and a " blunder " in another. By reference farther on, the reader will find under the chapters on " Light " and the " Atmosphere," that the oversight and blunder are those not of the writer OBJS0T8, BTO., 0¥ THE 008MOOONT. 39 of Genesis, bat of the learned American ethnologists in the nineteenth century ; a circumstance which cuts in two ways ' in defence of the ancient author so unhappily unknown to his modern critics. The second of the alternatives above referred to, the mythical hypothesis, has been advcnced and ably supported, especially on the continent of Europe, and by such English writers as are disposed to apply the methods of modem rationalistic criticism to the Bible. In one of its least ob- jectionable forms, it is thus stated by Prof. Powell : " The narrative thon of six periods of creation, followed by a seventh similar period of rest and blessing, was clearly designed by adaptation to their conceptions to enforce upon the Israelites the institution of the Sabbath ; and in what- ever way its details may be interpreted, it clearly cannot be r^arded as an historical statement of the primeval institution of a sabbath ; a supposition which is indeed on other grounds sufficiently improbable, though often adopted. * * If then we would avoid the alternative of being compelled to admit what mut^t amount to impugning the truth of those portions at least of the Old Testament, we surely are bound to give fair consideration to the only sug- gestion which can set us entirely free from all the difficulties arising from the geol(^cal contradiction, which does and must exist against any conceivable interpretation which retains the assertion of the historical character of the details of the narrative, as referring to the distinct transactions of each of the seven periods. * * The one great fact 40 AACBAIA. oonohed in the general aasertion,[that all things were created by the sole power of one Supreme Being, is the whole of the representation to which an historical character can be assigned. As to the particular form in which the descrip- tiye narrative is conveyed, we merely affirm that it cannot be history— it may be poetry." * The general ground on which this view is entertained, is the supposed irreooncileable contradiction between the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record and the facts of geology. The real amount of this difficulty we are not, in the present stage of our inquiry, prepared to estimate. We can, however, readily understand that the hypothesis depends on the supposition that the narrative of creation is posterior in date to the Mosaic ritual, and Uiat this plain and circumstantial series of statements is a fable designed to support the Sabbatical institution, instead of the rite being, as represented in the Bible itself, a commemoration of the previously recorded fact. This is, fortunately, a gratuitous assumption, contrary to the probable date of the documents, as deduced from internal evidence ; and it also completely ignores the other manifest uses mentioned un- der our first head. If proved, it would give to the whole the character of a pious fraud, and would obviously render any comparison with the geological history of tihe earth fdt(^ther unneoeERsary. While, therefore, it must be freely advnitted iihat the Mosaic narrative cannot be history, is flO far at least as history is a product of human ezperie&ee • Kitto'i Cyclopedia, art. "Creation." 1 • OBJIOTB, ETC., or THl 008MOOONT. 4i we cannot admit that it is a poetical mythiu, or in other words that it is destitute of substantial tmth, unless proved by good evidence to be so ; and, wheU this is proved we must also admit that it is quite undeserving of the credit which it claims as a revelation from Gtod. Since, therefore, the events recorded in the first chapter of Genesis were not witnessed by man, since there is no reason to believe that they were discovered by scientific inquiry ; and since, if true, they cannot be a poetical myth, we must, in the meantime, return to our former supposi. tion that the Mosaic cosmogony is a direct revelation from the Creator. In this respect, the position of this part of the earth's biblical history, resembles that of prophecy. Writers may accurately relate contemporary events, or those which belong to the human period, without inspiration; but the moment that they profess accurately to foretell the history of the future, or to inform us of events which pre- ceded the human period, we must either believe them to be inspired, or reject them as impostors or fanatics. Many attempts have been made to find intermediate standing gi'ound, but it is so precarious that the nicest of our modern critical balancers have been unable to maintain themselves upon it. Having thus determined that the Mosaic cosmogony, in its grand general features, must either be inspired or worth- less, we have further to inquire to what extent it is necessary to suppose that the particular details and mode of ezpres- sicn of the narrative, aud the subsequent allusions to 42 AROHAIA. nature in the Bible, must be regarded as entitled to this position. We may conceive them to have been left to the discretion of the writers; and, in that case, they will merely represent the knowledge of nature actually existing at the time. On the other hand, their accuracy may have been secured by the divine afflatus. Few modern writers have been disposed to insist on the latter alternative, and have rather assumed that these references and details are accommodated to the state of knowledge at the time. I must observe here, however, that a careful consideration of the facts, gives to a naturalist a much higher estimate of the real value of the observations of nature embodied in the scriptures, than that which divines and expositors have ordinarily entertained ; and consequently, that if of human origin, we must be prepared to modify the views generally entertained of early oriental simjdicity and ignorance^. The truth is, that a large proportion of the difficulties in scriptural natural history appear to have arisen from want of such accommodation to the low state of the knowledge of nature among translators and expositors; and this is precisely what we should expect in a veritable revelation. Its moral and reli^ous doctrines were slowly developed, each new light illuminating previous obscurities. Its human history comes out as evidence of its truth, when compared with monumental inscriptions ; and why should not the All-wise have constructed as skilfully its teachings respecting His own works. There can be no doubt what- ever that the scripture writers intended to address them-> OBJECTS, ITO., or THX COSMOQONT. 43 selyea to the common mind, which now as then requires simple and p'^^lar teaching, but they were under obliga- tion to give truthful statements ; and we need not hesitate to say, with Dr. Chalmers, in reference to a book making such claims as those of the Bible — " There is no argument, saving that grounded on the usages of popular language, which would tempt us to meddle with the literalities of that ancient, and, as appears to us, authoritative document, any farther than may be required by those conventionalities of speech which spring from ''optical" impressions of nature."* Attempt as we may to disguise it, any other view is totally unworthy of the great Ruler of the universe, espe- cially in a document characterised as emphatically the truth, * Much that is rery silly has been written as to the extent of the supposed "optical view" taken by the Hebrew •writers; many worthy literary men appearing to suppose that scientific views of nature must necessarily be different from those which we obtain by the evidence of our senses. The very contrary is the fact ; and so long as any writers state correctly what they observe, without insisting on any fanciful hypotheses, science has no fault to find with them. What science most detests is the ignorant speculations of those who have not observed at all, or have observed imperfectly. It is a leading excellence of the Hebrew scriptures that they state facts without giving any theories to account for them. It is, on the contrary, the cir- cumstance that unscientific writers will not be content to be "optical," but must theorise, that spoils much of our modern literature, especially in its descriptions of nature. 44 ABOHAIA. and in a moral revelation, in which Btatementa reapecting natural objects need not be inserted, unless they could be rendered at once trutbAil and illustrative of the higher objects of the revelation. The statement often so flippantly made, that the Bible was not intended to teach natural history, has no application here. Spiritval truths are no doubt shadowed forth in the Bible by material emblems, often but rudely resembling them, because the nature of human thought and language render this necessary, not only to the unlearned, but in some degree to all ; but thia principle of adaptation cannot be applied to plain material facts. Yet a confusion of these two very distinct cases appears to prevail most unaccountably in the minds of many expositors. They tell us that the scriptures ascribe bodily members to the immaterial God, and typify his spiritual proceaure by outward emblems ; and this they think ana- logous to such doctrines as a solid firmament, a plane earth, and others of a like nature, which they ascribe to the sacred writers. We shall find that the writers of the scripture had themselves much clearer views, and that, even in poetical language, they take no such liberties with truth. As an illustration of the extent to which this doctrine of " accommodation " carries us beyond the limits of fair interpretation, I cite the following passage from one of the latest and ablest writers on the subject*: — "It was the opinion of the ancients that the earth, at a certain height, was surrounded by a transparent hollow sphere of solid Prof. Hitchcock. OBJ10T8, ITO., or TBI OOSMOOONT. 4S matter, which they called the firmament. When rain des- cended, they supposed that it was through windows or holes made in the crystalline curtain suspended in mid-heavens. To these notions the language of the Bible is frequently eonformed. * * But the most decisive example I hava to give on this subject, is derived from astronomy. Until the time of Copernicus, no opinion respecting natural phe- nomena was thought better established than that the earth is fixed immovably in the centre of the universe, and that the heavenly bodies move diumally round it. To sustain this view, the most decisive language of scripture might be quoted. God is there said to have ' eitablished the/oun- datWM of the earth, so tJiat they could not he removed for ever;* and the sacred writers expressly declare that the heavenly bodies arise and set, and no where allude to any proper motion of the earth." Will it be believed, that, with the exception of the poeti- cal expression, "windows of heaven/' and the common forms of speech relating to sunrise and sunset, the above " decisive " instances of accommodation have no foundation whatever in the language of scripture. The doctrine of the rotation of solid celestial spheres around the earth, belongs to a jrreek philosophy which arose after the Hebrew cosmogony was complete ; and though it occurs in the septuagint and other ancient versions, it is not based on the Hebrew original. In truth, we know that those Gre- cian philosophers — of the Ionic and Pythagorean schools — who lived nearest the times of the Hebrew writers, and 46 ARCIIAIA. who derived the elements of their science from Egypt and Westorn Asift, taught very different doctrines. How absurd, then, is it thus to fasten upon the sacred writers, contrary to their own words, the views of a school of astronomy which probably arose long after their time, when we know that more accurate ideas prevailed nearer their epoch. Secondly ; though there is some reason for stating that the " ancients," though certainly not those of Israel, believed in celestial spheres supporting the heavenly bodies, I sus- pect that the doctrine of a solid vault supporting the cloud»y except as a mere poetical or mythological fancy, is a pro- duct of the imagination of the theologians and closet philosophers of a more modern time. The testimony of men's senses appears to be in favour of the whole uni- verse revolving around a plane earth, though the oldest astronomical school with which we are acquainted, sus- pected that this is an illusion ; but the every-day observa- tion of the most unlettered man who treads the fields and is wet with the mists and rains, must convince him that there is no sub-nubilar solid sphere. If, therefore, the Bible had taught such a doctrine, it would have shocked the common sense even of the plain husbandmen to whom it was addressed, and could have found no fit audience except among a portion of the literati of comparatively modern times. Thirdly, with respect to the foundations of the earth, I may remark that in the tenth verse of Genesis there occurs a definition as precise as that of any lexicon, — "and God called the dry land earth"; conse- OBJECTS, ETC., OT THE COSMOOONT. 47 quently it is but fair to assume that the earth afterwards spoken of as supported above the waters, is the dry land or continental masses of the earth, and no geologist can object to the statement that the dry land is supported above the waters by foundations or pillars. We shall find in our examination of the document itself, that all the instances of such accommodation which have been cited by writers on this subject, are as baseless as those above referred to. It is much to be regretted that so many otherwise useful expositors have either wanted that familiarity with the aspects of external nature by which all the Hebrew writers are characterised, or have taken too little pains to ascertain the actual meaning of the references to creation which they find in the Bible. I may farther remark that if such instances of accommodation could be found in the later poetical books, it would be extremely unfair to apply them as aids in the interpretation of the plain, precise, and unadorned statements of the first chap- ters of Genesis. There is, however, throughout even the higher poetry of the Bible, a truthful representation and high appreciation of nature for which we seek in vain in any other poetry, and we may fairly trace this in part to the influence of the cosmogony which appears in its first chapter. The Hebrew was thus taught to recognise the unity of nature as the work of an Almighty Intelligence, to r^ard all its operations as regulated by his unchanging law or " decree,' ' and to venerate it as a revelation of his supreme wisdom and goodness. On this account he was likely to regard careful observation and representation with 48 ABOHAIA. as scrupulous attention as the modern naturalist. Nor must we forget that the old testament literature has descended to us through two dark ages, — that of Greek and Boman polytheism, and of Middle Age barbarism, — and that we must not confound its tenets with those of either. The religious ideas of both these ages were &vourable to certain forms of literature and art, but eminently unfavourable te the successful prosecution of the study of nature. Hence we have a right to expect in the literature of the golden age of primeval monotheism, more affinity with the ideas of modern science than in any intermediate time ; and the truthful delineation whidi the daims of die Bible to inspi- ration require, m^t have been, as already hinted, to a certain extent secured merely by the reflex influence of its earlier statements, wiUiout the necessity of our supposing that illustrations of this kind in the later books came directly from the Spirit of God. Our discussion of this head of the subject has necessarilj been rather desultory, and the ai^^uments adduced must dep^id for thek full confirmation on the results of our future inquiries.. The oondusions arrived at may be sumr med up as follows: 1. That the Mosaic cosmogony must be considered, like the prophecies of the Bible, to claim the rank of inspired teaching, and must depend for its authority on the maintenance of that claim. 2. That the inoidentaF references to nature in other parts of scripture, indicate, at least, the influence of these earlier teachings, and of a pure monotheistic faith, in creating a high and just appreciation of nature among, the Hebrew people CHAPTER III. OINEBAL VIEWS OF NATUBE CONTAINED IN THE HOLT 80BIPTUBE8. "What if earth Be bat the shadow of Heaven, and things therein, Each to other like ; more than on earth is thought." Milton. Mant persons may be disposed to concede the accurate delineation of natural facts open to human observation, claimed under the last head, who may not be prepared to find in these ancient books any general views akin to those of the ancient {^osophers, or to those obtained by induc- tive processes in modem times. Yet views of this kind are scattered through the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, and it may be well to add to this preliminary inquiry a statement of them. They resolve themselves, almost as a matter of course, into the two leading ideas of order and adaptation. I have already quoted the eloquent admis- sion by Baron Humboldt of the presence of these ideas of the cosmos in Psalm 104. They are both conspicuous in the narrative of creation, and equally so in a great number of other passages. " Order is heaven's first law " ; and the second is like unto it — that everything serves an end. This is the sum of all science. These are the two mites, even all that she hath, which she throws inta the treasury of the Lord; and, as she does so in faith, Eternal Wisdom. 60 ABCHAIA. looks on and approves the deed." * These two mites, law- fully acquired by science, by her independent exertions, she may, however, recognise as of the same coinage with the treasure already laid up in the rich storehouse of the Hebrew literature ; but in a peculiar and complex form, which may be illustrated under the following general state- ments : — 1. The scriptures assert invariable natural law, and con- stantly recurring cycles in nature. Natural law is expressed as the ordinance or decree of Jehovah. From the oldest of the Hebrew books I select the following examples : f *' When He made a decree for the rain, And a way for the thunder-flash." Job xxriii. 26. ^' Knowest thou the ordinances of the heavens ? Canst thou establish a dominion even over the earth ? " Job xzzviii. 33. The later books give us such views as the following : •*' He hath established them (the heavens) for ever and ever; He hath made a decree which shall not pass." P«. cxlviii. 6. * McCosh, "Typical Forms and Special Ends." t I adopt that view of the date of Job which makes it precede the exodus, because the religious ideas of the book are patri- archal, and it contains no allusions to the Hebrew history or institutions. Were I to suggest an hypothesis as to its origin, it would be that it was written or found by Moses when in exile, and published among his countrymen In Egypt, to revive their monotheistic religion, and cheer them under the apparent deser- tion of their God, and the evils of their bondage. GENERAL VIEWS OP NATURE. 51 << Thou art forever, Jehovah, thy word is established in the heavens ; Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth ; Thej continue this day according to thine ordinances, for all are thy servants." P$. cxiz. 90. " When he established the clouds above ; When he strengthened the fountains of the deep ] When he gave to the sea his decree. That the waters should not pass his commandment ; When he appointed the foundations of the earth." Prov. viii. 28. Many similar instances will be fonnd in succeeding pages ; and in the mean time we may turn to the idea of recurring cycles, which forms the starting-point of the reasonings of Solomon on the current of human affairs, in the book of Ecclesiastes : — " One generation passeth away and another generation cometh ; but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down and hasteneth to its place whence it arose. It goeth toward the south and turneth unto the north. The wind whirleth about continually, and returneth again according to its circuits. All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea doth not over- flow ; unto the place whence the rivers came thither they return again." I might fill pages with quotations more or less illustrative of the statement in proof of which the above texts are cited ; but enough has been given to show that the doctrine of the Bible is not that of fortuitous occur- rence, or of materialism, or of pantheism, or of arbitrary n ABOHAIA. flapernutttralism, but of invariable natural law representing the decree of a wise and unchanging Creator. 2. The Bible recognises progress and development in nature. At the very outset we have this idea embodied in the gradual elaboration of all things in the six creative periods, rising from the formless void of the banning, through successive stages of inorganic and organic being, up to Eden and to man. Beyond this point the work of creation stops, but there is to be an occupation and im- provement of the whole earth by mAH spreading from Eden. This process is arrested or impeded by sin and the fall. Here commences the special province of the Bible, in ex- plaining the means of recovery from the fall, and of the establishment of a new spiritual and moral kingdom, and finally o£ the restoration of Eden in a new heaven and earth. All this is mcnral, and relates to man, in so far as the present state of things is concerned ; but we have the oommentary <^ Jesus: " My Father worketh hitherto, and I work"; — the remarkable statement of Paul, that the whole creation is involved in the results of man's moral fall and restoration, and the equally remarkable one that the Redeemer is also the maker of the " worlds " or agea of the earth's physical progress, as well as of the futur« " new heaven and new earth." Peter also rebukes indig- nantly those scoffers who maintained that all things had remained as they are since the beginning ; and refers to the creation week and to the deluge, as earnests of the great changes yet in store for the earth.* • John T. 17; Rom. yiii. 22; Heb. i. 2; 2 Peter iii. Ml GBNSBAL VIIWS OF NATUBB. Such views of devdopment and progrees are not unknown to many ancient cosmogonies and philosopliioal systems, bni * they had no stable foundation in observed fact until the rise of modem geology ; which enables us to affirm, that, in addi- Uon to those changeless physical laws which cause the bodies of the universe to wheel in unvarying cycles, and all natural powers to reproduce themselves ; and, in addition to thoer Clonic laws which produce unceasing successions of living individuals ; there is a higher law of prepress. We ean now trace back man, the animals and plants his contem- poraries, and others which preceded them, our continents and mountain ranges, and the solid rocks of which they are composed, to their several origins at distinct points of time; and can maintain that since the earth began to wheel around the sun, no succeeding year has seen it pre- cisely as it was ia the year before. Nor does any geologist worthy of the name, doubt that this law of progress emar nates from the mind and power of one creative Being. When men see in natural law only recurring cycles, th^ may be pardoned for falling even into the absurdity of believing in eternal succession ; but when they see change and progress, and this in a uniform direction, over-master- ing recurring cycles, and introducing new objecte and powers not accounted for by previous objects or powers, they are brought very near to the presence of the Spiritual Creator. And hence, although no science can reach back to the act of creation, this doctrine is much more strongly 54 AROHAIA. held in our day ^' geologists than by physicistii/ In one thing only does the Bible here part company with natural science. The Bible goes on into the future, and predicts a final condition of our planet, of which science can from its investigations learn nothing. 3. The Bible recognises purpose, use, and special adap. tation in nature. It is, in short, full of natural theology of the same kind with that which has been so elaborately worked out by so many modern writers. Numerous pas- sages in support of this will occur to every one who has read the scriptures. It is necessary here, however, to direct attention to a distinction very obvious in scripture, but not &\ways attended to by writers on this subject. The Bible maintains the true " final cause " of all nature to be, not its material and special adaptations or its value to man, but the pleasure or satisfaction of the Creator himself. In the earlier periods of creation, before man was upon the earth, God contemplates his work and pro- nounces it good. The heavenly hosts praise Him, saying, " Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Further, the Bible represents intelligences higher than man as sharing in the delight which may be derived from the contemplation of God's works. When the earth first rose from the waters to greet the light, " The morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." There are many things * See Agassiz contribations to the Natura! History of America, and Appendix F. GENERAL VIEWS OT NATURE. ft» in nature that strongly impress the naturalist with this same view that the Creator takes pleasure in his works ; and, like human genius in its highest efforts, rejoices in production, even if no sentient being should be present to BrjrmpathiBe. The elaborate structures of fossils of which we have only fragmentary remains, the profusion of natural dttjects of surpassing beauty tha ' w and perish unseen by us, the delicate microscopic mechanism of nearly all organic structures, point to other reasons for beauty and order than those that concern man. Yet man is repre- sented as the chief created being for whom this earth ha» been prepared and designed. He obtains dominion oyer it. A chosen spot is prepared for him, in which not only his wants but his tastes are consulted ; and, being made in the image of his Maker, his aesthetic sentiments corres- pond with the beauties of ihe Maker's work, and he finds there also food for his rea^n and imagination. This view of the subject, a 'ell as others already referred to, is- finely presented ii ! address of the Almighty to Job.* Lastly, the Bible very often refers to the special adapta- tions of natural objects and laws to each other, and to the promotion of the happiness of sentient creatures lower than man. The 104th Psalm is replete with notices of such adaptp.tions, and so is the address to Job} and indeed this vieTV seems hardly ever absent from the minds of the Hebrew writers, but has its highest applications in the * Job 38th and 39th chaps. 56 ABOBAIA. liliee of the field that toil not neither do they spin, and the gpurrows that are sold fbr a farthing, yet the Heavenly Father has olothed the one with surpassing beaaty, and provides food for the other, nor allows it to fall withoat his knowledge. I may, by way of farther illustration, merely name a few of the adaptations referred to in J6k SSth and the following chapters. The winds and the olouds are so arranged as to afford the required supplies of moisture to the wilderness where no man is, to " cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth." For similar objects the tempest is ordered, and the clouds arranged " by wisdom." The adaptations of the wild ass, the wild goat, the ostrich, the migratory birds, the horse, the hip- popotamus, the crocodile, to their several habitats, modes of life, and uses in nature, are most vividly sketched and applied as illustrations of the consummate wisdom of the Creator, which descends to the minutest details of organi- zation and habit 4. The law of type or pattern in nature is distinctly indicated in the Bible. This is a principle only recently understood by naturalists, but it has more or less dimly dawned on the minds of many great iMnkers in all ages. Nor is this wonderful, for the idea of type is scarcely ever absent from our own conceptions of any work that we may undertake. In any such work we anticipate recurring daily toil, like the returning cycles of nature. We look for progress, like that of the growth of the universe. We study adaptation both of the several parts to subordinate oiNisAL yaws or naturi. 67 Hies and of the whole to some general design. Bnt we also keep in view some pattern, style, or order, acoording to which the whole is arranged, and the mutual relations of the parts are adjusted. The architect must adhere to some order of architecture, and to some style within that order. The potter, the calico-printer, and the silvernsmith, must equally study uniformity of pattern in their several manufactures. The Almighty Worker has exhibited the same idea in his works. In the animal kingdom, for instance, we have four leading types of structure. Taking any one of these — ^the vertebrate, for example— we have a uniform general plan, embracing the vertebral column con- structed of the same elements ; the members, whether the arm of man, the limb of the quadruped, or the wing of the bat or the bird, or the swimming paddle of the whale, built of the same bones. In like manner all the parts of the vertebral column itself in the same animal, whether in the skull, the neck or the trunk, are composed of the same elementary structures. These types are fai'ther found to be sketched out, — ^first in their more general, and then in their special features — ^in proceeding from the lower species of the same type to the higher, in proceeding from the earlier to the later stages of raibryonio development, iind in proceeding from the more ancient to the more recent creatures that have succeeded each other in geological tune. Man, the highest of the vertebrates, is thus the archetype, representing and including all the lower and earlier mem- bers of the vertebrate type. The above are but trite and ABOBAU. familiar exunplea of a doctrine which may Aumish and has Airnished the material of Tolumes. There can be no question that the Hebrew Bible is the oldest book in which this principle is stated. In the first chapter of Genesis we haye specific type in the creation of plants and animals after their kinds or species, and in the formation of man in the image and likeness of the Creator; and, as we shall find in the sequel, there are some canons ideas of higher and more general types in the grouping of the creatures referred to. The same idea is indicated in the closing chapters of Job, where the three higher classes of the yer- tebrates are represented by a number of examples, and the typical likeness of one of these — the hippopotamus — to man, seems to be recognised. A late able writer has quoted, as an illustration of the doctrine of types, a yery remarkable passage from Psalm czzzix. : — " I will praise Thee, for I am fearAilly and wonderfully made. Marvellous are thj works, And that my bouI knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from Thee When I was made in secret. And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth: Thine eyes did see my substance yet being imperfect, And in Thy book all my members were written, Which in continuance were fashioned when as yet there was none of them." It would too much tax the faith of exegists to ask them to btilieye >that the writer of the aboye passage, or the spirit OlNiaAL VI1W8 or MATUBB. 59 that inspired him, actually meant to teaoh— what we now know BO well from geology, that the prototypes of all the parts of the archetypal human struoture may he found in those fossil remains of extinct animals which may, in nearly every country, be dug up from the rocks of the earth. No objection need, however, be taken to our read- ing in it the doctrine of embryonic development according to a systematic type. In that spiritual department which is the special field of scripture, the doctrine of type has been so extensively recognised by expositors, that I need only refer to its typical numbers, its typical personages, its typical rites and ceremonies, and lastly, to its recognition of the Divine Redeemer as the great archetype of the spiritual world, as man himself is of the natural. In this last respect the New Testament clearly teaches that, in the resurrection, the human body formed after Adam as its type, is to be subli- mated and reformed after the heavenly body of the Son of God, rising to some point of perfection higher than that of the present earthly archetype. It is more than curious that this idea of type, so long existing in an isolated and often despised form, as a theo- logical thought in the imagery of scripture, should now be a leading idea of natural science ; and that while compara- tive anatomy teaches us that the structures of all past and present lower animals point to man, who, as Prof. Owen expresses it, has had all his parts and organs " sketched out in anticipation in the inferior animals," the Bible 00 ABOBAIA. points fltill ikrUier forward to an exaltation of the human type itself into what even tht oomparative anatomiat might perh^w regard as among the " possible modifications of it beyond those realised in this little orb of ours/' eoold he but learn its real nature. Under the foregoing heads, of the object, the stmctore, the authority, and the general oosmical views of the scrip* ture, I have endeavoured to group certain leading thoughts important as preliminary to the study of the subject ; and, in now entering on the details of the scriptural cosmogony, I trust the reader will pardon me for assuming that we are studying an inspired book, revealing the origin of nature, and presenting accurate pictures of natural facts and broad general views of tiie cosmos, at least until in Uie progress of our inquiry we find reason to adopt lower views; and that he will, in the meantime, be content to follow me in that careful and systematic analysis which a work claiming such a character surely demands. CHAPTBR IV. It. THl BBOINNINa Gu. LI: ^' In the iMgiaaing Blohim crMted tht heftreu «nd the earth." In this opening of the history of fveation, we find in % strongly marked manner some of the most j;*ominent eharaoteristioB of the books of Moses, — the simpHi^ity and vigour of an early age, the firm faith of the \;iiter in ilie truths which he promulgates, and the bold and nxi^jd assertion of the most grand and comprehens?'"'^ doctrines. Gharaoteristios these, which well become th( eai liest com- munication of the Divine will, and impress us with the feeling that we are listening to words of truth and au- thority — to the voice not of man but of God. No studied introduction precedes the sacred narrative. No attempt is made to prove the existence of God, or to disprove the eternal existence of matter. The history opens at once with the assertion of a great fundamental truth, which must ever form the basis of tnu; i'^iigion and sound phi- losophy — the production from non-existence of the material universe by the eternal sdf-existent Gbd. But what is creation in the sense of the Hebretr writer. The act is expressed by the verb Bara, a word of compara- tively rare occurrence in the scriptures, and employed to denote absolute creation. If^ says Profl Stuart of Andover, 62 ABOHAIA. this word " does not mean to create in the highest sense^ then the Hebrews had no word by which they could de- signate this idea." Yet, like our English create, the word is used in secondary and figurative senses, which in no degree detract from its force when strictly and literally used. Since, however, these secondary senses have been employed by some writers to obscure the primitive mean- ing, we must examine them in deiail. In the first chapter of Genesis, after the general state- ment in verse 1st, other verbs signifying inform or make are used to denote the elaboration of the separate parts of the universe, and the word create is found in only two places, when it refers to the introduction of " great whales " (reptiles) and of man. These uses of the word have been cited to disprove its sense of absolute creation. It must be observed however, that in the first of these oases we have the earliest appearance of animal life, and in the second the introduction of a rational and spiritual nature. Nothing but pure materialism can suppose that the elements of vital and spiritual being were included in the matter of the heavens and the earth as produced in the beginning; and as the scripture writers were not materialists, we may infer that they recognized, in the introduction of life and reason, acts of absolute creation, just as in the origin of matter itself. In Genesis 2nd and 3rd we have a form of expression which well marks the distinction between crea. tion and making. God is there said to have rested from all his works which he "created and made" — literally THX BIGINNINO. 63 created "for or in reference to making," the word for making being one of those already referred to.* The force of this expression consists in its intimating that God had not only finished the work of creation, properly so-called, but also the elaboration of the various details of the universe, aa formed or fashioned out of the original materials. Of a similar character is .the expression in Isaiah xlii., 5 — " Jehovah, he that created the heavens and spread them out" ; and that in Psalm czlviii. 5 — " He commanded and they were created, he hath also established them for ever and ever." In as far as I am aware, the word bara in all the remaining instances of its occurrence in the Pentateuch, refers to the creation of man, with the following exceptions ; Exodus xxxiv., 10, " I will do (create) marvels, such as have not been seen in all the earth." Numbers xvi., 30, " If the Lord make a new thing (create a creation) and the earth open hcsr mouth and swallow them up." These verses are types of a class of expressions in which the pro- per term for creation is applied to the production of some- thing new, strange and marvellous ; for instance, " Create in me a clean heart Lord," " Behold I create new heavens and a new earth." It is however evidently an inversion of sound exposition, to say that these secondary or figurative meanings should determine the primary and literal sense in Genesis 1st. On the contrary, we should rather infer that the inspired writers in these cases selected Asab. 64 ABOHAXA. the proper word for creation, to express in the most for- cible manner the novel and thorough character of the changes to which they refer, and their direct dependence on the Divine will. By such expressions we are in effect referred back to the original use of the word, as denoting the actual creation of matter by the command of God, in oontrardistinction from those arrangements which have been effected by the gradual operation of secondary agents, or of laws attached to matter at its creation.* Viewing creation in this light, we need not perplex ourselves with the ques- tion whether we should consider Genesis i., 1 to refer to the essence of matter as distinguished from its qualities. We may content ourselves with the explanation given by Paul in the eleventh of Hebrews. " By faith we are cer- tain that the worlds weire created by the decree of God, so that things which are teen, were made of that which ap- pears not" The nature of the act of creation being thus settled, its extent may be ascertained by an examination of the terms heaven and earth. The word heavens (^Shamayim) has in Hebrew as in English a variety cf significations. Of material heavens there are, in the quaint language of Poole, " tres regiones, uhi avea, nbi nuhes, ubi sidera " ; or (1) the atmosphere * I am indebted, since writing the above, to McDonald's able treatise on " Creation and the Fall," for the additional idea in reference to the word bara, that it is applied only to God as the agent, and not to any human work. THE BIGINNINQ. 0ft or finnament;* (2.) The r^on of clouds in the upper part of the atmosphere ;f (3.) The depths of space com- prehending the starry orbs4 Beside these we have the "heaven of heavens," the abode of God and Spiritual beings.§ The application of the term heaven to the atmo8> phere will be considered when we reach the6th and 7th verses. In the meantime we may accept the word in this verse, as including the material heavens in the widest sense. (1.) Because it is not here, as in verse 8th, restricted to the atmosphere by the terms of the narrative ; this restriction in verse 8th in fact implying the wider sense of the word in preceding verses. (2.) Because the atmospheric fir- mainent, elsewhere called heaven, divides the waters above from those below, whereas it is evident that all these waters, and of consequence the materials of the atmosphere itself, are included in the earth of the following verse. (3.) Be- cause in verse 14, the sidereal heavens are spoken of as arranged from pre-existing materials, which refers their actual creation back to this verse. In the verse now under consideration we therefore re- gard the heavens as including the whole material universe beyond the limits of our earth. That this sense of the word is not unknown to the writers of scripture, and thai they had enlarged and rational views of the star-spangled •Gen. i., 8, 26, 21, 28. t Gen. i., 14^ Judges v., 20 j t Gen.ix., 11 ; Job xzxviii, 37. Deateronomj xvii., 3. § Gen. xxviii., 11; Job xv., 16 ; Psalms ii., 4. 66 ABOHAIA. abysses of space, will appear from the terms employed by Moses in his solemn warning against the Sabaean idolatry, in Deuteronomy 4th. " And lest thou lift up thine eyes to the heavr is, and when thou seest the sun and the moon and the si. i«i, even all the host of the heavens, shouldestbe incitet to worship them and serve them which Jehovah thy God hath appointed to all nations under the whole heavens." To the same effect is the expression of the awe and wonder of the poet king of Israel in Psalm 8th : — " When I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers. The moon and the stars which thou hast ordained, What is man that thou art mindful of him." I may observe, however, that throughout the scriptures the word in question is much more frequently applied to the atmosphere than to the sidereal heavens. The reason of this appears in the terms of vewie 8th. If we have correctly referred the term heavens to the starry and planetary bodies, then the word earth must de- note our globe as a planetary body, with all the liquid and aeriform substances on Its surface. The arrangement of the whole universe under the heads heaven and earth, has »» . been derided as a division into " infinity and an atom but when we consider the relative importance of the earth to us, and that it constitutes the principal object of the whole revelatioii to which this verse introduces us, this absurdity disappears, and we recognise the classification as in the circumstances natural and rational. The word I I'll THK BSOENNINO. 67 earth (aretz) is, however, generally used to denote the dry land, or even a rc^on or district of country. It is indeed expressly restricted to the dry land in verse 10th; but as in the case of the parallel limitation of the word heaven, we may consider this as a hint that its previous meaning is more extended. That it really ig so, appears from the following considerations : (1.) It includes the deep, or the material from which the sea and atmosphere were afterwarda formed. (2.) The sub- sequent verses show that at the period in question no dry land existed. If instances of a similar meaning from other parts of scripture are required, I give the following : Gen. ii., 1 to 4, ''' Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them " — " these are the generations of the heavens and the earth.*' In this general summary of the creative work, the earth evidently includes the seas and all that is in them, as well as the dry land ; and the whole expression denotes the universe. The well known and strik. ing remark of Job — " Who hangeth the earth upon nothing" is also a case in point, and must refer to the whole world, since in other parts of the same book, the dry land or con- tinental masses of the earth are said, and with great (ruth and propriety, to be supported above the waters on pillars or foundations. The following passages may also be cited as instances of the occurrence of the idea of the whole world expressed by the word earth. Exodus ix., 29, " And Moses said unto him, as soon as I am gone out of the city, I will spread abroad my hands unto the Lord, and the thunder shall cease, neither shall there be any more ■& li 68 ABOHAXA. hail ; that ihoti mayeat know the earth is the Lord's.'* Deuteronomy x., 14, " Behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's, the earth tJao md. till tl>at therein is." The material univerne was hionght into exiatcnue in the ** beginning," — a term evidently indefinii^ as far as r^ards any known epoch, and ixuplying meraly priority to all other recorded events. It cannot bt) the &tni day, for there is no expressed connection, and the wotk of the ilrst day is distinct from that of the beginning. It cannot be a geueiiil ter»i for the whole six days, since these are sepsr it&Mi\. from it by that chaotic or formless state to which we is.m next introduced. The beginning, therefore, is the threshold of creation — the line that separates the old tenantless condition of space from the world-crowded galaxies of the existing universe. The only other infor- mation respecting it, that we have in scripture, is in that fine descriptive poem in Proverbs viii., in which the Wis- dom of God personified — ^by many believed to represent the second person of the Trinity, who, as we are informed in the New Testament, was the manifested Deity in the work of creation as well as in that of redemption — narrates ihe origin of all created things : — -* Jehoval) po8Beue4 me in the hegiiwing of his wa7i Before his work of old. I was set up (anointecl) from everlaatiag, From the beginning or ever the earth was ; When there were no deeps I was brought forth, When there were no fonntains abounding in water." TBI Biomnifo. The banning here precedes the oreaUon of the earth, u well 88 of the deep which enoompasied its forface in its earliest condition. The twinning, in this point of view, stretches back firom the origin of the world into the depths of eternity. It is to ns emphatically the beginning, because it witnessed the birth of onr material system ; but to the eternal Jehovah it was but the banning of a great series of his operations, and we have no inf(Hrmation of its absolute duration. From the time when God began to create the celestial orbs, until that time when it could be said that he had created the heavens and the earth, count- less ages may have rolled along, and myriads of worlds may have passed through various stages of existence, and the creation of our planetary system may have been one of the last acts of that long beginning. The author of creation is Elohim, or God in his general aspect to nature and man, and not in that special aspect in reference to the Hebrew commonwealth and to the work of redemption, indicated by the name Jehovah (laveh).* We need not enter into the doubtful etymology of the word ; but may content ourselves with that supported by many, perhaps the majority, of critics, which gives it the meaning of " Object of dread or adoration," or with that preferred by Genius, which makes it mean the " Strong or mighty one." Its plural form has also greatly tried the ingenuity of the commentators. After carefully consider- * Appendix A. TO A&OHAIA. ii^ the Yariom hypotheses, such as that of the plural of majesty of the Babbins, and the primitive polytheism sup- posed by certain rationalists, I can see no better reason than an attempt to give a grammatical expression to that plurality in unity, indicated by the appearance of the Spirit as a distinct actor in the next verse, and probably always held by the Hebrews in a general form ; and which our Saviour and his apostles specialised in that trinitarian doctrine which enables both John and Paul explicitly to assert the agency of the second person of the Trinity in the creative work. I rather wonder at the squoamishness which induced even Calvin to make light of this manifest correspondence between Moses and the Apostles. CHAPTEK V. THE DESOLATE VOID. OinsiB i. 2 : "And the earth vaa desolate and empty, and darkness was upon the snrfftce of the deep ; and the Spirit of Qod brooded over the surface of the waters." We have here a few bold outlines of a dark and myste- rious scene — a condition of the earth of which we have no certain intimation from any other source. It was " empti- ness and vacuity," formless and uninhabited. The words thus translated are sufficiently plain in their meaning. The first is used by Isaiah to denote the desolation of a ruined city, and in Job and the Psalms as characteristic of the wilderness or desert. Both in connection are em- ployed by Isaiah to express the desolation of Idumea, and by Jeremiah in a powerful description of the ruin of nations by God's judgments. When thus united, they form the strongest expression which the Hebrew could supply, for solitary, uninhabited desolation, like that of a city reduced to heaps of rubbish, and to the silence and loneliness of utter ruin. In the present connection, these words inform us that the earth was then destitute of life, and unfit for the resi' denoe of organised beingSv The words themselves surest the important question : — ^Was this the original condition of the earth? Was it a scene of desolation and confusion 72 AROHAIA. when it sprang fVom the hand of its Creator? or was this state of ruin consequent on conyulsions which may have been preceded by a very different condition, not mentioned by the inspired historian ? That it may have been so, is rendered possible by the circumstance that the words employed are generally used to denote the ruin of places formerly inhabited, and by the want of any necessary con- nection in time between the first and second verses. It has even been proposed, though this does violence to the con- struction, to read " and the earth became " desolate and empty. Farther, it seems, a priori, improbable that the first act of creative power should have resulted in the pro- duction of a mere chaos. The crust of the earth also shows, in its alternations of strata and organic remains, evidence of a great series of changes extending over vast periods, and which might, in a revelation intended for moral purposes, with great propriety be omitted. For such reasons, some eminent expositors of these words, are disposed to consider the first verse as a title or introduction, and to refer to this period the whole series of geological changes; and this view indeed forms at pre- sent one of the most popular solutions of the apparent discrepancies between the geological and scriptural histories of the world. It is evident, however, that if we view the term " earth " in verse second as including the whole globe, this hypothesis becomes altogether untenable. The sub- isequent verses inform us that at the period in question the earth was covered by a universal ocean, possessed no THE DK80LATB VOID. 73 Atmosphere and received no light, and had not entered into its present relations with the other bodies of our system. No oonceivable convulsions could have effected such changes on an earth previously possessing these arrangements; and geology assures us that the existing laws and arrange* ments in these respects have pi vailed from the earliest periods to which it can lead us back, and that the modem vtate of things was not separated from those which preceded it by any such general chaos.*' To avoid tLis difficulty, which has been much more strongly felt, as these facts have been more and more clearly developed by geological science, Dr. J. P. Smith has endeavoured to show that the earth in verse second may mean only a particular region, tempo- rarily obscured and reduced to ruin, and about to be fitted up, by the operations of the six days, for the residence of man ; and that consequently the narrative of the six days refers not to the original arrangement of the surface, rel&> tions, and inhabitants of our planet, but to the retrieval from ruin and re-peopling of a limited territory, supposed to have been in Central Asia, and which had been sub- merged and its atmosphere obscured by aqueous or volcanic vapours. The chief support of this view is the fact, pre- viously noticed, that the word earth is very frequently used in the signification of region, district, country; to which may be added the supposed necessity for harmonising the scriptures with geological discovery, and at the eame time viewing the days of creation as literal solar days. •Appendix B. w H AMOUAU, Oan we, howeyer, after findiog that in veme Ut tlM tem earth matt mean the whole world, loddenly restriot it in 1 erse aeeond to a limited r^ion. Is it poisiUe that the writer who in verse tenth for the first time intimates a limitation of the meaning of this word, by the solemn an- IMoneement " And God ealled the dry land earth," should in a previous verse use it in a much more limited sense without anj hint of such restriction. The ease standf Ihus. A writer uses the word earth in the most general sense ; in the next sentenee he is supposed, without any intimation of his intention, to use the same word to dcr ^te a region or eountry, and by so doing entirely to change the meanix^ of his whole diseourse, from that which would otherwise have attached to it. Yet the same writer when, a few sentences farther on, it becomes necessary for him to use the word earth to denote the dry land as distinguished from the seas, formally and with an assertion of Divine authority, intimates the change of paeanii^. Is not this supposition contrary not, only to found principles of interpretation, but also to common semsej and would it not tend to render worthless the lestinumy of a writer to whose diction such inaeourar ey must be ascribed. It is in truth to me beyond iBoasure surprisii^ that such a view could ever have ob- tained ourrenoy ) and I fear it is to be attributed to a determination, at all hazards and with any amount of vio- lence to the written record, to make geology and religion eoineide. Must we then throw aside this simple and eon- TBI DISOLATB VOID. n wnient method of reoonoiliation, lanotioned by Ghalmen, Smith, Harrii, King, Hitohoook, and many other grr ^ds mih. the hints de- rived from older sources, we find the original chaos to have been an intermingled condition of the elements constituting 80 ABOHAIA. heaven and earth. This is the Hebrew " deep." The first step of progress is the separatic« of these ; the fiery par- ticles ascending above, and not only producing light but the revolmtion of the heavenly bodies — a curious foreshadowing of the nebular hypothesis of modern astronomy. After these, in the terms of the lines quoted by Diodorus from Euripides, plants, birds, mammals and finally man are produced, not however by a direct creative fiat but by the spontaneous fecundity of the teeming earth. The Phenician cosmogony attributed to Sancuniathon has the void, the deep, and the brooding spirit, and one of the terms emploved, "baau," is the same with the Hebrew " bohu," void, u read with- out the points. The Babylonians, according to Berosus, believed in a chaos — which, however, like the literal day theory of some moderns, produced ma ly monsters before Belus intervened to separate heaven and earth. The Greek myth of Chaos and its children Erebus and Night, who gave birth to Aether and Bay, is the same tradition, personified after the fanciful manner of a people who, in the primitive period of their civilization, had no profound appreciation of nature, but were full of human sympathies.* Lastly, in a hymn translated by Br. * It is impoBBible to avoid recof nizing in the Greek Theogonj, as it appears in Hesiod and tho Orphic poems, an inextricable intermingling of a cosmogony akin to that of Moses, with le- gendary stories o»f deceaaed ancestors. Chaos or space, for the chaos of Hesiod differs from that of Ovid, came first, then Gaea the earth and Tartarus or the lower world. Ohmms gave birth to THB DESOLATI VOID. n Max Mailer from the Rig veda, a work probably far older than the Institutes of Menu, we have suuh utterances as the following: — " Nor aught nor nought existed ; yon bright skj Waf. not, nor heaven's broad woof outstretched above. What covered all 7 what sheltered ? what concealed ? Was it the water's fathomless abyss ? • • • • Darkness there was, and all at first was veiled In gloom profound — ^an ocean without light ; The germ that still lay covered in the husk Burst forth, one nature, from the fervent heat." Erebos (identical with the Hebrew Erob, or Erev, evening) and Njz, or night. These again give birth to Aether, the equivalent of the Hebrew expanse or firmament, and to Hemera, the day, and then the heavenly bodies were perfected. So far the legend is apparently based on some primitive history of creation, not essentially different frOm that of the Bible. But the Greek The- ogony here skips suddenly to the human period ; and under the fables of the marriage of Gaea and TJranos, and the Titans, ap- pears to present to us the antediluvian world with its intermar- riages of the sons of God and men, and its Nephelim or Giants, with their mechanic arts and their crimes. Beyond this, in Eronos and bis three sons, and in the strange history of Zeus, the chief of these, we have a c6arse and fanciful version of the story of the family of Noah, the insult offered by Ham to hia father, and the subsequent quarrels and dispersion of mankind. The Zeus of Homer appears to be the elder of the three, or Japhet,the real father of the Greeks, according to the Bible ; but in the time of Hesiod, Zeus was the youngest, perhaps indicating that the worship of the Egyptian Zeus, Ammon or Ham, had already supplanted among the Orefeki that of their own ancestor. But it is curious that AROBAZA. r^f It 18 evident that the state of oar planet whioh we have just been Oonsidering, is one of which we can icarcely fonn any adequate conception, and science can in no way aid us, except by suggesting hypotheses or eonjectures. It id re- markable howevei", that nearly all the oosmological theories which have been devised, contain some of the elements of the iuspiied narrative. The words of Moses appear to suggest a heated and cooling globe, its crust as yet un- broken by internal forces, covered by a universal ocean, on which rested a mass of confused vaporous substances ; and ilven in the Bible^ though Japhet is said to be the greater, he if placed last in the lists. Aft^^r the introdaction of Greek 84Tans and liter, ti to Egypt, about B. G. 660, thdjr began to regard their own mythology from thia point of view, though Obliged to be reserved on the subject. The cosmology of Thales, the astronomy of Anaxagoras, and the history of Herodotus afford tuly evidence of this, and it abounds in later writers. I may refer th? reader to Grote (History of Greece,rol. 1) for an able and agree^ abl> summary of this subject ; and may add, that even the few coin --.idencea above pointed out between Greek mythology and the Bible, independently of the multitudes of more doubtful character to be found in the older writers on this subject, appear very wonderlul, when we consider that among the Oree'r? thefe vestiges of primitive religion, whether brought With t'lem from the east ' r received from abroad, m jst have been hand r J down for a long time by oral traiUtion among the people ; but obscure though they may be, the circumstance that Some old writers have ridden the resemblances to death, affords lio excuse for the prevailing neglect of *bem in more modem times. (See Appendix K.) THX DlSOLATl VOID. 83 it is of sueh materials, thxiB combined by the laored hiato- rian, that cosmolf^sts have built up their several theorieSj, aqueous or igneous, of the early state of the earth. Geology, as a science of observation and induction, does not cany us back to this period. It must still and always say, with Hutton, that it can find '' no trade of a beginning, no prospeot of an end, " — not because there has been no banning or will be no end, but because the facts which it collects ex- tend neither to the one nor the other. Geolc^, like every other department of natural history, can but investigate the facts which are open to observation, and reason on the^ ^ in accordance with the known laws and arrangements of er' ing nature. It finds these laws to hold for the oldest period to which the rocky archives of the earth extend. Respecting the origin of these general laws and arrange- ments, or the condition of the earth before they originated, it knows nothing. In like manner a botanist may deter- mine the age of a forest, by counting the growth rings of the oldest trees, but he can tell nothing of the forests that may have preceded it, or of the condition of the surface be- fore it supported a forest. So the archaeologist may on Egyptian monuments read the names and history of suc- cessive dynasties of kings, but he can tell nothing of the state of the country and its native tribes before those dynasties began, or their monuments were built. Yet Geology at least establishes a probability that a time was when organized beings did no^ exist, and when many of the arrangements of the burface of our earth had not been 84 ABOHAIA. perfected ; and the few facts which have given birth to the theories promulgated on this subject, tend to show that this pre^eological condition of the earth may have been such as that described in the verses now under consideration. I may remark in conclusion, that if the words of Moses imply the cooling of the globe from a molten or intensely heated state, down to a temperature at which water could exist on its surface, the known rate of cooling of bodies of the dimensions and materials of the earth, shows that the time included in these two verses of Genesis, must have been enormous.*' There are two other sciences beside geology, which have in mbdern times attempted to penetrate into the mysteries of the primitive abyss, at least by hypothetical explana- tionti — ^astronomy and chemistry. The magnificent nebular hypothesis of La Place, which explains the formation of the whole solar system by the condensation of a revolving mass of gaseous matter, would manifestly bring our earth to the condition of a fluid body with or without a solid crust, and surrounded by a huge atmosphere of its more volatile ma- terials, gradually condensing itself around the central nu- cleus. Ghemisti-y informs ns that this vaporous mass would contain not only the atmospheric air and water, but all the carbon, sulphur, phosphorus, chlorine, and other ele- ments, volatile in themselves, or forming volatile compounds with oxygen or hydrogen, that are now imprisoned in vari- ous states of condensation in the solid crust of the earth. • Appendix 0. THI DI80LATI VOID. 86 Such an atmosphere, vast, dark, pestilential, and capable in its condensation of producing the most intense chemical action, is a necessity of an incandescent globe, or of an earth condensing from a nebolous state, not often referred to by writers on these subjects ; and affords no inapt represen- tation of the deep or abyss of Moses, and the chaos of Hesiod, and of the Egyptian priests. In accordance with the views above stated and explained, verses first and second may be paraphrased as follows : — " At a far-distant time, Elohim, the triune God, created the materials of the heavens and the earth." " After its creation, the earth was still without organised inhabitants. It was covered with a dense and heterogeneous mantle of vapours, and it was entirely desti- tute of solar light and heat ; but processes preparatory to its being perfected and inhabited, were in progress." CHAPTER VI. LIGHT. OansiBi. 3: "And God said let light be, and light wai; and God saw the light that it was good, and separated the light from the darkness." Light is the first element of order and perfection introduoed upon our planet — the first 'innovation on the old regime of darkness and desolation. There is a beautiful propriety in this, for the Hebrew Or (light) should be viewed as including heat and electricity as well as light ; and these three elements — if they are really distinct and not merely various movements of one ether — imponderable and in some states scarcely appreciable, are in themselves or the proximate causes of their manifestation, the prime movers of the machinery of nature, the vivifying forces without which the primeval desolation would have been eternal. The statement presented here is, however, a bold one. Light without luminaries, which were afterwards formed — ^independent light, so to speak, shining all around the earth, is an idea not likely to have occurred in the days of Moses to the framer of a fictitious cosmogony, and yet it corresponds in a remarkable manner with some of the theo- ries which have grown out of modern induction. I have said that th(p Hebrew word translated light, in- olades all the imponderables. I make this statement, not uam. 8T intending to aiMrt that Um Hebrews azperimentod oa these substances in the manner of modem seienee, and would therefore be pirepared to understand their distino- tions as fully as we can. I give the word this general aense simply because throughout the Bible it is used to denote the solar light and ^ it, and also the eleotrie lighi of the thunder-doud ; ^ light of His oloud," "the bright light which is in i. uoa." The absence of "or," therefore, in the primcvu. vurtu, is the absence of solar radiation, of the lightning's flash, and of Yoloanio fires. We shall in the succeeding verses find additional reasons for excluding all these phenomena from the darkness of the primeval night. The light of the first day cannot reasonably be supposed to have been in any other than a visible and active stato. Whether light be, as supposed by the older physicists, luminous matter radiated with immense velocity, or as now appears more probable, merely the undulations of a uni- versally diffused ether, its motion had already commenced. The idea of the matter of light as distinct from its power x>f affecting the senses, does not appear in the scriptures ; and if it did, the general creation of matter being stated in verse 1st, and the notice of the separation of li^t and darkness being distinctly given in the present verse, there is no place left for such a view here. For this reason, that explanation of this verse wbidb supposes that on the first day the TncUter of light, or the ether whose motions produce light, was created, and that on the fourth day, 5» > \r ^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 IM •4 |22 14.0 111 u& |I^|U|J4 - ^ 6" ► ffh V '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STRUT WEtSTM.N.Y. MSSO (716) •72-4503 ^ I 88 AAOBAU. when luminaries were appointed, it became visible by beginning to undulate, must be abandoned ; and the oon> neotion between these two statements must be sought in some other group of facts than that connected with the existence of the matter of light as distinct from its undu- lations. What, then, was the nature of the light which on the first day shone without the presence of any local luminary ? It must have proceeded from luminous matter diffused through the whole space oi the solar system, or surround- ing our globe as with a mantle. It was ^'clothed with light as with a garment," "Sphered in a radiant clond, for yet the sun was not." We have already rejected the hypothesis that the prime- val night proceeded from a temporary obscuration of the atmosphere; and the expression, "God said let light be," affords an additional reason, since, in accordance with the strict precision of language which everywhere prevails in this ancient document, a mere restoration of light would not be stated in such terms. If we wish to find a natural explanation of the mode of illumi- nation referred to, we must recur to one or other of the suppositions mentioned above, that the luminous matter formed a nebulous atmosphere, slowly concentrating itself toward the centre of the solar system, or that it formed a special envelope of our earth, which subsequently disap- peared. lilGBT. 88 We may suppose, in the first place, this luminous matter to be the same with that which now surrounds the sun, and constitutes the stratum of luminous substance, which, by its wondrous and unceasing power of emitting light, gives him all his glory. To explain the division of the light from the darkness, we need only suppose that the luminous matter, in the progress of its concentration, was at length all gathered within the earth's orbit, and then as one hemisphere only would be illuminated at a time, the separation of light from darkness or of day from night would be established. This hypothesis, suggested by the words themselves, affords a simple and natural explanation of a statement otherwise obscure. It is an instructive circumstance that the probabilities respecting the early state of our planet, thus deduced from the scriptural narrative, correspond very closely with the most ingenious and truly philosophical speculation ever hazarded respecting the origin of our solar system. I refer to the cosmical hypothesis of La Place, which was certainly formed without any reference to the Bible ; and by persons whose views of the Mosaic narrative are of that shallow character which is too prevalent, has been suspected as of infidel tendency. La Place's theory is based on the following properties of the solar system, for a statement of which and of the views founded on them, I am indebted to Nichols' "System of the World." 1. The orbits of the planets are nearly circular. 2. They revolve nearly M "5^i»:«tf»,"j,S?Ai/*?\*«i-''-S-i - ■ \,jtJf!ithfii/>f,^li«kat»^, 90 ABOHAIA. in the plane of the san's equator.* 3. They all rerolye round the sun in one direction, which is also the direction of the son's rotation. 4. They rotate on their axes also, as far as is known, in the same direction. 5. Their satel- lites, with the exception of those of Uranus, revolve in the same direction. Now all these coincidences can scarcely have been fortuitous, and yet they might have been other- wise without affecting the working of the system; and farther, if not fortuitous, they correspond precisely witii the results which would flow from the condensation of a revolving mass of nebulous matter.f La Place, therefore, conceived that in the banning the matter of our system existed in the condition of a mass of vaporous materid, having a central nucleus more or less dense, and the whole rotating in a uniform direction. Such a mass must, " ta oondensii^ by cold, leave in the plane of its equator zones of vapour composed of substances which required an intense degree of cold to return to a liquid or solid state. These sones must have b^un by circulating round the sun in the form of concentric rings, the most volatile molecules of * The group of minor planets discovered in mor fv limes between Mars and Jupiter, form an exception to this ; but they are of little importance, and exceptional in oth^r respects as well. To give their arrangement and the motiono of the satellites of Uranus, would require the farther assumption of some unknown disturbing cause. t For a very clear statement of this, see Nieholi^ ** Planetary System." LIOHT. 91 whieh miut have formed the superior part, and the most con- densed the inferior part. If all the nebulous molecules of which these rings are composed had continued to cool without disuniting, they would have ended by forming a liquid or solid ring. But the r^ular constitution which all parts of the ring would require for this, and which they would have needed to preserve when cooling, would make this phenomenon extremely rare. Accordingly the solar system presents only one instance of this, that of the rings of Saturn. Generally the ring must have broken into several parts which have continued to circulate round the sun, and with almost equal velocity, whilst at the same time, in consequence of their separation, they would acquire a rotatory motion round their respective centres of gravity ; and as the molecules of the superior part of the ring — that is to say, those farthest from the centre of the sun — ^had necessarily an absolute velocity greater than the molecules of the inferior part which is nearest it, the rotatory motion common to all the fragments must always have been in the same direction with the orbitual motion. However, if after their division one of these fragments has been suffi- ciently supenor to the others to unite them to it by its attraction, they will have formed only a mass of vapour, which, by the continual friction of all its parts, must have assumed the form of a spheroid, flattened at the poles and elongated :n the direction of its equator." Here, then are rings of vapour left by the successive retreats of the atmosphere of the sun, changed into so many planets in 92 AROHAIA. the condition of vapour, oircalating round tho central orb, and possessing a rotatory motion in the direction of their revolution, while the solar mass was gradually contracting itself round its centre and assuming its present organised form. Such is a general view of the hypothesis of La Place, which may also be followed out into all the known details of the solar system, and will be found to account for them all. Into these details, however, we cannot now enter. Let us now compare this ingenious speculation with the scripture narrative. In both we have the raw material of the heavens and the earth created before it assumed its distinct forms. In both we have that state of the planets characterised as without form and void, the condensing nebulous mass of La Place's theory being in perfect cor- respondence with the scriptural "deep." In both it is implied that the permanent mutual relations of the several bodies of the system must have been perfected long after their origin. Lastly, supposing the luminous atmosphere of our sun to have been of such a character as to concen- trate itself wholly around the centre of the system, and that as it became concentrated it acquired its intense lumi- nosity, we have in both the production of light from the same cause ; and in both it would follow that the concen- tration of this matter within the orbit of the earth, would effect the separation of day from night, by illuminating alternately the opposite sides of the earth. It is true that the theory of La Place does not provide for any such spe- cial condensation of luminous matter, nor for any precise LIGHT. 93 stage of the process as that in which the arrangements of light and darkness should be completed; but under his hypothesis it seems necessary to account in some such way for the sole luminosity of the sun ; and the point of separa. tion of day and night must have been a marked epoch in the history of the process for each planet. But the Mosaic record and the hypothesis of La Place alike admit of another and somewhat different explanation of the primitive light. For this also I am indebted to Nichol.* After describing the sun's luminous atmos- phere with its bright " faculae," its dimmer spaces, and the huge dark spots or cavities that seem to be caused by gigantic whirlwinds similar to our terrestrial hurricanes, but of vastly greater dimensions, he goes on to inquire why the sun possesses the monopoly of light, which on La Place's theory might be shared among the planets, and whether anything similar to the sun's luminous cloud is connected with the planets; and adduces the following facts as evidence of sucL luminosity in an inferior degree. « Our first thought leads us to the Auroras. Whatever their origin, they show the existence of causes in virtue of whose energy the upper strata of our atmosphere become self-luminous sometimes in a high degree ; for in northern regions our travellers have read by their brilliance. But the Aurora is not the only phenomenon which indicates the existence of a power in the matter of our globe to emit • "Planetarj System"; also Humboldt, Cosmos, "Northern Lights"; and Wagner and Schubert, quoted by Kurtz. k ABOBAU. lig^t One hat ihai iniist haye been often notioed, forcibly impreMes me with the oonviotion that here, th'OQj^ what seeme oommon, tmths of maoh import will yet be reaehed. In the dead of night, when the sky is clear and one is admiring the brillianoy of the stars, hanging over a per- foetly obsoored earth, a olond, well known to obsenring astronomers, will at times be^n to form, and it then spreads with astonishing rapidity oyer the whole heayens. The lig^t of the stars being thas utterly shut out, one might suppose that sorronnding objects would, if possible become more indistinct: but no I what was formerly inyisible can now be clearly seen; not because of lights firom the earth being reflected back firom the doud — for yery often there are none — but in yirtue of the l^ht of the doud itaelfy which, howeyer faint, is yet a similitude of the dazzling shell of the sun. The existence of this illu- minating power, though apparently in its debilitude, we discoyer also in appearances among the other orbs. Flashes like our auroras are said to haye been obsenred oyer the dark hemisphere of Yenus; and the obscure part of the moon is belieyed to haye been yimted by similar pheno- mena ; but the circumstance most remarkably corroboratiye of the mysterious truth to which these indications point, is the appearance of our midnight luminary during a total eclipse. By theory she ought to disappear entirely from the heayens. She should yanish, and the sky seem as if no moon were in being; but on the contrary, and eym UQIT. wbm iIm puMt tlM ruj oentre of the eirtli'i ihadow» dM a huge diae of broaie, in wLidi the ehiaf qpoU om be dflieried by the teleeoope. It has been pot forth in eaqpknation that a portion of the raya of the inn moat be reflected by oar atmosphere and bent toward the eoUpeed disk, horn whioh again they are refleeted to the earth — thna giving the moon that bronie colour; bnt the instant the hypothcMB is tested by calculation, we disoovw its utter insuflicienoy. Not is there any tenable conclusion saye this : — That the matter both of sun and planets is capable, in certain •oiroumstances, whose exact conditions are not Imown, of evolving the eneigy whioh we term lig^t; and that the atmosphere of the sun is at present under influ- ences favorable to the high manifestation of a power which firom the other orbs has not yet entirely departed. And tiius for ever is broken down that supposed distinction whioh seemed to place our central luminary apart in tpeeiet^ to an immeasurable extent from the humbler worlds that toU around him." Let us suppose, in aocordauoe with tlus hypothesis, that our earth was in its earlier state surrounded by a self-luminous atmosphere. This, if sufficiently bril- liant, would exclude the light of the sun and of the heavenly bodies; and, as its light became exhausted and that of the sun increased, the latter would gradually be installed into his offioe as the sole orb of day. It is quite evident that either this last view, or that above ezplainec^ would ^ve a sufficient hypothetical explanation of the light of the flrst of the creative leons; and this is aU that in ABOHAZA. the present state of soienoe we can expect. " Where is the way where light dwelleth, and as for darkness where is the place thereof, that thou shonldst take it to the bound thereof, and know the way to the honse thereof? " For the reasons above given, we must r^ard the hyp^ thesis of the great French astronomer, as a wonderful approximation to the grand and simple plan of the con- struction of our system as revealed in scripture. It is true, however, that since recent improvements in telescopes have resolved into stars those nebulae which were supposed to be instances of world-fbrmation actually in progrete, astro- nomers have very generally abandoned the nebular hypo- thesis which was one of the foundations of the theory of La Place. But this circumstance does not affect the theory as an illustration of scripture, since whether or not such processes are now in progress, many astronomical facts and the scripture narrative, concur in suggesting that it was in some such method that it pleased the Creator to construct our system. " Gk)d saw the light that it was good," though it illu- minated but a waste of lifeless waters. It was good because beautiful in itself, and because God saw it in its relations to long trains of processes and wonderful organio structures on which it was to act as a vivifying agency. Throughout ^ scriptures light is not only good, but an emblem of higher good. In Psalm civ. God is represented as " cloth- ing himself with light as with a garment"; and in many other parts of these exquisite lyrics we have similar fisrures. LIGHT. 97 " The Lord is my light and Balvation." " Lift up tht light of thy countenanoe upon me." " The entrance of thy law giveth light." " The path of the just is as • shining light." And the great spiritual light of the world, the " only batten of the Father," the mediator alike in creation and redemption, is himself the " Sun of Righteous- ness." Perhaps the noblest scripture passage relating to the blessing of light, is one in the address of Jehovah to Job, which is unfortunately so imperfectly translated in the English version as to be almost unintelligible : — " Hast thou in thj lifetime given law to the morning, Or caused the dawn to know its place, That it may ei 'lose the horizon in its grasp. And chase the robbers before it : It rolls along as the seal over the clay, Causing all things to stand forth in gorgeous apparel."* Job xzxviii. 12. * This translation is as literal as is consistent with the bold abruptness of the original. The last idea is that of a cylindri- cal seal rolling over clay and leaving behind a beautiful impres- aion where all before was a blank. See Barnes, in loo., for a summary of the views of ezegists on this passage, the difficulty of which, as in many similar cases, is not so much in the words themselves, as in the want of familiarity of expositors with th« images employed. s. CHAPTER Vn. DATS Of OaSATXON. Onrasii 1. 5 : " And Ck>d o«ll«d the light Daj ; and th« dark- MM M eftUed Night. And the erening and the morning were the flnt dej." Thisi words bring ns to the ooiuddention of one of the most difficult problems in this chapter, and one on which its significance in a great measure depends— the meaning of the word day^ and the length of the days of creation. I am aware that we have the authority of many great names Ibr determining that the days of the creative week must have been literal days ; and that the belief that these days were long periods, was in consequence at one time almost entirely abandoned. But after a careful examination of the considerations that have been advanced on both sides of the question, I confess that I nust agree with those who think that the point is far from being settled, and that the argumento bearing on it, and more especially those de- rived from the internal evidences, deserve a farther and very attentive consideration. In pursuing this investigation, I shall refrain from no- ticing in detail the views of the many able modem writers who, from Ouvier, De Luc and Jameson, down to Hugh Miller, have maintained the period theory, or those equally Momerous and able writers who have supported the opposite DAT! or OAIATIOM. Tiew. I aoknowledge obligationi to them tU, but pnAr to diraot my tttention immediately to the reoord itielf. The first important fact that strikea us, b one whieh has not reoeived the attention it deeerres, via : that the woid day ia evidently used in two aeniea in the yene itself. We are told that Ood called the lufht, that is the dinrnal eon- tinnanoe of light, day. We are also informed that the evening and the morning were the first day. Day there- fore in one of these clauses is the light as separated firom the darkness, whioh we may call the natural day ; in the other it is the whole time occupied in the creation of light and its separation firom the darkness, whether that was a civil or astronomical day of twenty-four hours or some longer period. In other words, the daylight, to whioh God is represented as restricting the use of the term day, is only a part of a day of creation, which included both light and darkness, and which m^ht be either a civil day or a longer period, but could not be the natural day inter- vening betweeu sunrise and sunset, which is the ordinary day of scripture phraseolc^. To pave the way for a right understanding of the day of creation, it may be well to consider, in the first place, the manner in whioh the shorter day is introduced. In the expression " Ood called the light day," we find for the first time the Creator naming his works, and we may infer that some important purpose was to be served by this. The nature of this purpose we ascertain by comparison with other instances of the same kind, occurring in the chapter. 100 ABOHAIA. God called the darkness night, the firmament heaven, the dry land earth, the gathered waters seas. In all these oases the purpose seems to have been one of verbal definition, perhaps along with an assertion of sovereignty. It waa necessary to distinguish the diurnal darkness from that un- varied darkness which had been of old, and to discriminate between the limited waters of an earth having dry land on its surface, and those of the ancient universal ocean. This is effected by introducing two new terms, night and seas. In like manner it was necessary to mark the new applica- tion of the term earth to the dry land, and that of heaven to the atmosphere, more especially as these were the senses in which the terms were to be popularly used. The in- tention therefore in all these cases was to affix to certain things names different from those which they had previously borne in the narrative, and to certain terms new senses differing from those in which they had been previously used. Applying this explanation here, it results that the probable reason for calling the light day, is to point out that the word occurs in two senses, and that while it was to be the popular and proper term for the natural day, this sense must 'be distinguished from its other meaning as a day of creation. In short, we may take this as a plain and authoritative declaration that the day of creation is not the day of popular ap^^ech. We see in this a striking instance of the general ttiith that in the simplicity of the structure of this chapter, we find not omrelessness but studied and severe precision, and a warning against the neglect of the smallest peculiarities in its diction. BATS OF CREATION. 101 What then is the day of creation, as distinguished by Moses himself from the natural day. The general opinion, and that which at first sight appears most probable, is that it is merely the ordinary civil day of twenty-four hours. Those who adopt this view insist on the impropriety of di- verting the word from its usual sense. Unfortunately however for this argument, the word is not very frequently used in the scriptures for the whble twenty-four hours of the earth's revolution. Its etymology gives it the sense of the time of glowing or warmth, and in accordance with this, the Divine authority here limits its meaning to the day- light. Accordingly, throughout the Hebrew scriptures, yom is generally the natural and not the civil day ; and where the latter is intended, the compound terms " day and night" and "evening and morning," are frequently used. Any one who glances over the word day in a good English concordance, can satisfy himself of this fact. But the sense of natural day from sunrise to sunset, is expressly excluded here by the context, as already shown ; and all that we can say in favour of the interpretation that limits the day of creation to twenty-four hours, is that next to the use of the word for the natural day, which is its true po- pular meaning, its use for the civil day is perhaps the most frequent. It is therefore by no means a statement of the whole truth to affirm, as many writers have done, that the civil day is the ordinary meaning of the term. At the same time we may admit that this is one of its ordinary meanings, and therefore may be its meaning here. Another argument 102 ABOHAIA. firequently urged is, that the day of creation is said to have had an evening anfi morning. We shall consider this more ftdly in the seqnel, and in the meantime may observe that it appears rather hazardous to attribute an ordinary even- ing and morning to a day which, on the face of the record, piieoeded the formation and arrangement of the luminaries which are " for days and for years."* Admitting then that the civil day may be meant, we may now proceed to consider another meaning of the word, very common in scripture, and perhaps occurring as fre- quently as the instances in which the word can be with certainty maintained to denote the civil day. In the Bible long and undefined periods are indicated by the word day. In many of these cases the word is in the plural ; as Qen. iv. 3, " And after days it came to pass," rendered in our version " in process of time," Gl«n. zl. 4, " days in ward," rendered " a season." Such instances as these are not ap- plicable to the present question, since the plural may have * Prof. Dana thus sums up the yarious meanings of the word day in (Genesis : — " Fxrtt^ in verse 6, the lifiht in general is called day, the darkness, night. Second, in the same verse, evening and morning make the first day, before the sun appears. I%ird, verse 14, day stands for twelve houre or the period of daylight, as dependent on the sun. Fourth, same verse, in the phrase " days and seasons," day stands for a period of twenty-four houre. lifth, at the close of the account, in verse 4, of the second chapter, day means the whole period of creation. These uses are the same that we have in our own language." DA > or OBXATION. lOS the sense of indefinite time, merely by denoting an nn- determined number of natural days. Passages in which the singular occurs in this sense, are those which strictly apply to the case in hand, and such are by no means rare. A very remarkable example is Q«ne^ ii. 4, where we find " In the day when Jehovah Elohim made the earth and the heavens." This day must either mean the banning, or must include the whole six days ; most probably the latter, since the word " made " refers not to the act of creation, pro- perly so called, but to the elaborating processes of the cre- ative week ; and occurring as this does immediately after the narrative of creation, it seems almost Hke an intentional intimation of the wide import of the creative days. It has been objected however that the expression " in the day " is properly a compound adverb, having the force of " when " or " at the time." But the learned and ingenious authors who urge this olyjection, have omitted to consider the rela- tive probabilities as to whether the adverbial use had a^ isen while the word yom meant simply a day, or whethe' the use of the noun for long periods was the reason of the in- troduction of such an adverbial expression. The proba- bilities are in favour of the latter, for it is not likely that men would construct an adverb referring io indefinite time from a word denoting one of the most precisely limited portions of time, unless that word had also a second and more unlimited sense. Admitting therefore that the phrase is an adverb of time, its use so early as the date of the compo- sition of Gfenesis, to denote a period longer than a literal day, seems to imply that this indefinite use of the word 104 ABOHAU. W«8 of high antiquity, and probably preceded the invention of any term by which long periods could be denoted. This use of the word day is however not limited to cases of the oocurrenoe of the formula " in the day." The fol- lowing are a few out of many instances that might be quoted. Job xviii. 20 : ^' They that come after him shall be astonished at his day." Job xv. 32 : " It shall be ac- complished before his time" Judges xviii. 30: ''Until the day of the captivity of the land." Deut. i. 39 : "And your children which in that day had no knowledge of good and oVil." Gen. xzxiz. 10: "And it came to pass about that time (on that day)." We find also abundance of such expressions as "day of calamity," "day of distress," "day of wrath," "day of God's power," "day of prosperity." In such passages the word is evidently used in the sense of era or period of time, and this in prose as well as poetry. There is a remarkable passage in the Psalms, which con- veys the idea of a day of God as distinct from human or terrestrial days : " Before the mountains were brought forih, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art Qod. Thou turnest man to destruction. And sayest, Return, ye children of men ; For a thousand jears are in thy sight as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch in the night."* *It is worthy of note that this psalm is attributed to Hoses, and that it probably refers to the creation and the deluge. DATS or OftlATION. 105 *Tlie same thon^^t ooootb in the second epistle of Peter : " One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." These remarkable statements are not expressly intended to give information as to the days of creation. They teach as, however, that in the sight of the Eternal, onr measurements of time are as nothing; and that the scripture writers had the idea that God's smallest measures of time might be very long. But supponng that the inspired writer intended to say diat the world was formed in six long periods of time, could not he have used some other word than yom that would have been liable to fewer doubts. There are words which might have been used, as for instance eth, time, season, or oTam, age, ancient time, eternity. These words, however, have about them a want of precision as to their banning and end, which unfits them for this use ; and after some search, I have been unable to find any instance which would justify me in affirming that on the supposi- tion that Moses intended long periods, he could have bet- ter expressed the idea than by the use of the word yom, more especially if he and those to whom he wrote were familiar with the thought, preserved to us in the mythology of the Hindoos, and probably widely diffused in ancient Asia, that a working day of the Creator immeasurably transcends a working day of man.* * For the benefit of those who may value ancient authoritieB in rach matters, and to show that such views may rationally be entertained independently of geology, I qnote the following pas- 106 Muqr ofcjeetioiis to tiie view whieh I lutTe thw enda*'* TOwed to sapfMHrt firon mternal enridenoe, wiU «t onoe oMor to erery intoUigeiit reader fiutniliar with the litenture of this mlgeet. I duJl now attampt to give the prindpal of theae oligeetiont a oaodid conaideratioii. , (1.) It IB objeoted that the time oooopied in the work of oieatioii, is giyen as a reason for the observanee of the seventh day as a sabbath; and that this reqniresus toview tiie days of oreation as literal days« ** For in six days Jehovah made the heaven and the earthy the sea and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day ; thereforar Jehovah Messed the sabbath day and sanotified it," The sage from Origen ; **€fiiiBam qaaeio feDBnai habcati conveaientwr ▼idebitvir dictimir V>od (Ues prima et Beennda et tertia, in qoibns et T«apera nominatury et manef fuerint Aiae sole, et sine liin» et sine stellis : prima antem dies sine e«lo." So St. AngoS' tine ezpresslj states his belief that the creative days eoold not be of the ordinary kind. **Q,\d dies, ct^usmodi sint^ant per- difficile nobis,^ aut etiam impossibile est eogitave, qnanto magia discere." Bede also remarks " fortassis hie diei somen, totiw temporis nomen est, et omnia velomina seeulwom hoe vocabolo inclndit." Manj similar oj^oas of old eommentators might be quoted. It is also not onWorthy of note that the ourdinal nam- ber is used here, ** one day" for first day ; and though the Hebrew grammarians have sought to found on this, and a few similar passages, a rule that the cardinal may be substituted for the erdiaalr many leaned; Hebraiats insist that this use of the car' 4inal number impliei lingalatity and peeoUavity as well as mere pdority. BATS Of OBIATIOH. m ■igmiient lued h«re if, howeFer, ono of aiuJogr. God reffeed on His aerentli day, Ho Uoioed uid Hmotified it, and roqoired men in V\e manner to saneUfy their sevenUi day.* Now, if it shonld appear tliat the wwking day of Ood is not the same with the wovkii^ day of man, and that the sabbath of Ood is of proportionate lengA to his worldng day, tibe analogy is not weakened ; more espeeially as we find the same analogy extended to the seventh year. If it should be said, God worked in the oreation of the world in six long ages and rested on the seventh, therefore man in oommemoration of this fact shall sanctify the sevendi of his working days, the arga« ment is as strong, the example as intelligible, as on the common smpposition. This objection is, in £u)t, a pieoe of pedantio hyperorthodo^gr which has too long been handed about without investigalion. It is refreshing to &id it thus orudied in the strong grasp of Hugh Miller : — f « I cannot avoid iMnking that muoiy of our theologians attaph a too narrow meaning to the remarkable reason at- tached to the fourth oommtmdment by the Pivine lawgiver. " God rested on the sevoith day," says the text, "from aU His work which He had created and made; and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." And such is * It is to be observed, howeyer, tbat on the 8o called literal . day bTpothesia, the first sabbath was not man's seventh day, but rather his first, since he must have been created toward the close of the sixth day. t Footprints of the Creator. 108 ABOBAtA. the reason given in the deeelogne whj man should rest oo the sabbath day. God rested on the sabbath day and sanctified it ; and therefore man ought also to rest on the sabbaiH and keep it holy. But I know not where we shall find grounds for the bdief that the sabbath day daring which God rested was merely oommensorate with one of the sabbaths of short lived man — a brief period measured by a single revolution of the earth on its axis. We have not, as has been shown, a shadow of evidence that He re- sumed his work of creation on the morrow ; the geolo^st finds no trace of post-Adamic creation; the theologian can tell us of none. God's sabbath of rest may still exist ; the work of redemption may be the work of his sabbath day. That elevatory process through successive acts of creation, which engaged him during myriads of ages, was of an or- dinary week-day character, but when the term of his moral government began, the elevatoiy process peculiar . to it assumed the Divine character of the sabbath. This special view appears to lend peculiar emphasis to the reason embo- died in the comiuandment. The collation of the passage with the geologic record, seems, as if by a species of re- translation, to make it enunciate as its injunction, " Keep this day, not merely as a day of memorial related to a past ikot, but also as a day of co-operation with God in the work of elevation, in relation both to a present fact and a future purpose." " God keeps His sabbath " it says " in order that He may save ; keep yours also that ye may be saved." It serves besides to throw light on the prominence of the DATS or OBIATXON. IW mhhaJdetl oomnuoid, in a digeet of law of which no jot or little can pass away until the fulfilment of all things. Paring the present dynasty of probation and trial, that special work of both God and man on which the character of the ftitare dynasty depends, is the sabbath day work of saying and being saTed." " The common objection to that special riew which re- gards the days of creation as immensely protracted periods of time, furnishes a specimen, if not of reasoning in a circle, at least of reasoning from a mere assumption. It first takes for granted that the sabbath day during which God rested, was a day of but twenty-four hours, and then aigues from the supposition that in order to keep up the proportion between the six previous working days and the seventh day of rest, which the reason annexed to the fourth commandment demands, these previous days must also have been twenty-four hours each. It would, I have b^ui^ to suspect, square better with the ascertained facts, and be at least equally in accordance with scripture, to reverse the process, and argue that because God's working days were immensely protracted periods, his sabbath also must be an immensely protracted period. The reason attached to the law of the sabbath, seems to be simply a reason of propor- tion : — the objection to which I refer is an objection palpa- bly founded on considerations of proportion, and certainly were the reason to ba divested of proportion, it would be divested also of its distinctive character as a reason. Were it ap, follows it could not be at all understood : " Six 110 AMOAIA. 6xj9 dudt Ummi labour, Ao. ; bat on the wteiith d*j duJt thou do no labour, Ac. ; for in six immensely profarafeted periodii of eeyeral thonaand yean eaeh, did tho Lord make the lieaTena and the earth, fto. ; and then rested during a brief day of twenty-fonr honni ; therefore the Lord bleaaed ■the brief day of twenty-four honra and hallo'ired it." This I repeat would not be reason. All howerer that seems necessary to the integrity of the reason, in its eha' raster as such, is that the proportion of six parts to seven should be maintained. Qod's periods may be periods ex- pressed algebraically by letters symbolical of unknown quantities, and man's periods by letters symbolical of quantities well known ; but if God's sabbath be equal to one of his six working days, and man's sabbath equal to one of his rix working days, the int^rity of proportion is maintained." < Not only does this vie^ of the case entirely remove the objection; but it throws a new light on the nature and reason of the sabbath. No good reason, except that of set- tmg an example, can be assigned for God's resting for a literal day. But if God's sabbath of rest from natural creation is still in progress, and if our short sabbaths are symbolical of the work of that great sabbath in its present grey morning and in its coming glorious noon ; then may the christian thank this question incidentally raised by geology \ and its long periods, for a ray of light which shines along the whole course of scripture history, from the first sabbath up DAT! ( V CBBATIOll. Ill to that ftaal " nat whieh nnudneth Ibr tht feople cf €»od."* 2. It ia dkijeeted thai eyaning aad moraing ara aaeribad to tha fiiat day. Thia haa been already noticed ; it may hare be eonndeved more folly. The word evening in the original ia literally the darkening, the annaet, the doak. Morning ia tiie opening or Irtakv^ forth of lighi— the day-break. It moat not be denied that the ezjdanation of ihese terma is attended with aome difienlty, but thia ia not at all leaaoned by narrowing the day to twMity-foor hooia. The firat q»eration of the first day was the ereation of light ; next we have the Creator contemplating hia work and pro- nonncing it to be good ; then we have the aeparation of the light and darkneea, previously it ia to be presumed inter- mixed ; and all this without the jNresence of a aun or other luminary. Which of these operations occupied the evening, and which the mwning, if the day conaisted of but twenty-four houn>, beginning aooording to Hebrew custom in the evening ? Was the old primeviQ darkneea the evening or night, and the first breaking fbrHi of light morning. This is almost the only view compatible witli the Hebrew dvil day banning at evening, but it would at once lengthen the day beyond twenty-four hoora, and contradict the terms of the record. Again, were the separated light and darkness the morning and evening? * This idea occurs in Lord Bacon's confession of Faith, and De Luc also maintains that the Ozeator's sabbath must have been of long continuance. 112 ▲BORAU, If 10, why it the efining mentumed lint, oontnrj lo the sappoted faoti of the oaie ; why indeed aie the ereniog and morning mentioned at all, abee on that lappoiitioii this is merely a repetition ? Lastly, shall we adopt the ingenious expedient of dividing the erening and morning between two days, and maintaining that the evening belongs to the first and the morning to the second day, which woold deprive the first day of a morning, and render the creative days, whatever their length, altogether diffsrent from He- brew natural or civil days. It is unnecessary to pursue such inquiries farther, since it is evident that the terms of the record will not agree with the supposition of natural evening and morning. This is of itself a strong presump- tion against the hypothesis of civil days, since the writer was under no necessity so to word these verses that thej would not give any rational or connected sense on the sup- position of natural evening and morning, unless he wished to be otherwise understood. But what is the meaning of evening and momk^, if these days were l Mosaic days into great cosmical periods, are of a character too light and superficial to deserve any r^ard. I shall now endeavour to add to the internal evi- dence previously given, some considerations of an external character which support this view. 1. The fact that the creation was progressive, that it proceeded from the formation of the raw material of the universe, throt^h successive stages, to the perfection of living organisms, if we regard the analogy of God's operations as disclosed in the geological history of the earth and in the present course of nature, must impress us with * Appendix B. DATS or ORBATION. 121 a snspioion that long periods were employed in the work. God might have prepared the earth for man in an instant. He did not choose to do so, but on the contrary proceeded step by step, and the record he has given us does not receive its full significance nor attain its full harmony with the course of geological history, unless we can understand each day of the creative week as including a long succes- non of ages. 2. We have, as already explained, reason to believe that the seventh day at least has been of long duration. At the dose of the sixth, Gtod rested from all his work of ma- terial creation, and we have as yet no evidence that he has resumed it. With the exception of the author of the 'Testiges of Creation" and a few similar speculators, no one pretends that he has done so. We know that the present day, if it is the seventh, has lasted already for about six thousand years, and, if we may judge from the testimony of prophecy, has yet a long space to run, before it merges in that " new heaven and new earth " for which all be- lievers look, and which will constitute the first day of an endless sabbatism. 3. The philosophical and religious systems of many an- cient nations, afford intimations of the somewhat extensive prevalence in ancient times of the notion of long creative periods, corresponding to the Mosaic days. These notions, in so far as they are based on truth, are probr.Lly derived from the Mosaic narrative itself, or from the primitive patri- archal documents which perhaps formed the basis of that I 122 ABOHAIA. narrative. They are, no doubt, all more or less garbled Tersions, and cannot be recorded aa of anj authority, but they serve to show what was the interpretation of the docu- ment in a very remote antiquity. I have collected from a variety of sources the following examples : The ancient mythology of Persia appears to have had six creative periods, each apparently of a thousand years, and corresponding very nearly with the Mosaic days. The Ohaldeans had a similar but apparently less coherent sys- tem.* The Etruscans possessed a history of the creation, somewhat resembling that of the Bible, and representing the creation as occupying six periods of a thousand years each.t The Egyptians believed that the world had been subject to a series of destructions and renewals, the intervals between which amounted tol20,000years,or according to other autho- rities, to 300,600 or 360,000 years. This system of destruc- tion and renewal theEgyptian priests appear to have wrought out into considerable detail, but though important truths may be concealed under their mysterious dogmas, it will not repay us to dwell on the fragments that remain of them. There can be no doubt, however, that at least the basis of the Egyptian cosmogony must have been the common pro- perty of all the Hamite nations of which Egypt was the * Rhode, quoted by McDonald, " Creation and Fall " p. 62 ; EnsebiuB, Ohron. Arm. t Soidas, Lexicon,—" Tyrrenia." DATS or OftlATION. 123 greatest and most pennanent; and therefore in all proba- bility derived from the ideas of creation which were onrrent not long after the deluge. The Egyptians appear also, as already stated, to have had a physical cosmogony) begin- ning with a i ^me soul, mind with all its powers and properties." The rest of the account appears to be very confused, and I confess to a great extent unintelligible to me. There follows, however, a continuation of the narrative, stating that there is a iuccession of seven Menus, each of whom produces and supports the earth during his reign. It is in the account of these successive Menus that the following statement re- specting the days and years of Brahma occurs. " A day of the Gods is equal to a year. Four thousand years of the Gk)ds are called a Gritya or Satya age. Four ages are an age of the Gods. Om thousand divitie aga (equal to more than four millions of human years) are a day of Brahma the Creator. Seventy-two divine agw DAT! or OlIATIOir. 126 •re one manwantara." • • • "The aggregate of four ages they call a divine age, and belieye that in every thousand such ages, or in every day of Brahma, foorteei menus are suooessively invested with the sovereignty of the earth. Eaoh menu they suppose transmits his authority to his sons and grandsons, during a period of seventy-two divine ages, and such a period they call a manwantara. Thirty such days (of the Creator) or oalpas, constitute a month of Brahma; twelve such months one of hia years, and 100 such yean his age, of whioh they assert that fifty years have elapsed. We are thus, aooord- ing to the Hindoos, in the first day or calpa of the fifty-first year of Brahma's life, and in the twenty-eighth divine age of the seventh manwantara of that day. In the present day of Brahma the first menu was named the Son of the Self-Existent, and by him the institutes of religion and civil duties are said to have been delivered. In his time occurred a ne^ creation called the Lotos creation.*' Of five menus who succeeded him. Sir William could find little but the names, but the accounts of the seventh are very full, and it appears that in his reign the earth was destroyed by a flood. Sir William su^sts that the first menu may represent the creation, and that the seventh may be Noah. The name Menu is derived from a root signi- fying to understand. , In this Hindoo cosmc^ny we have many points of cor- respondence with the scripture narrative: for inetanoe, the Sdf-Ezistent Creator; the agency of the Son of Qod 126 ABOHAIA. and the Holy Spirit; the absolute creation of matter; the hoyering of the Spirit over the primeval waters ; the sevens fold division of the creative process ; and the idea of days of the Creator of immense di- ration. If we suppose the day of Brahma in the Hindoo cosmogony, to represent the Mosaic day, then it amounts to no less than 4,320,000 years; or if, with Sir W. Jones, we suppose the Man- wantara to represent the Mosaic day, as seems more pro- bable, its duration will be 308,671 years; and the total antiquity of the earth, without counting the undefined " beginning," will be more than two millions of years. It would be folly, however, to suppose that these Hindoo numbers, which are probably purely conjectural, or based on astronomical cycles, make any near approximation to the facts of the case. The Institutes of Menu are pro- bably in their present form not of great antiquity, but there are other Hindoo documents of greater age which maintain similar views, and it is probable that the account of the creation in the institutes is at least an imperfect version of the original narrative, as it existed among the earliest colonists of India.* It corresponds in many points with the oldest notions on these subjects that remain to ug in the wrecks of the mythology of Egypt and other ancient * The theology of the Institutes is clearly primitive Semitic ' in its character; and therefore, if the Bible is true, must be older than the Arian theogony of the Rig Yeda, as expounded by Muller, whatever the relative age of the documents. See Appendix E. DATS OP OEIATION 127 nations, and it uds in proving that the fabulona agee of gods and demi-gods in the ancient mythologies, are really fre^idamite ; and belong not to human history, but to the work of creation. It also shows that the idea of long creative periods as equivalents of the Mosaic days, must, in the infancy of the postKliluvian world, have been very widely diffused. Such evidence is, no doubt, of small authority in the interpretation of scripture j but it must be admitted that serious consideration is due to a method of interpretation which thus tends to bring the Mosaic account into hannony with the facts of modem science, and with the belief of almost universal antiquity, and at the same time gives it its fullest significance and most perfect internal symmetry of parts. It is also very inter- esting to note the wide diffusion among the most ancient nations, of cosmologioal views ' ' mtioal in their main features with those of the Bible, proving, almost beyond doubt, that these views had some common and very ancient source, and commanded universa. belief among the primitive tribea of men. I have hitherto avoided all detailed reference to what may be r^rded as the " prophetic day " view of the nar- rative of creation. This may be shortly stated as follows : — In the prophetical parts of scripture the prophet sees in vision, as in a picture or acted scene, the events that are to come to pass, and in consequence represents years or longer periods by days of vision. Now the revelation of the pre- adamite past is in its nature akin to that of the unknown 128 ABOHAIA. future ; and Moses may have seen these wondrous events in vision — in visions of suiecessive days — under the guiso of which he presents geological time. Some things in the form of the narrative favour this view, but I do not r^ard it as necessary to the interpretation maintained above, nor do I regard the reasons advanced by Kurtz,* and by the author of the excellent little work, the " Harmony of the Mosaic and Geological Records," as at all condusive.f Yet this theory is conformable to scriptural analc^, and affords a useful aid to many minds in apprehending the nature of the Mosaic narrative. It cannot be put more vigorously than by Miller in his Testimony of the Bocks, to which I b^ to refer the reader. In reviewing the somewhat lengthy train of reasoning into which the term day has led us, it appears that from internal evidence alone, it can be rendered probable that the day of creation is neither the natural nor the civil day. It also appears that the objections urged against the doo> trine of day-periods are of no weight when properly scru- tinised, and that it harmonises with the progressive nature of the work, the evidence of geology, and the cosmological notions of ancient nations. I do not suppose that this position has been incontrovertibly established ; but I believe that every serious difficulty has been removed from its Moeptance; and with this, for the present, I remain satis* * " The Bible and Astronomy," a work Ml of valuable and inggestire thought, j Oonstable, Edinburgh. DATS OF ORXATION. 129 fied. Every step of our subsequent progress in interpret- ing the chapter, will afford new criteria of its truth or fallacy. The events of the first day may be summed up as fol- lows : — " At the banning of the period, the earth, covered with a universal ocean and misty atmospheric mantle, was involved in perfect darkness. A luminous ether was called into existence, which spread a diffused light throughout the whole solar system. This luminous matter beipg grar dually concentrated toward the centre of the system, at length produced, in connection with the earth's rotation, the alternation of day and night. These changes were the work of a long period of time, an 8Bon or day of the Creator." < CHAPTER VIII. THE ATMOSPHEBE. OiNBBis i. 6 to 8 : " And Qod said let there be an expanse between the waters ; and let it separate the waters from the waters. And Ood made the expanse, and separated the waters which are under the expanse from the waters which are over the expanse, and it was so ; and Ood called the expanse Hea- ven; and the evening and the morning were the second day." At the opening of the period to which we are now intro- duoed, the earth was covered by the waters, and these were in such a condition that there was no distinction between the seas and the clouds. No atmosphere separated them, or, in other words, dense fogs and mists everywhere rested on the surface of the primeval ocean. To understand as far as possible the precise condition of the earth's surface at this period, it will be necessary to notice the present constitution of the atmosphere, especially in its relations to aqueous vapour. •The regular and constant constituents of the atmosphere are the elements Oxygen and Nitrogen, which, at the tem- perature and pressure existing on the uuriace of our globe, are permanently aeriform or gaseous. Beside these gases, the air always contains a quantity of the vapour of water, in a per- fectly aeriform and transparent condition. This vapour is THS ATH08PHIBI. 131 not, however, permanently gaseous. At all temperatures be- low 212 degrees, it tends to the liquid state ; and its elastic force, which preserves its particles in the separated state of vapour, increases or diminishes at a more rapid rate than the increase or diminution of temperature. Hence the quantity of vapour that can be suspended in dear air, depends on the temperature of the air itself. As the tem- perature of the air rises, its power of sustaining vapour increases more rapidly than its temperature ; and as the temperature of the air falls, the elastic force of its con- tained vapour diminishes in a greater ratio, until it can exist as an invisible vapour no longer, but becomes con- densed into minute bubbles or globules, forming cloud, mist or rain. Two other circumstances operate along with these properties of air and vapour. The heat radiated from tho earth's surface causes the lower strata of air to be, in ordinary circumstances, warmer than the higher; and, on the other hand, warm air, being lighter than that which is colder, the warm layer of air at the surface con- tinually tends to rise through and above the colder currents immediately over it. Let us consider the operation of the causes thus roughly sketched, in a column of calm air. The lower portion becomes warmed, and if in contact with water takep up a quantity of its vapour proportioned to the temperature, or, in ordinary circumstances, somewhat less than this proportion. It then tends to ascend, and as it rises and becomes mixed with colder air, it gradually loses its power of sustaining moisture, and at a height 132 AJaOHAIA. proportioned to the dimination of temperature and the quantity of yapour originally contained in the air, it b^ns to part with water, which becomes condensed in the form of mist or cloud ; and the surface at which this preoipitar tion takes place, is often still more distinctly marked, when two maf^s or layers of air, at different temperatures, become intermixed ; in which case, on the principle alre^Aj stated, the mean temperature produced is unable to sustain the vapour proper to the two extremes, and nicioture is precipitated. It thus happens that layers of cloud accu- mulate in the atmosphere, while between them and the surface, there is a stratum of clear air. Fogs and mists are in the present state of nature exceptional appearances, depending generally on local ctoses, and showing what the world might be, but for that balancing of temperature and the elastic force of vapour, which constitutes the atmospheric firmament.*' The quantity of water thus suspended over the earth is enormous. "When we see a cloud resolve itself into rain and pour out thousands of gallons of water we can- not comprehend how it can float in the atmosphere."t The explanation is — 1st the extreme levity of the minute globules, which causes them to fall very slowly ; 2nd they are * Daniell's Meteorological Easays ; Proat's Bridgewater Trea- tise; Art. Meteorology Encyc. Brit; Maury's Physical Geo- graphy of the Sea. t Kaemts, Ooorse of Meteorology. TBI ATMOSPHIBl. Ids supported by ourrents of air, especially by the ascending currents developed both in still air and in storms; 3rdly clouds are often dissolving on one side and forming al another. A cloud gradually descending may be dissolving away by evaporation at the base as fast as new matter 10 being added above. On the other hand an ascending warm current of air may be constantly depositing moisture at the base of the cloud, and this may be evaporating under the solar rays above. In this case a cloud is "merely the visible form of an aerial space in whict certain processes are at the moment in equilibrium, and all the particles in a state of upward movement."* But so soon as condensation markedly exceeds evaporation, rain falls, and the atmosphere discharges its vast load of water — ^how vast, we may gather from the fact that the waters of all the rivers are but a part of the overflowings of the great atmospheric reservoir. " God binds up the waters in his thick cloud, and the cloud is not rent under them." It is thus that the terrestrial waters are divided into those above and those below that expanse of clear v%ir in which we live and move, exempt from the dense dark mists of the earth's earlier state, yet enjoying the benefits of the cloudy curtain that veils the burning sun, and of the cloudy reservoirs that drop down rain to nourish every green thing. We have no reason to suppose that the laws which re- gulate mixtures of gases and vapours did not prevail in the * Encyc, Brit. Art. Meteorology. 134 ABOBAIA. period in question. It is probable that these laws are ns old as the creation of matter ; but the condition of our earth up to the second day, must have been such as pre> ▼ented them from operating as at present Such a condi* tion might possibly be the result of an excessive evapora* tion occasioned by internal heat. The interior of the earth still remains in a heated state, and includes large Bubterranean reservoirs of melted rock, as is proved by the increase of temperature in deep mines and borings, and by (he widely extended phenomena of hot springs and volcanic action. At this period, the internal temperature of the earth was probably vastly greater than at present, and per* haps the whole interior of the globe may have been in a state of igneous fluidity. At the same time the external solid crust :nay have been thin, and it was not fractured and thickened in places by the upheaval of mountain chains or the deposition of great and unequal sheets of sediment; for, as I may again remind the reader, the primitive chaos did not consist of a confused accumulation of rocky masses, but the earth's crust must then have been more smooth and unbroken than at any subsequent period. This being the internal condition of the earth, it is quite oonceivable, without any violation of the existing laws of nature, that the waters of the ocean, warmed by internal heat, may have sent up a sufficient quantity of vapour to keep the lower strata of air in a constant state of saturation, and to occasion an equally constant precipitation of mois- t3re from the colder strata above. This would merely be THl ATM08PHSB1. 135 the universal operation of a oaose similar to that whioh now produces fogs at the northern limit of the Atlantic Qulf Stream, and in other localities where currents of warm water flow under or near to cooler air. Such a state of things is more conceivable in a globe covered with water, and consequently destitute of the dry and powerfully radi- ating surfaces which land presents, and receiving from without the rays, not of a solar orb, but of a comparatively feeble and diffused luminous ether. The continued action of these causes would gradually cool the earth's crust and its incumbent waters, until the heat from without pre- ponderated over that from within, when the result stated in the text would be effected. The statements of our primitive authority for this con- dition of the earth, might also be accounted for on the supposition that the permanently gqseous part of the atmosphere did not, at the period in question, exist in its present state, but that it was on the second day actually elaborated and caused to take its place in separating the atmospheric from the oceanic waters. The first is by far the more probable view ; but we may still apply to such speculations the worui? of Elihu, the friend of Job : " Stand still and consider the wonderfal works of Qod. Dost thou know when God disposes them, And the lightning of his cloud shines forth ? Dost thou know the poising of the dark clouds, The wonderful works of the Perfect in knowledge ? 186 AAOBAU. We may now oonsider the words in which this great im- provement in the condition of the earth is recorded. The Hebrew term for the atmosphere is Bakiahf literally some* thing expanded or beaten out — an expanse. It is rendered in our Tension " firmament/' and in the Septoagint " Sfteoma" a word having the same meaning. The idea conveyed by the Hebrew word is not however that of strength but of extent ; or as Milton, the most accurate of expositors of these words, has it — " The firmament, expanse of liquid, pore, Transparent, elemental air, diffused In circuit to the uttermost convex Of this great round." That this was really the way in which this word was nn- derstood by the Hebrews, appears from several passages of the Bible. Job says of God, " Who alone spreadeth out the heavens."* David in the 104th psalm, which is a poetical paraphrase of the history of creation, speaks of the Creator as " stretching out the heavens as a curtain." In later writers, as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, similar expressions occur. The notion of a solid or arched firmament was probably altogether remote from the minds of these writers. Such beliefb may * It is not meant that the word Rakiah occurs in these passa- ges, but to shew how by other words the idea of stretching out or extension rather than solidity is implied. The verb in the two first passages is Nata to spread out. THl ATMOBPHZBl. m have prevailed at the time wher the septnagint translation was made, but I have no hesitatic • in affinning that no trace oi them can be found in the Old Testament. In proof of this, I may refer to some of the passages which have been cited as affording the strongest instances of this kind of " accommodation." In Exodus xziv. 10 we are told, "And they saw the God of Israel, and under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire and as it were the heaven itself in its clearness." This is evidently a comparison of the pavement seen under the feet of Jehovah to a sapphire in its colour, and to the heavens in its transparency. The intention of the writer is not to give information respecting the heavens, or to liken them either to a pavement or a sapphire ; all that we can infer is that he believed the hea- vens to be clear or transparent. Job mentions the " pillars of heaven," but the connection shows that this is merely a poetical expression for lofty mountains. The earthquake causes these pillars of heaven to "tremble." We are informed in the book of Job that Gk)d " ties up his waters in his thick cloud and the cloud is not rent under them." We are also told of the "treasures of snow and the treasures of hail" and rain is called the "bottles of heaven," and is said to be poured out of the " lattices of heaven." I recognise in all these mere poetical figures, not intended to be literally understood. A late learned writer wishes us to believe that the intention of the Bible in these places is actually to teach that the clouds are contained in skin bottles or something similar, and that they are emptied IM jaaoHAJA, throogh hatdiM ia a loUd fimtmeat. To finuid miok • btlief, however, on a few figontiT* gtalmento, BeeoMi ridi* •uloiui, efpeeially when wo eonekfer that the writen of tht loriptare ehow theniMlvee to he well aeqaainted with natava^ md would not be likely on any aoooont to donate so hr fiom the ordinary teetimoQj of the aeoMi; more espeoially at by doing §o, they would enable erery unlettered man 1^ has seen a dond gather on a mountuB's brow, or dia- idte away before inoreanng heat, to oppoae the eridenoe of kia senses to their statements, and perhaps to r^jeet them with scorn as a barefaced imposture. But lastly, we are triumphantly directed to the question of Elihm in his ad- dress to Job: "Hast thou with him stretched ont the sky Whieli is firm and like a meliea minor V ^ But the word translated sky here is not " Bdhiah " or " Shamayim" but another signifying the cloud»j so that we should r^ard Elihu as speaking of the apparent firm- ness or stability, and the beautiful reflected tints of the douds. His words may be paraphrased thus: "Hast thou aided Him in spreading out those clouds which appear so stable and self-sustaining, and so beautifully reflect the sunlight."* The above passages form the only authority which I can find in the scriptures for the doctrine of a solid firmament, which may therefore be characterised as a modem figment of men more learned in books but less * Ses also HamboUlt, Cosmos, Vol. 2, Ft. I. THB ▲fMUVHBRl. Mqnauitod with ntfeore thaa tiiA wripfcare writin. Kb % oontnMt to aU iiieh dootrines I wukj quote the fiiblhM opepdng of the poetioal eoeoant of creation in Piahn 104, irtMre the writer thoe addreieef the Almi^ty : " Bleu th« Lord, mj lonl I O Lord, my Ood, thoa art rery great : Thoa art clothed with honoar and majeetj, Who ooTereit thyself with light ae with a garmenti Who itretcheet oat the heaTens like a oortain (of a tent,) Who layut tkt ieoflM qf thy chaimber$ in tht wattrtt Who makut the eloudt thy chariotif Who wUkeit apon the vtingi of the windJ* The watora here are thoee above the firmament, the wbtAt of this part of the psahn being ooonpied with the heaTons; aad there is :iO plaoe left for the solid firmament^ of whixdi the writer evidently knew nothing. He represents God as laying His ohambeni on the waters, instead of on the sap- posed firmament, and as oareering in cloudy chariots oa the wings of the wind, instead of oyer a solid arch. F," as it is finely called in Proverbs, is the effect of those meteorokgioal laws to which I have already refcHrred, and which were now for the first time brought into operation by the Divine Legislator, The Hebrew theology was not of a kind to require suoh expedients as that of solid heavenly arches; it leouned «t 140 ABOHAIA. onoe to the will — the decree— of Jehovah ; and wu oon* tent to believe that through this efficient oanae the " riven run into the sea, yet the lea is not full," for " to the place whence the riven came thither they return again," through the agency of those floating clouds, " the waters above the heavens," which " pour down rain according to the vapour thereof." God called the expanse " Heavens." In former chapters we have noticed that heaven in the popular speech of the Hebrews, as in our own, had different meanings, applying ■like to the cloudy, the astral and the spiritual heavens. The Creator here sanctions its application to the aerial ex- panse ; and accordingly throughout the scriptures it is used in this way ; rakiah occurs very rarely, as if it had become nearly obsolete, or was perhaps r^arded as a merely tech- nical or descriptive term. The divine sanction for the use of the term heaven for the atmosphere, is as already explained, to indicate that this popular use is not to inter- fere with its application to the whole universe beyond our earth, in verse 1st. ' The poetical parts of the Bible, and especially the Book of Job, which is probably the most ancient of the whole, abound in references to the atmosphere and its phenomena. I may quote a few of these passages, to enable us to under- stand the views of these subjects given in the Bible, and the meaning attached to the creation of the atmoE^here, in very ancient periods. In Job, 38th chapter, we have thei following: THB ATMOBPHBU. 141 " In whftt way U the lightning diitribated, And how ii the BMt wind ipread abroad OTer the earth t Who hath opened a channel for the pooring rain, * Or a waj for the thander>flash T To eame it to rain on the land where no man ii. In the desert where no one dwells ; To lalurate the desolate and waste ground, And to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth." Here we have the unequal and unforebeen distribution of thunder Btorms, beyond the knowledge and power of man, but under the absolute control of Gk)d, and designed by him for beneficent purposes. Equally fine are some of the following lines : " Dost thou lift up thy Toice to the clouds, That abundance of waters may cover thee ? Dost thou send forth the lightnings, and they go, And say unto thee, here are we 7 Who can number the clouds by wisdom, Or cause the bottles of heayen to empty themselyes? When the dust groweth into mire, And the clods cleaye fast together T* In the 36th and 37th chapters of the same book, we have a grand description of atmospheric changes in their relation to man and his works. The speaker is Elihu, who in this ancient book most favourably represents the knowledge of nature that existed at a time probably ante- rior to the age of Moses — a knowledge far superior to that which we find in the works of many modern poets and ex- 142 ABORAIA. poeiton, and aooompMiied by aa intense qipraoialaoB of the gmidear and beauty of natitfal ot^jeots. " For he draweth up the drops of water, Bain la condensed* from his raponri Which the clouds do drop^ And distil upon man abundantly. Tea, can any understand the distribution of the dondf Or the thundering of his tabemaelcf Behold he spreadeth his lightning upon it. He coTcreth it at with the depths of the sea. By these he executes judgment on the people, By these also he gireth food in abundance ; Bis hands he covers with the lightning, And commands it (against the enemy) in its striking; He uttereth to it his decree,^ Concerning the herd as well as proud man. At this also my heart trembles. And bounds out of its place ; Hear attentiyely the thunder of his Toice, And the loud sound that goes from his mouth. He directs it under the whole heavens, And his lightning to the ends of the earth. After it his voice roareth, • Heb., " they refine." t " His pavilion round about him was dark waters and thick clouds of the skies," Ps. xviii. This expression explains that in the text. t Translation of these lines much disputed and very difficult.' ^lesenius and Oonant render it— "His thunder tells of him ; to the herds even ofHia who Is on high." * U3 H« thandenth wUh the ▼oiea of hit mt^utj ; And delaji not (the tempest) when his Toice is heard. Qod thondeceth marrelloiuly with liis voice, Be doeth wonders which we «annot comprehend ; For he saith to the snow be thoa on the earth. Also to the pouring ndn, even the ^reat mtn of hSi might. Be sealeth up the hand of everjr mattj ttbat all BMn maj kno tore, but that the pobitive doctrine of the Bible on th» subject is of a very di£Ferent character. For instance, in the above extract from the book of Job, Elihu speaks of the poising or suspension of the clouds as inscrutable^ and tells us that God draws up water into the douds and pours down rain according to the vapour thereof; he also speaks of the clouds as being scattered before the brightness of the sun ; and notices, in truthful as well as exalted lan> guage, the nature and succession of the lightning'^B flash, the thunder, and the precipitation of rain that follows. Solo- mon also informs us that the " establishment of the clouds I have carefully consulted the original ; but have ayailed my- self freely of the renderings of such of the numerous versions and commentaries as I have been able to obtain, whenever they appeared accurate and expressiTC, and have not scrupled oc- casionally to give a free translation where this seemed neces- sary to perspicuity. In the Book of Job, I have consulted, principally the translation appended to Barnes's Commentary^ and have derived some hints, while the work was going through press, from Dr. Conant's new translation. New Tork, 185T. THl A'i^MOBFHlBI. 146 above " is due to the law or irill of Jehoyah. Finally, in this oonneotion, the Divine sanction given to the nse of Hie term heaven for the atmosphere, may in itself be regarded as an intimation tibat no definite barrier separates oar film of atmosphere from the boundless abyss of heaven without. Of this period natural soienoe gives us no intimation. In the earliest geolc^oal epochs, oiganio life, dry land, and an atmosphere, already existed. At the period now under consideration, the two former had not been called into existence, and the latter was in process of elaboration from the n\aterials of the primeval deep. If the formation of the u> ' n< ere in its eidsting conditions was, as already hinted, :■ .\^a:c of the gradual cooling of the earth, then this period must have been of great length, and the action of the heated waters on the crust of the globe may have produced tL'ck layers of detrital matter destined to form the first soilo of the succeeding mm,* We know nothing, however, oi'' these primitive strata, and most of them must have been removed by denuding agencies in succeeding periods, or restored by subterranean heat to the crystalline state. The events and results of this day may be summed up as follows : — "At the commencement of the period, the earth was enveloped by a misty or vaporous mantle. In its progress, those relations of air and vapour which cause the separa* * Appendix 0. 14< kwrnhu. mm of file eloada firtm the tarlh by % lajer of elear aif, ind the tuned alteniatioiii of sonshiiie Mid ndn, neve eetabliihed At the eloee of the period the newl j-fomied •taaoapheare eoyered a vnitenH^ oeeeu; sad there wai ^so* WUj a yefj t Bgulat and uniform oondition of the aimoa- pherio oorrents, and of the prooesseB of evaporatbn laid Modeniatiott*'' . 1 CHAPTER IS. THB DKT LAIVD. OiMsiB i. 10 : ** And (itod said, let the waten under the he*> tens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear •aid it waa bo. And Ck>d called the dry lattd earth, and 13M gathering of waten called he Mas; and €k>d saw that it wai good." Thssb are errents snffioiently tnmple and inteliigibte Id iheir general obaraotet. Geology shows tis that the emer- gence of the dry land most hr.re resulted from the eleyatioik of parts of the bed of the ancient universal ocean, and ihat the agent employed in snch changes is the internal Igneous or Toleonio energy of the earth, developed in its gradual cooling, and operating either in a slow and r^nlar manner, or by sudden parosg^sms. It farther informs us that the existing continents consist of stratified or bedded masses, more or less inoli'^i^, fissured and irr^ularly ele- vated, and usually supported by crystalline rocks which have been forced up beneath or through them by internal agencies, and which truly constitute the pillars and foun- dations of the earth. These elevations, it is true, were snooessive, and belong to diffiorent periods ; but the appear- ance of the first dry land is that intended here. The elevation of the dry land is more frequentiy referred to in scripture than any other cosmologioal fat^t ; and while all have been misapprehended, the statements on this sub- ject have been even more unjustiy dealt witii tihan otherv 148 ABOHAIA. In the text, the word (aretz)* earth, L 7 divine sanction narrowed in meaning to the dry land; but, while some expositors are quite willing to restrict it to this, or even a more limited sense, in the first and second verses of this chapter, almost the only verses in the Bible where the terms of the narrative make such a restriction inadmissi- ble, they are equally ready to understand it as meaning the whole globe, in places where tho explanatory clause in the verse now under consideration, teaches us that we should understand the land only as distinguished from the sea. I may quote some of these passages, and note the views they give ; always bearing in mind that, after the intimation in this verse, we must understand the term earth as applying only to the continents or dry landf unless where the context otherwise fixes the meaning. We may fimt turn to Psalm civ. : — " Thou laidst the foundations of the earth, That it should never be removed ; Thou coreredet it with the deep as with a garment ; The waters stood above the mountains ; At thy rebuke they fled ; At the sound of thj thunder they hasted away ; Mountains ascended, valleys descended To the place thou hast appointed for them : Thou h«ist appointed them bounds that they may not pass, That they return not again to cover the earth." * The word is one of those that pervade both Semitic and Indo-European tongues. Sanscrit, ahara; Pehlevi, arta; LaiLn, terra; German, erdej Oothic, airthaj Scottish, yird} English, rofr 38. 4. In these paasages the foundation of the earth at first, as well 88 the shaking of its pillars by the earthquake, are connected with what we usually call natural law— the de- cree of the Almighty— the unchanging arrangements of an unchangeable Oreator,who8e " hands formed the dryland."* This is the ultimate cause not only of the elevation of the land, but of all other natural things and processes. The naturalist does not require to be informed that the details, in so far as they are referred to in the above passages, are perfectly in accordance with what we know of the nature * Psalm zcT. TBB MKF UUSD, Iftl ■nd rapport of oontinentel ■■(■<■. Oeokgktl obMrratfon tnd malheinatieal oalealation hxn in our day oombined their powers to giye dear views of the maimer in whiehthe firaotored strata of the earth are wedged and arehed together, and rapported by internal igneous maams npheared ftom beneath, and snbseqnentLy eooled and hardened. A gene* ral view of these fJMSts wbioh we have learned finnn soientifio inquiry, the Hebrews gleaned with nearly as mvch preoision from the short aoeount of the elevation of the land in Genesis, and from the later oomments of their inspired poets. From the same sooroe onr own great poet learned these cosmioal facts, before the rise of geology, and express- ed them in onexoeptionable terms : << The monntains hage appear .Kmttrgent, and their broad bare backs upheave Into the clouds, their tops aacend the sl^. So high as heaved the tumid hills, so low Down sunk a hollow bottom, broad and deep Capacious bed of waters." In further illustration of the opinions of the seripture writers respecting the nature of the earth, and the distur- bances to which it is liable, I quote the following passages. The first is from that magnificent desoription of Jehovaih descending to succour his people amid the terrors of the earthquake, the voloano, and the thunder atonn, in Psabn 18th: AinHAfA. ** TImb fhook and trembled the earthi Th« foondaUoni of the hilli mored and were ib*keii| Becaoee he wm angry. Smoke went up from his noitrils, Fire flrom hit month deronred, Ooala were kindled by it. Then were leen the channel! of the waters, And the foundations of the world were discoTered, At thy rebuke— JehoTah— At the blast of the breath of thy nostrils." In another paasage in the pealms we find Tolcanic action thus briefly sketched : " He looketh on the earth and it trembleth, He toucheth the hills and they smoke. Psalm ciy. 32. Perhaps the most remarkable passage on this subject in the whole Bible is that in Job 28th, in which mining operations are introduced as an illustration of the difficulty of obtaining true wisdom. This passage is interesting both from its extreme antiquity, and the advancement in knowledge and practical skill which it indicates. It pre- sents, however, many difficulties; and its details have almost entirely lost their true significance in our common English version :— " Surely there is a vein for silver, And a place for the gold which men refine ; Iron is taken from the earth, • And copper is molten from the ore. TBI MT LAMIK Vo «1m «iifl 6f dwkMM Mid to M tttrettM aai V«r tlM ttoMi of iarioMM Md the ibadow of dooii. Ho o|iooo o poMoge (oholt) flrooB whore boo dwell, Vniopported by the foot, thoj hoog down ood iwiaf to oad fro.* The eorth-H>at of it cometh breed ; And beneath, it is overtamed ai by fire.f Iti itones are the place of lapphires, And It hath lanpsl of gold. The path (thereto) the bird of prey h&:h mot knowttf The Tvltdre'i eye hath not leea it.§ The wild boMts' wfaelpi have not troddea it. The lion hath not pawed ovor it. Man layeth hie hand on the bard rock, He torneth np the Bountains from their roots. He eutteth channels in the rocks, His eye seeth every precious thing. He restraineth the streams flrom trickling, And briageth the hidden thing to light. But where shall wisdom be found. And where is the place of understanding?'* IThis passage, inoidentally introduced, gives OS a gKmpee of ihe knowledge c^ the interior of the earth and Its poro- * OeseniuB. t Perhaps "changed," metamorphosed, as by &e. Oonnrit has " destroyed." t " Dust" in our version, literally lumps or "nnggets." ( The vulgar and incorrect idea, that the vulture " scents the carrion from afar," so often reproduced by later poots, luli no tiloee in the Bible poetiy. It is the bird's keen eye thai eniblos h 154 ABOHAU. dootfl, M it eziBted in an age anterior to that of MoMt. It brings before ns the repoeitoriee of the valaable metals and gems, — the mining operations, apparently of some magnitude and difficulty, undertaken in extracting them, — and the wonderful structure of the earth itself, green and productive at the surface, rich in precious minerals beneath, and deeper still the abode of intense subterranean fires. The only thing wanting to give completeness to the picture, is some mention of the fossil remains buried in the earth ; and, as the main thought is the eager and successful search for useful minerals, this can hardly be r^arded as a defect. The application of all this is finer than almost anything else in didactic poetry. Man can explore depths of the earth inaccessible to all other creatures, and extract thence treasures of inestimable value ; yet, after thus exhausting all the natural riches of the earth, he too often lacks that highest wisdom which alone can fit him for the true ends of his spiritual being. How true is all this, even in our own wonder-working days 1 A poet of to-day could scarcely say more of subterranean wonders, or say it more truthfully and beautifully ; nor could he arrive at a con- clusion more pr^nant with the highest philosophy than the closing words : — " The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom ; And to depart from evil is understanding." The emergence of the dry land is followed by a repeti- tion of the approval of the Creator. " God saw that it was good." To our view, that primeval dry land would THl DBT LAND. aoarody have Memed good. It wm « wonei of bwre, rookj peaks, and verdureleis rallejs ; — ^here aatiwe Toleanoes, with their heaps of scoriae and soaroely oooied lava omrents ;— there vast mud-flats, recently upheaved iVom the bottom of the waters ; — nowhere even a blade of grass, or a dinging lichen. Yet it was good in the view of its Maker, who ooold see it in relation to the uses for which he had made it, and as a fit preparatory step to the new wonders he was soon to introduce. Then too, as we are informed in iob xxxviii., " The morning stars Hang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." We also, when we think fth moon now, in this respdot, far surpassei tihe earth. Ia Ihe progress of organic life, geology gives similar inc(i)i$ii- tions, in the variety and magnitadie of many animal i^pea oti their first introduction ; so that this may veiy possibly t>e a law of ci'eation. During the emergence of the first diy land, lalnge quaOf- tities of detrital matter must have been deposited m the ^waters, and in part elevated into land. All of thetMB beda liquid, of course, be destitute of organic remains; and it i possible that some of them might yet be identified There is, in fact, a series of non-fbssiliferous rodks (the AiBdio) mostly in a metamorphio state, and r^arded as blder than the oldest fossilifelrous strata. It is, lioWeVer, 'at present impossible certainly to separate beds wliich may luive been deposited at this period, from tho^ which Wore deposited after the creation of the first organised beings, since all traces of these may have been obliterated hy metamorphism. Modem analogy would induce us to believe that thie land was not elevated suddenly ; but either by a serieis of small paroxysms, as in the case of Chili, or by a gradual and imperceptible movement, as in the case of Sweden, — 'two of the most remarkable modem instances of elevation of land, — accompanied, however, in tho case of the last, Ijy local subsidence.* In either of these ways, the sea and .Xi^ * Lyell's Priaclples of Geology. THl DBT LAND. w ^ tions approaching to north-east and south-west, or north- west and south-east, and that where they run in other directions, as in the case of the south of Europe and Asia, they are much broken by salient and re-entering angles, formed by lines having these directions. Prof. Pierce, of Harvard College, was, I believe, the first to point out that these lines are in reality parts of great circles tangent to tiie Polar circles, and to suggest a theory of their origin, baaed on the action of solar heat and the seasons on a cooling earth. The theory appears inadequate to account for the fact ; but this remains, and shows that in the for- mation of its surface inequalities, the earth has cracked — BO to speak — along two series of great circles tangent to the Polar circles; and that these, vrith certain subordinate though apparently still older lines of fracture running east and west, have determined the forms of the continents from their origin. M. Elie de Beaumont, and after him many other geo- logists, attribute the elevation of continents and the upheaval and plication of mountain chains, to the secular refrigeration of the earth, causing its outer shell to become too capacious for its contracting interior mass, and thus to break or bend, and settle towards the centre. This view I THI DBT LAND. 159 would well accord with the tenns in which the elevation of the land is mentioned throughout the Bible, and especially with the general progress of the work as we have gleaned it from the Mosaic narrative ; since from the period of the desolate void and aeriform deep, to that now before us, secular refrigeration must have been the great leading process. De Beaumont has extended his general theory into a complex system, connecting the relative ages of mountain systems with their directions. This system is as yet, however, among the uncertain results of the science of the earth, and we cannot look for such details in the scrip- tures. For this reason, I have been content with the more general statement given above, which enforces the leading truth now before us, that the first dry land was essentially that which, variously modified and extended, and covered by successive formations,* still exists. li: * It is also to be noted, that, in so far as aqueous deposits, as well as igneous outbursts, are concerned in the building of continents, these must in all periods have been guided and modi- fied by the original lines of fracture. CHAPTER X. THl FDtST MOWtATlOV. GmmB 1. 11 : "And God .id let the eftrth bringr f^^^ the teoder herb, the herb bearing aeed, and the firuit tree yielding fruit, after its kind, whose seed is in it on the earth ; and it wat 10 : and the earth brought forth the tender herb, the herb yield- iog seed^ and tho tree bearing fruit whose seed is ia it, after. i.t» Mind : and; Ood turn that it was good." Thk same ereative period that witnessed the first appear^ anoe of dty land, saw It also clothed with v^tation ; and it is quite likely that this is intended to teaeh iSiat no time was lost in Nothing the earth with i^ants,—- that the first emerging portions reeeived their vegetable tenaats as thej became fitted for them, — and that each additional r>!)gioii, as it rose above the surface of the waters, in like mavner received the species of plants for which it was adapted. What waa the natwe of this earliest v^etation? The laored writer specifies three detioriptions of plants as isr eluded in it; and, by considering the terms -vhich he uses, some information on this subject may be gained. Deihiy translated "grass" in our version, is derived from a verb signifying to sjMring up or bud forth ; the same verb, indeed, used in this verse to denote '^bringing forth,'' literally causing to spring up. Its radical meaning is, therefore, vegetation in the act of sprouting or sprin^ng forth; or, as connected with this, young and delicate herb- THx nan tigitation. 16t •go. Thvatf in Job 38Ui, " to satisfy the desolate and waste ground, and to oanae the bud; of the young herbayt^ to spring fdrth." Here the reference is, no doubt, to the buibous and tuberousrrooted plants of. the desert plains, which, fading away in the summer drought, burst forth with magical rigidity on the setting-in of rain. The fol- lowing passages are similar: — Psalm 23d, " He maketh me to lie down iu green pastures " (literally young or tender herbage)', I>euteron(Hny 234^ " Small raiji upon the teadfr herb " ; Isaiah STth, " Graw on the house-tops." The word is also used for herbage such as can be eaten by cattle or out down ibr Ibdder, tbough even in these caset) the idea of young and tender herbage is evidently included \ "Fat as an heifer at grass," (Jer. 14),-^that is, feeding Qm young succulent gratis, not that which is dry and parched. " Cut down, m the grass or wither as the green, herb," like the soft tender grass soon cut down and quickly withering. Witk reject to the use of the word in this place, I may remark — 1. It is not here correctly translated by the word " grass " j for grass bears seed, and is, conse- quently, a member of the second class of plants mentioned. Even if we set aside a)l idea of inspiration, it is obviously impossible that any one living among a pastoral or agricultural people, could have been ignorant of this fact. Z, It can scarcely be a general term, including all plants when in a young or tender state. The idea of their springing up is included in the verb, and this was but a very temporary condition. Besides, this word does not 162 AROHAIA. appear to be employed for the yoang state of shrubs or trees. 3. We thus appear to be shut np to the oonclnsion, that deshi here means those plantfi; mostly small and herba- ceous, which bear no proper seeds ;* in other words, the Cryptogamia, as fungi, mosses, lichens, ferns, Ac. The remaining words are translated with sufficient accuracy in our version. They denote seed-bearing or phcenogamous heirbs and trees. The special mention of the fructification of plante is probably intended not only for distinction, but also to indicate tlie new power of organic reproduction now first introduced on the surface of our planet, and to mark its difference from th? crcaiiye act itself. The arrangement of planis in the three great classes of cryptogams, seed-bearing herbs, and fruit-bearing trees, differs in one important point, viz., the separation of her- baceous plants from trees, from modern botanical classill- cations. It is, however, sufficiently natural for the purposes of a general description like this, and perhaps ^ves more precise ideas of the meaning intended than any other arrangement equally concise and popular. It is also probable that the object of the writer was not so much a natural history classification, as an account of the order of creation, and that he wishes to affirm that the introduction of these three classes of plants on the earth corresponded with the order here stated. This view renders it unnece^* * Tenera herba, sine semine saltern conspicuo."— /to««ttm«/2er, Sckolia. TBI riBST YIOITATION. 168 sary to vindioste the aoouraoy of the arrangement on hotanioal grounds, since the historical order was eyidentlj better suited to the purpose in view. A very important truth is contained in the expression, " after its kind " ; that is, after its tpecies ; for the Hebrew "min'\ used here, has strictly this sense, and, like the Greek idea and the Latiu tpecies, conveys the notion of form as well as that of kind. It is used to denote species of animals, in Leviticus i. and 14, and in Deuteronomy ziv. and 15. We are taught by this statement that plants were created each kind by itself, and that creation was not a sort of slump-work to be perfected by the operation of a law of development, as fancied by some modern speculators. In this assertion of the distinctness of species, and the production of each by a distinct creative act, revelation tollies perfectly with the conclusions of natiiral science, which lead us to believe that each species is permanently reproductive, variable within narrow limits, incapable of permanent intermixture with other species, and a direct product of creative power. Some additional facts contained in the recapitulation of the creative work in chapter ii., may veiy properly be con- ddered here, as they seem to refer to the dimatal condi- tions of the earth during the growth of this most ancient v^iation, and before the final adjustment of the astrono- mical relations of the earth on the fourth day. " And every shrub of the land before it was on the earth, and every herb of the land before it sprung up. For the Lord m A«a9AU, QiOd, haA not oms^d it tp rain on the oarth, and there wa# nol^ a. man to till the ground; bi|t a miat i^aoended from the earth and watered tbe whole snrfaoe of the ground." * This ha« been suppoaed to be a description of t)ie atat^. of Um e^h during U)€ whole period anterior to the fall of BUMi. There is, hutrever, no scripture evidwce of this; and geology infonns us that rain fell as at present, at leai^ as £euc back as the carboniferous period,*}* countless i^^ befi>i:e the creation, of man or the existing aninusJs. Mr though, howjever, such a qonditio^ of th^ eiurth as tha|r stated in these verses, has not been known in any geolon gioftl period, yet it is not inconceivable, but ii^ reality opiiresponds with, tiiye otlier conditions of nature likdy ta ^yC: prevailed, on the third day, as described in Genesis^ The huid of this period^ we msy suppose, was not y«i^ ^tensive, nor" very elevated. Hence the temperature woulc| 1)0 Duiform, and the air moisi The lominous^^ and calpnJlo natter connected wit^ the sun,. stiU occupied a large spaoe,, and therefore diffused heat and light more uniformly thaii at present. The internal heat of the earth, may still havp produced an effect in wturming the oceanic waters. The combined operation of these causes, of which we, perhaps^ * Qugh proposes to read, "nor bad a niist asfieqded," ^e. Tt^S seems, however, in Ulis place,, a. fp.rced rendering of thj) Hel^rew. t Recent observations of the writer appear to carry it back to the Devonian period. See Proc. Geol. Society of London, 1899. TBI riB0t VMITATION. m luiye 061116 tMMi is kte «8 the niferons period may have been rendered necessary. The reasons afforded by natural history for sn|^K)sing that plants iH-eceded animals, are thns stated by Prof. Dana : — " The proof from science of the existence of plants be> fore animals is inferential, and still may be deemed satis* factory. IHstinct fossils have not been found: all that ever existed in the azoic rocks hairing been obliterated. The arguments in the affirmathre are as follows : 1. The existence of limestone rocks among the other beds, similar limestones in later ages having been of organic or^n ; also the occurrence of carbon in tihe shape of gra- phite, graphite being, in known oases in rocks, a result of tite alteration of the carbon of plants. 2. The fact that the cooling earth would have been fitted for v^table life for a long age before animals could have existed ; the principle being exemplified everywhere, that the earth was occupied at each period widi the highest kinds of life the conditions allowed. 3. The fact that v^tation subserved an important pm^ pose in the coal-period, in ridding the bsmosphere of carbonic acid for the subsequent introduction of land ani- mals, si^ests a valid reason for believing that the same great purpose, the true purpose of vegetation, was effected through the ocean before the waters were fitted for animal life. TBI 7IIIST YSQITATION. 178 4. Vegetation being directly or mediately the food of animals, it most have had a previous existence. The lat- ter part of the azoic age in geology, we therefore regard as the age when the plant-kingdom was instituted, the latter half of the third day in Clenesis. However short or long the epoch, it was one of the great steps of prepress." In concluding the examination of the work of the third day, I must again remind the reader that on the theory of long creative periods, the words under consideration must refer to the first introduction of vegetation, in forms that have long since ceased to exist. Geology informs us that in the period of which it is c(^isant, the v^tation of the «arth has been several times renewed, and that no plants of the older and middle geological periods now exist. We may therefore rest assured that the v^table species, and probably also many of the generic and family forms of the v^tation of the third day, have long since perished and been replaced by others, suited to the changed rendition of the earth. It is indeed probable that, during the third and fourth days themselves, there might be many removals and renewals of the terrestrial flora, so that perhaps every species created at the commencement of the introduction of plants, may have been extinct before the close of the period. Nevertheless it was marked by the introduction of vegetation, which in cue or another set of forms has ever since clot> "d the earth. At the commencement of the third day the earth was still covered by the waters. As time advanced, islands and 174 ABOHAU. moantain peaks arose from the ooean, vomiting forth the molten and igneous materials of the interior of the earth's omst. Plains and Tallies were tb^tn spread around, rivers traced out their beds, and the ocean was limited by coasts and divided by far-stretching continents. At the com- mand of the Creator, plants sprung from the soil — the earliest of organized strutiures — at first probably few and small, and fitted to contend against the disadvantages of soils impregnated with saline particles and destitute of or- ganic matter; bat as the day advanced, increasing in number, magnitude and elevation, until at length the earth was clothed with a luxuriant and varied vegetation, worthy the approval of the Creator, and the admiring song of the angelic " Sons of God." ^■t» CHAPTER XI. LUMINABDBS. OiirauB i. 15 to 19 : '< And Ood said, let there be laminarief in the ezpimse of hearen, to diride the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years. And let them be for luminaries in the expanse of hearen to giye light on the earth ; and it was so. And God made two great luminaries, the greater luminary to preside oyer the day, the lesser luminnary to preside over the night. He made the stars also. And Qod placed them in the expanse of heaven to give light on the earth, and to preside over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness ; and God saw that it was good ; and the evening and the morning were the fourth day." After so long a sojourn on the eartih, we are in these verses again carried to the heavens. Every scientific reader is struck with the position of these verses, interrupting as they do the progress of the organic creation, and conslitui- ing a break in the midst of the terrestrial history which is the immediate subject of the narrative ; thus in effect, as has often been remarked, dividing the creative week into two portions. Why was the completion of the heavenly bodies so long delayed. Why were light and v^tation introduced previously. If we cannot fully answer these questions, we at least feel convinced that the position of these verses is not accidental, and not that which would i ne ABOHAIA. bATe been ehoeen hj any fabricator of systems aneient or modern. Let us inqnirc, however, what are the precise terms of the record. 1. The word here used to denote the olijeets produced, dearly distingoishes them from the product of the first day's creation. Then God said ''let light he:" he now (lAys " let luimnarie» he" We have already seen that th6 !%ht of the first day may have emanated ftom an extended luminous mass, at first occupying the whole extent of the bjitx system^ and more or less attadied to the several plaiie> inry bodies, and afberwards ooneentrated within the earth'e •xrMt. The verses nowimder consideration in^nn us th&t tlie process of concentration was siiow oomplote, that our great central luminary had attaiiied to its perfect state. This process of concentration may have been proceeding during the whole of the intervening time, or it may have been completed at onee by a direct interposition of ereaftive {.ower. The latter is the more porobaUe view. 2. The cUvision of li^t from darkness is expressed by the same terms, and is of the sune nature with that on the first day. This separation was bow produced in its AiU extent, by Ihe perfect condensatson of the luminoos eth^ around the son. 3. The heavenly bodtus &'^j said to be fin* tigtu — that is, ^ marks or in^&)ataor»& -either of the seasons, days and years afterwards mentioned ) or of ike majesty amd poww of the tame God, as the Creator oi objects so grand and elevated as to become to the ignorant heathen objeoto cf LVMUriSIlB. 177 idohtroas wonhip; or perhftpt of the eartUy erenta they •re Buppofled to influeuoe. The arrangemeiitB now per- ftotiid for the first time, enabled natnnd days, sessons and yeaiB to have their limits aoourately marked. Previoudy to tliis period, there had been no distinetly marked seasons^ and conseqnently no natural separation of years, nw were the limits of days at all aooorately defined. 4. The terms expame and Aeaven, preyionsly applied to the atmo^hwe, are here combined to denote the more distant starry and planetary heavens. There is no ambi^ goity involved in this^ sinoe tlie writer mnst have well known that no one oonld so ftr mistake, as to suppose that the heavenly bodies are placed in that atmoBph«rio oqpanse whidi supports the elouds. 5. The luminaries were made or appointed to their office on the fourth day. They are not said to have been OTeated, being included in tke creation of the banning. Tbey were now completed, and ftdly fitted for their work. An important part <^ this fitting seems to have been the setting or placing them in tiie heavens, conveying to us the im- pression that the mutual relations and regular motions of the heavenly bodies wore now for the first time perfected. 6. The stars are introduced, in a paroithetical manner, which leaves it doubtfol whether we are merely inf(mned in general tenms that tliey are works of God, as well as those heavenly bodies which are of more importance to us, or thttc they were arranged as heavenly luminaries usc^ to our earth on the fourth day. The term includes the 178 ABCHAIA. fixed Stan, and it is by no means probable that these were in any way affected by the work of the fourth day, any farther than their appearance from onr earth is concerned. This view is confirmed by the language of the 104th Psahn, which, in this part of the work, mentions the sun and moon alone, without the fixed stars or planets. It is evident that the changes of this period related to the whole solar system, and resulted in the completion of that system in the form which it now bears, or at least in the final adjustment of the motions and relations of the earth ; and we have reason to believe that the condensar tion of the luminous ether around the sun, was one of the most important of these changes. On the hypothesis of La Place, formerly adopted by us, as most in accordance with the earlier stages of the work, there seems to be no espooial rt lason why the completion of the procoss of elabo- ration of the sun and planets should be accelerated at this particular stage. We can easily understand, however, that those closing steps which brought the solar system into a state of permanent and final equilibrium, would form a marked epoch in the work ; and we can also understand that now, when on the eve of introducing animal life, it might be proper for the Creator to interfere to close up the merely inorganic part of his great work, and bring this department at leaet to its final perfection. The fourth day, thea^ in geological language, marks the complete intro- duction of " existing causet " in inorgcmic natwre, aad we henoe£(»th find no more creative interfiarenoe, except in the LVMIlfAKIlS. 179 domain of organiiation. This aooords Mbninbly with the dednotions of modern geology, and especially with that great principle so well expounded by Sir Charles Lyell, and which forms the true basis of modem geological reasonings i that we should seek in existing causes of change ftr the explanation of the appearances of the rocks of the earth's crust. Geology probably carries us back to the introdno* don of animal life ; and shows us that, since that time, land, sea and atmosphere, summer and winter, day and night, — all the great inorganic conditions affecting animal life, have existed as at present, and have been subject to modi- fications the same in kind with those which they now ex> perienoe, though perhaps different in d^ee. In these verses we find in like manner, that the period immediately preceding the creation of animals witnessed the completion of all the great general arrangements on which these phe- nomena depend. Scripture, therefore, and science agree in the truth that existing causes have been in full force since the creation of animals ; and that since that period, the exercise of creative power has been limited to the organic world. There are modem physicists and philoso- phers who stumble at the doctrine that the introduction of species of animals and plants implies direct creative power, and who desire to have the geologist refer this as well as merely physical changes to laws still in operation. Natu- ralists oppose to such views all experience, the wonderfol stractures and forms of animals, and the manner in which species appear in geological time. One of the most eminent 180 ▲lOHALL of living natoraiiits* well remurlu that if we take u ^ simplest form of ihe animal iti egg, and examine the wou* droua strnoturea and powers apparent there, we cannot after suoh study suppose the origin of a speoies firom an j mere physioal cause. Moses sides on this point with the geologists and naturalists, by affirming that the oreatiye ar- rangements relating to mere matter ceased on the fourth day, after which all in this department proceeds on unchanging law, creation oontiuuing only with reference to animate ezistenccf The verses relating to the fourth day are silent respect- ing the mundane history of the period ; and geology gives no very certain information concerning it. If, however, we assume that the Asoic rocks are deposits of this or the preceding period, we may infer from the disturbances and alteration whitsh ihm^ have su£bred, prior to the deposition of the Silurian serine, that during or toward the close of this day, the crost of the earth was affected by great move- ments. There is another consideration also leading to im- portant condusions in relation to this period. In the earliest fossiliferous rocks, there seems to be good evidence, that the dry land contemporary with the seas in which they were formed, was of very btaall extent Now, since on the third day a very plentiful and highly developed vegetation was produced, we may infer that during that * AgsssiCj " Oontribntions to the Natural History of America." t Appendix F. LXJMniimiis. 181 day the extent of dry land wm eoniidenble, and ww pro* bebly gradually inoreasiDg. If then the OamlmaB and Silurian syatenui, the oldest foenHftroaa roeka known, be> long to the oommenoement of the fifth day, we most oon- dade that, daring the fourth, mnch of tTi'^ land preyiooaly existing had been again Bubmerged. other words, dur- ing the third day the extent of tt lI urface was increanng, on the fourth day it diiui. a ind on the fifth it again increased, and probably has on the whole continued to increase up to the present time. One most important geological consequence of this is, that the marine animals of the fifth day probably commenced their existence on sea botf/oms, which were the old soil surfaces of fub- merged continents previously clothed with v^tation, and which conseqw nUy contained much organic matter, fitted to f(nrm a basis of support for the newly created animals. I fdiall dose my ronarks on the fourth day by a few quotations from those passages of scripture which re^ to tSie objects of this day's work. I haye already referred to that beautiful passage in Deuteronomy, where the IsraeliteB are warned against the crime of worshipping those heavenly bodies, which the Lord God hath " divided to every nation under the whole heaven." In the book of Job also, we find that the heavenly bodies were in his day regarded ae signal manifestatiwis of the power of God, and that sevvnd of the principal constdlations had received names. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1.1 1^12 125 ■^ lii |22 us ■ 4.0 IIP |||l.25|U|j^ M 6" t, 0% ^ fliotographic Sdaices Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STRKT WEBSTER, N.Y. M5S0 (716) •72-4503 '^ Co 4^ ^ 182 ABOHAIA. *' He commuideth the ion and it shineth not. He aealeth ap the 8tan,t He alone spreadeth oat the heareiu, And walketh on the high vayes of the flea. He maketh Arctaras, Orion, The Pleiades and the secret chambers of the south, Who doeth great tilings past finding out. Tea, marrellons things beyond number.." — Job 9, 9. " Oanst thoa tighten the bonds of the Pleiades* Or loose the bands of Orion. Oanst thou bring forth the Mazzaroth in their season, Or lead forth Arctarus and its sons, Knowest thoa the laws of the heavens, Or hast thoa appointed their dominion over the earth."— Jb6 38, 31. t This may refer to an eclipse, bat from the character of the preceding verses more probably to the obscurity of a tempest. It is remarlcable that eclipses, which so much strike the minds of men and affect them with superstitious awe, are not distinctly mentioned in the Old Testament, though referred to in the prophetical parts of the New Testament. *The rendering "sweet influences" in our version may be correct, but the weight of argument appears to fiivour the view of Gesenius that the close bond of union between the stars of this group is referred to. I think it is Herder who well unites both views, the Pleiades being bound together in a sisterly onion, and also ushering in the spring by their appearance above the horizon. Conant applies the whole to the seasons, the bands of Orion being those of winter. LUMINABIIS. 183 I may merely remark on these paanges, that the oham- ben of the south are Bupposed to be those parts of the Boathem heavens invisible in the latitude in which Job resided. The bonds of Pleiades and of Orion, probably refer to the apparently close union of the stars of the for- mer group, and the wide separation of those of the latter; a difference which, to the thoughtful observer of the heavens, is more striking than most instances of that irr^ular grouping of the stars which still forms a question in as- tronomy, from the uncertainty whether it b real, or only an optical deception arising firom stars at different distances coming nearly into a line with each other. I have seen in some recent astronomical work, this very instance of the Pleiades and Orion taken as a marked illustration of this problematical fact in astronomy. Mazzaroth are supposed by modem expositors to be the signs of the Zodiac. On the whole, the Hebrew books give us little information as to the astronomical theories of the time when they were writ- ten. They are entirely non-committal as to the nature of the connections and revolutions of the heavenly bodies ; and indeed r^ard these as matters in their time beyond the grasp of the human mind, though well known to the Creator and r^ulated by his laws. From other sources we have facts leading to the belief that even in the time of Moses, and certainly in that of the later biblical writers, there was not a little practical astronomy in the east, and some good theory. The Hindoo astronomy professes to have observa' tions firom 3000 B.C., and the arguments of Baily and others^ 184 AMHAIA. fimnded on iatenul evidence, give aome eoloor of trutli to (Im daim. The Ohaldeans at a very early period had aaoer* tMBed the prineipal eirdes of the sphere, the po«tion of the poles, and the nature of the i^pairat motions of th^ heavens as the ramlts of rerolution on an inclined avis. The Egyptian astronomy we know mainly firom what the Ofeeks borrowed from it. Thales 640 B. C, taught that the moon is Ughted by the son, and that tbe earth is sphe- rieal, and the position of its five sones. Pythagoras 680 B. 0., knew, in additi(m to the sphericity of the earth, the obliquity (^ the ediptie, the identity of the evening and morning star, and that the earth revolves round the sun. This Greek astronomy appears immediately alter the open* ing of Egypt to the Greeks ; and both these philosophy stadied in that country. Sudi knowledge, and more of the same character, may therefore have existed in Egypt at a much earlier period. The psalms abound in fine references to the creation of the fourth day. ** When I consider the heavens the work of thy fingers, The moon and the stars which thou hast ordained, What is man that thon art mindfnl of him, Or the son of man that tbim visitest him.'%F-P«a^ 8. **Who telleth the number of the stars, Who calleih them all by their names, Oreat is our Lord, and of great praise, fiis nadeKBtaadiag is infinite. She Iiord liftetb np tiie meek, He casteth the wicked to the groond."— Picrfm 147. LUMIHAini. 18ft •* Th« hMTeiii deektf* the glorj of.Ood, The flnuuneat showeth hU haadTwork ; Daj unto d«7 nttereth speech^ mght onto night showeth knowledge, thtj have uo speech nor Unguftge, their voice b not hewd ; Y«t fhei^ line is gone ont to all the earth, And their Wor^ to the end of the world. In them ha^ he set a pavilion for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. Its going forth is from the end of the heavens And its circuit unto the end of them." And there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."— -PfoJb If. These are excellent illustrations of the truth of the 8orip> tnie mode of treating natural objects, in connection with their Maker. It is but a barren and fruitless philosophy which sees the work and not its author — a narrow piety which loves Qod and despises his works. The Bible holds forth the golden mean between these extremes, in a strain of lofty poetry and acute perception of the great and beau- tiful, whether seen in the Creator or reflected from his works. The work of this day opens up a wide field for astro- BOmic?j illustration, more especially in relation to the wisdom and benevolence of the Creator as displayed in the heavens ; but it wou!d be foreign to our present puJrpose to enter into these. Th d objects of the writer of Genesis may be summed up in the following general statements : 186 ABOBAU. 1. The heayenly hosts and their arrangements are the work of Jehovah, and are regolated wholly by his laws or ordinanoes ; a striking illustration of the reoognition by the Hebrew writer both of oreatiye interference, and that stable natural law which too often withdraws the mind of the philosopher firom^the ideas of creation and of proyidenoe. 2. The heavenly bodies have a relation to the earth- are parts of the same plan, and whatever other uses they were made to serve, were made for the benefit of man. 3. The general physical arrangements of the solar sys- tem were perfected before the introduction of animals on our planet. CHAPTER Xn. THB LOWIB ANDfALS. OnraBiB i. 20 to 23 : '' And God Mid, let the waten iwarm with sw«rming liring oreatoref, and let birdi fly on the inrlkoe of the expanse of hearen. And Qod created great reptiles and eyeiy liring moving thing, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and erery bird after its kind ; and Ood saw that it was good. And Qod blessed them, saying be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the flying creatures multiply in the earth. And the eyening and the morning were the fifth day." In these words, so fall of busy, active, thronging life, we now enter on that part of the earth's histor/ which has been most fnlly elucidated by geology, and we have thns an additional reason for carefully weighing the terms of the narratiYe, which here, as in other piaoes, contain large and important truths couched in language of the simplest character, 1. In accordance with the views now entertained by the best lexicographers, the word translated in our version " creeping things " has been rendered " prolific or swarm- ing creatures." The Hebrew is SheretZf a noun derived from the verb used in this verse to denote brii^ng forth abundantly. It is loosely translated in the Septuagint Erpeta, reptiles ; and this view our English translators ap- pear to have adopted, without, perhaps, any very dear 188 ASOSAIA. BOtioDB of the oreatores intended. The manner in which it is oBed in other passages, places its true meaning be- yond doubt. I select as illustrations of the most apposite character, those yerses in Leyitiicus in which dean and un- elean animals are speciied, and in which we have a right to expect the most precise zoolo^oal nomenclature that the Hebrew can afford. In Leviticus 11th and 20th to 23rd, Imeets are defined to be flying sheretxtmj and in yerses 29th, &o., under the designation " Sheretzim of the land" we haye animals named in our yersion tiie weasel, mouse, tortoise, ferret, chaineleoB, Huard, sna^ and mole. The ftrst of these animals is betieyed to haye been a buirowifl^ oreature, perhaps a mole ; the second, from the meaning Of ill name " rayager of fields," is thought to haye been a mouse. Some doubt, howeyer^ attends both of tihese iden- iifkiations, but it appears certain that the renndnkig sii qpeeies are small reptiles, principally lizards. We leant, therefore, that the smaller rept^es, atid perhaps also a few ■nil mammals, are sheretsnm. In yerses 41 and 42 we are introduced to other tribes. '' And eyery aheretz that swann- c4h on the earth, shall be an abomination unto you, it diall not be eaten ; whatsoeyer goeth upon the belly (serpenli, worms, snails, &o.), and whatsoeyer hath more fiset (tlutn ftur), (insects, araehnidans, myriapods). In yerses 9 and 10 of the same chapter, we have an enumeration ci the dieietsim of the waters : " Whatsoever hath fins and soaks in; tfie vraters^ in the seas and in the riverS) diem shall ye wt. And all that haive not fins and soalei in the titmmd TBI La ▲MfMALB. the riTien, of an thtt Bwwm in the weieni (ell the«Aerepropriate, all of them b^ng oviparous or ovo-viviparoos, and oonsequently prodncing great nnmbers of young and multiplying veif rapidly. The only other ereatores whioh ean be indndad under the tmn, are the two donbtAil speoiee of small mammals already menti(med. Nothing can be more fair md obvioos than this eiplanatlon of the term, based both am etymology and on the preoise nomenclature of the eerft- mMiial law. We oonolude, IhMrefore, that the prtdifie animals of the fifUi day's ereation belonged to the three flub-kingdoms o£ the Badiata, Artioulata and HoUusoa, and lo the classes of Fish and Reptiles among the vertebrata. 2. One peculiar group of sheretzim is especially distin- guished by name— the tonntmm, or " great whales " of our fiennon. It would be amusing, had we time, to notice the lariety (^conjectures to whidi this word has given rise, «nd the perplexities of commentators in reference to it. In our version and the septua^nt, it is usually rendered dragon ; but in this place the seventy have thought prqper to put Keto$ (whale), and our translators have followed them. 190 ▲lOBAU. Sabteqnent translaton and oommentaton hvn lud under oontribntion all sorts of marine monsters, including the ■ea^rpent, in their endeavours to attach a precise mean* ing to the word ; while others have been content to admit that it may signify any kind or all kinds of large aquatio animals. The greater part of the difficulty has arisen from confounding two distinct words, tannin and ton, both names of animals; and the oonftision has been increased by the circumstance, that in two places the words havu bean interchanged, probably by errors of transcribers. Tan occurs in twelve places, and from these we can gather that it inhabits ruined cities, deserts, and places to which ostriches resort, that it suckles its young, is of predaoeous and shy habits, utters a wailing cry, and is not of large rise, nor formidable to man. The most probable conjee- tore as to the animal intended, is that of Gesenius, who supposes it to be the jaokall. The other word (tannin), which is that used in the text, is applied aa^an emblem cf Egypt and its kings, and also of the conquering kings of Babylon. It is spoken of as furious when enraged, and formidable to man, and is said to be an inhabitant of rivers and of the sea, but more especially of the Nile. In short, it is the crocodile of the Nile. We can easily understand the perplexity of those writers who suppose these two words to be identical, vad endeavour to combine all the charao- ten above mentioned in one animal or tribe of animals. As a farther illustration of the marked difference in ihe meanings of the two words, we may compare the 34th and Tn LOWn AIIIIIAXJ. 191 87th TeriM of the fifty-fint chapter of Jeremiah. In the fint of theee Teraea the King of Babylon ia repreaented aa a "dragon*^ (ecmntn), which had awallowed np larael. In the aeoond it ia predicted that Babylon itaelf ahall ba- oome heapa, a dwelling-place for "dragona" (lonm). There can be no doubt that the animala intended here are qaite different The deyonring iannin ia a hoge pred*- oeona river reptile, a fit emblem of the Babylonian monarch ; the tan ia the jackall that will aoon howl in hia mined palaces. It is interesting to know that philologists trace a oonneotion between tannin and the Qreek teinOf Latin tendOf and nmilar words signifying to stretch or extend, in the Sanscrit) QoiLio and other languages, leading to the inference that the Hebn :? word primarily denotea a length- ened or extended creature, which corresponds well with ita application to the crocodile. Taking all the above facts in connection, we are quite safe in concluding that the crea- tures referred to by the word under consideration, are literally large reptilian animals; and, firom the special mention made of them, we may infer that, in their day, they were the lords of creation.* 3. In verse 2l8t, the remainder of the nherettim^ beside the larger reptiles, are included in the general termSf " Living creature that moveth." The term " living crea- * See Appendix Q. It would be unfair to suppress the fiirther probability that the writer intends specially to indicate that the sacred crocodile of the Nile was itself a creature of Jehovah, and among the humbler of those creatures. ABOBAU. lore" if, IHenlly, ' tion, it probably has its most general sense \ unless, indeed, iStkb apparent repetition in this yerse relatea to the amphi> bioos or semi-tMTestrial ereatores assoeiated with the gnea* reptiles ; and, in that ease, smaller iqpliliMi animals alone maj be meant. 4. We may i^afai note tha4 the iatrodnetion of animal life is marked by the use of the word ^ereate," for ih» irst time since the general creation of the heavens and the earth. We may also note that tiie animal, as well as the plant, was created ^ niter its kkd," or " species by qteeies.'^ The animals are gronped under three great classes,— -the Remes, the Tanninim, and the Birds; but, lest any mis- conception shonld arise as to the relations of qMcies to these gronps, we are expressly informed that the q;>eeies is here the tme unit of the oreatiye work. It is worth while, therefore, to note that this most ancient authority on this much oontroyerted topic, connects species on the one hand with the creative fiat, and on the other with the power of oontinuoos reproduction. - i "" "♦^ft -ff ^r »irf -r T t THl UV AMIMAIJ. ft. Ib addition to Hm grttt tttelj ohMrMteriied by Milton, m of i«> II. Reptile with ipawn •bnndMit,'* the creation of the fifth daj indnded n higher trihi «l ofiparovi animala, the birds, the fowl or winged enatoin of the text. Birde alone, we think, rnvet be aeant hem^ ■a we have already seen that inseots are inelnded under Ae general term iharetnm, 6. It iflfivther to be obBerred that eA«ioapineB8 for which they were fitted, and to increase and fill the earth. When we inquire what information geology affords res* pecting the period under consideration, the answer may he ftill and explicit. Geological discovery has carried ns back to an epoch corresponding with the banning of this day, and has disclosed a long and varied series of living beings, extending from this early period np to the introduction of the higher races of animals. To enter on the geolo^cal details of these changes, and on descriptions of the creatures which succeeded each other on the earth, would swell this volume into a treatise on palsDontology, and would be quite unnecessary, as so many excellent popular works on this subject already exist. I shall, therefore, confine myself to a few general statements, and to marking the points in which scripture and geology coincide in their respective histories of this long period, which appears to include the whole of the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic epochs of geology, with their grand and varied succession of rock formations and living bein^^. In the oldest fossiliferous rooks, we find the remains crustaceans, mollusks and radiates, such as shrimps, shellfish, and starfishes, which 9ppear to have inhabited the bottom of a shallow ocean. Ar^ong these were some genera belong- ing to the higher forms of the moUusca and radiata, but apparently as yet no vertebrated animals. Fishes were then introduoed, and have left their remains in the upper THl LOWIB ANIMALS. 19& Silnrian rocks, and yery abundantly in the Beyonian and Carboniferous, in which also the first reptiles occur. The animal kingdom appears to have reached no higher than the reptiles in the PalsBozoio or primary period of geology, and its reptiles are comparatively small and few; though fishes had attained to a point of perfection which they have not since exceeded. There was also, especially in the carboniferous period, an abundant and luxuriant v^ta- tion. The Mesozoic period is, however, emphatically the age of reptiles. This class then reached its climax, in the perfection and magnitude of its species, which filled all those stations in the economy of nature now assigned to the mammalia. Birds, also, belong to this era, and were represented by some very gigantic species. Toward the dose of the period, several species of small mammals, of the loirest or marsupial type, appear as a presage of the mammalian creation of the succeeding tertiary era. In these two geological periods, then — ^the Palaeozoic and Mesozoi(H-we find, first, the lower sheretzim represented by the invertebrata and the fishes, then the great reptiles and the birds; and it cannot be denied, that, if we admit that the Mosaic day under consideration corresponds with these geological periods, it would be impossible better to characterise their creations in so few words adapted to popular comprehension. I may add that all the species whose remains are found in the Palseozoic and Mesozoic rocks are extinct, and known to us only as fossils; and their connection with the present system of nature consist! IH AlOHAU. only in their fonning vi& it a more perfect series thM ear present &iinft alone oonld afford. They bdong to (he ■ame system of types, but are parts of it which haye served their purpose and have been laid aside. The ooincidenees ■bore noted between geology and scripture, may be snm- fned up as foUows. 1. Aeeording to both records, the causes which at preset^ cegnlate the distribution of light and heat and moisture, «f land and water, were, during the whole of this period, mndi the same as at present The eyes of the tribbite of the dd Silurian rocks are fitted for the same conditions with respect to light witli fliose of ezic^ng animals of the aame class. The oonifeross trees of the coal measures fhow annual rings of growth. Impressmns of rain-mariu liaye been found in the shales of the coal measures and Devonian system. Hills and valleys, swamps and lagoons, rivers, bays, seas, coral ree& and shdl beds, have all left indubitable evidence of their existence, in the geol(^cal record. On the odier hand, the Bible shows that all the earth's physical features were perfected on the fourth day, and immediately befcoe the creation of animals. The land and the water have undei^ne, during this long lapse of ag^, many minor changes. Whole tribes of animals and plants have been swept away and replaced by others, but the general aspect of inoiganic nature has remained iiiesame. v 2. Both records show the existence of v^tation duriag tiuf period ; though the geologic record, if taken alone, THB LO^T 4]n]fAL9. m wmdd, from its wint of infonution reepeeting the tbbd Aiy, lead OB to infw that planta are no older than animaJe, while die Bible does not tpeak of the natiune of the vegel** tion that may have existed on the fifth day. 8. Both reoords inform ns that reptiles and birds were the higher and leading forms of animals, and that all the lower forms of animals eo^tisted with tiiem. In both we have especial notice of the gigantic Saurian reptiles of the latter part of the period ; and, if we have the remains of ft Ibw onall species of mammals in the Mesoaoic rooks, these, like a few similar creatnres apparently included under the word sheretz in Leviticus, are not sufficiently important to negative the general fact of the re^ of reptiles.* 4. It accords with both records that the work of creation in this period was gradually progressive. Species after species was locally introduced, extended itself, and, aft«P having served its purpose, gradually became extinct. And thus each successive rook formation presents new gi^ups of species, each rising in numbers and perfection above the * The interesting discovery, by Mr. Beale and others, of thir- teen species of mammalia in the Porbeck, and that of Profesior Bmmons of a few species in rooks of similar age in the Sonthem States of America, do not invalidate this statement; for all these, like the Microleste$ of the Qerman trias and the jimphi- therium of the Stonesfeld slate, are small marsupials belonging to the least perfect type of mammals. The discovery of so many species of these humbler creatures, goes far to increase the hnprobabili^ of the existence of the higher mammals. I^-^^l^l 198 AEOHAIA. last, and marking a gradual assimilation of the general conditions of our planet to their present state, yet without any convalsions or general catastrophes affecting the whole earth at once. 5. In both records the time between the creation of the first animals and the introduction of the mammalia as a dominant class, forms a well marked period. I would not too positively assert that the close of the fifth day accords precisely with diat of the Mesozoio or secondary period. The well marked line of separation, however, between this md the earlier tertiary rocks, points to this as extreme^ probable. I shall close these remarks by a quotation on this subject from Ansted's " Ancient world :" — " The close of the Secondary (Mesozoic) period was succeeded by a general disruption of the various beds that had been depo- nted in those parts of the world to which we have access, and by changes and modifications so considerable as to alter the whole face of nature. It would appear, also, that a long period of time elapsed before newer beds were thrown down ; since the chalky mud (of the newest Meso* loio rocks) not only had time to harden into chalk, but the surface of the chalk itself was much rubbed and worn. So completely and absolutely is the line of demarcation drawn between the secondary and newer deposits, in parts of the world where these beds have been recognised in actual contact, that it had become a common notion among geologists to assume the destruction of all natural relations between them; concluding that not one single species of THl LOWIB ANIMAI.8. 199 animai or vegetable connected the two periods, and lived through the intervening distorbanoes. Although thia view certainly requires modifications in points of detail, it is still correct in a general sense, and expresses without much exaggeration the real difference in condition, the result perhaps of greater time than is elsewhere indicated. In this way, the secondary period is distinctly cut off from the tertiary." In the same work, chaps. 6th and 11th, will be found vivid sketches of the general features of the inorganic worid in the PalaDozoic and Mesozoic periods, highly illustrative of the paralleUsm between these animal remains and the creatures produced on the fifth day.* It thus appears that scripture and geology so tar con- oar respecting the events of this period, as to establish- even without any other evidence, a probabilily that the fifth day corresponds with the geological periods with which I have endeavoured to identify it. Geology, however, l^ves us no means of measuring precisely the length of this day; but it gives us the impression that it occupied aa / * Ko break of continuity in the saccession of life reyealed by geologj can be regarded as established by positive evidence; and most of the breaks of this kind ascertained by the earlier geologists hare proved to be merely local. But the one which has maintained itself most constantly in all portions of the earth is certainly that between the Mesozoic and Tertiary. Even in oases where, as in some parts of the tertiary districts of the United States, there seemed to be a gradation of fossils, later observations tend to show a real distinotneM. iUUJBAlA^ teoftDoiis length of time, eampaxtd. with which the whde homaii period is quite insignificant ; and rivalling thoM Mythical " days of the Creator " which we have notioed m IbffBling a part of the Hindoo mythology. Why was the earth thus occupied for countless ages by att animal population whose highest members were repUlea md birds? The fact cannot be doubted, since geology aiid Scripture, the research of man and the word of God^ ooncttr in affirming it. We know that the lowest of these enatures was, in its own place, no less worthy of the Greater than those which we r^ard as the hi^est in the scale of organisation, and that the uiimals of the ancient| < equally with those of the modern world, aboimded in prooft of the wisdom, power and goodness of tiieir Maker. Gom- palratiye anatomy has shown that these extinct animals, tiboi^h often Taryiag much firom their modem representa- tites, are in no respect rude or imperfect; that they have the same appearance of careful planning and daborate eie- ration of his original paradise, but he has lost so much that the power which he retains is necessarily abused to selfish ends. Man, like the other creatures, was destined to be fruit- ful and multiply and replenish the earth. We are also informed in chapter second that he was placed in a "garden," a chosen spot in the alluvial plains of Western Asia, be- longing to the later geological formations, and thus prepared by the whole series of prior geological changes, replenished with all things useful to him, and containing nothing hurtful, at least in so far as the animal creation was con- cerned. These facts, taken in connection, lead to grave ques- tions. How is the happy and innocent state of man con; sistent with the contemporaneous existence of carnivorous and predaoeous animals, which, as both scripture and geo- VAN. 217 logy state, were created in abnndanoe in the aixth day. How, when confined to a limited r^on, conld he increase and multiply and replenish the earth ? These questions, which have caused no little perplexity, are easily solved when brought into the light of our modem knowledge of nature. 1. Every large r^on of the earth is inhabited by a group of animals, differing in the proportions of identical species and in the presence of distinct species, ftom the groups inhabiting other districts. There is also sufficient reason to conclude that all animals and plants have spread from certun local centres of creation, in wluch certain groups of species have been produced and allowed to extend themselves, until they met and became intermingled with species extending from other centres. Internal probabilities, as well as the tracing of many im- portant species to this source, show that the district of Asia in the vicinity of the Euphrates and Tigris, to which the scripture assigns the origin of the human race, was an eminent centre of this description ; and at the period under consideration, it may either have been cleared of its previous inhabitants, or may not have yet been invaded by animals spreading from other centres.* 2. To remove all zoolo- gical difficulties from the position of primeval man in his state of innocence, we have but to suppose, in accordance with all the probabilities of the case, that man was created along with a group of creatures adapted to contribute to * See Appendix H. i 118 AIOBAIA. 1h« happineM, and having no tendenoy to injure or annoy *, and that it b the fonnation of these oreatoraa — the gron^ of his own oentre of oreation — that ia espe(»ally notioed in Genesis 2d and 19th, ei uq.^ where God is represented at forming them out of the ground and exhibiting them to Adam; a passage otherwise saperfluoos, and indeed tend- ing to oonfuse the meaning of the doonment. 3. The diffi- culty attending the extension of the human race in a statA of innooenoe, is at onoe obviated by thd geological doctrine of the extinction of species. We know that in past geolo- gical periods large and important groups of species have become extinct, and have been replaced by new groups extending fnun, new centres; and we know that this pro- cess has removed, in early geological periods, many weaturei that would have been highly ingurions to human interests had they remained. Now, the group of species oreated with man being the latest introduced, we may infer, on geological grounds, that it would have extended itself within the f^heres of older io(do^cal and botanical districts, and would have rej^beed their species, which, in the ordinary operation of natural laws, may have been verging toward extinction. Thus, not only man, but the Eden in which he'dwdt, with all its aumals and plants, would have gra- dually encroached on the surrounding wildemess, until man's hi^y and peaceful reign had replaced that of the fiNTOoioas beasts that preceded him in dominion, and had extended at least over all the temperate r^on of the earth. 4. The cursing of the ground for man's sake, on his fall wwrr^F^'' Sit \m ftom innocenoe, would tkas eontist in the permiision gifM lo the predaoeoua Mumala and the thorns and the brian^ of other oentrea of creation, to innide his Eden ; or, in his own expulsion, to contend with the animals and plants iHiich were intended to hare giren way and become eztinol before him. Thus Uie fall of man would produce an arrest* Bent in the progress of the earth, in that last great rero^ Intion which would have eonyerted it into an Eden ; and the anomalies of its present state consist, according to scrip* tore, in a mixture of the conditions of the tertiary with those of the human period. 5. Though there is good ground for believing tiiat man was to have been exempted froB the general law of mortality, we cannot infer that any such exemption would have been enjoyed by his companion animals; we only know that he himself would have been fine £rom all annoyance, and injury, and decay, from ex- ternal causes. We may also conclude, that, while Eden was sufficient for his habitation, the remainde? of Uie earth would continue, just as in the earlier tertiary periods^ under the dominion of the predaoeous mammals, reptiles, and birds. 6. The above views enable us on the one hand to avoid the difficulties that attend the admission of pre- daoeous animals into Eden, and on the other the still more formidable difficulties that attend the attempt to exclude them altogether from the Adamic world. They also illus* trtte the geological fact that many animals, contemporaneous with man, extend far back into the tertiary period. These are areatnres not belonging to the Edenio centre of crea- ASOHAU. tion, bat introduoed in an earlier part of the sixth dvj, and now permitted to exist along with man in his fallen ■tate. I have stated these supposed conditions of the Adamio creation briefly, and with as little illustration af possible, that they may connectedly strike the mind of the reader. Each of these statements is in harmony with the scriptural narrative on the one hand, and with geology on the other ; and, taken together, they afford an intelligible history of the introduction of man. If a geologist were asked to state, a priori, the conditions proper to the orea* tion of any important species, he could only say — the pre* paration or selection of some re^on of the earth for it, and its production along with a group of plants and animals suited to it. These are precisely the conditions implied in the scriptural account of the creation of Adam.* The difficulties of the subject have arisen from suj^aing, con- trary to the narrative itself, that the conditions necessary for Eden must in the first instance have extended over the whole earth, and that the creatures with which man is in his present dispersion brou^t into contact, must neeessa- rily have been hb companions there. The food of animals is specified at the close of the work of this day. The grant to man is every herb bearing seed, and every fruit tree. That to the lower animals is more extensive — eveiy green herb. This cannot mean that every animal in the earth waa herbivorous. It may refer * See Lyell, Principles of Geology, "Introduetion of Spedts.** MAH. 821 )rk to the groap of aniuuJi wnoeutad with num in Eden ; or, if it inoludes the animals of the whole earth, we may be certain, fVom the expreai mention of carnivorous creatoret in the work of the fifth and sixth days, that it indicates merely the general fact that the support of the whole ani- mal kingdom is based on vegetation. A most important circumstance in connection with the work of the sixth day, is that it witnessed the creation both of man and the mammalia. A fictitious writer would unquestionably have exalted man by assigning to him a separate day, and by placing the whole animal kingdom together in respect to time. He would be all the more likely to do this, if unacquainted, as most ignorant personsi as well as many literary men are, with the importance and teeming multitudes of the lower tribes of animals, and with the typical identity of the human frame with that of the higher animals. He has not done so, we are at liberty to suppose, because the fact as revealed to him was otherwise ; and modern geology has amply vindicated him in this, by its disclosure of the intimate connection of the human with the tertiary period; and has shown in this as in other instances that truth and not "accommodation" was the object of the sacred writer. While, as already stated, many existing species extend far back into the tertiary period, showing that the earth has been visited by no uni- versal catastrophe since the first creation of mammals ; on the other hand, we cannot with certainty trace any existing species back beyond the commencement of the tertiary era. 222 ABORAU. ecology aad revelation, therefore, coinoide in referring the eraation of man to the close of the period in which mam- mals were introduced and became predominant, and in establishing a marked separation between that period and the preceding one in which the lower animals held iindis* pnted sway. This coincidence, while it strengthens the pro- bobiliiy that the creative days were long periods, opposes an almost insurmountable obstacle to every other hypothesii* of reconciliation with geological science. •• . At the dose of this day, the Creator again reviews his work and pronounces it good. Step by step the world had been evolved from a primeval chaos, through many suoces* rive physical changes, and long series of organised beings. It had now reached its acme of perfection, and had received; its most illustrious tenant, possessing an organism excelling all others in majesty and beauty, and an immaterial soot the shadow of the glorious Creator himself. Well might the angels sing, when the long protracted work was thus grandly completed : — <( Thrice happy man And sons of men, whom Qod hath thus advanced, Created in his image, there to dwell And worship him, and in reward to rale Over his works in earth, or sea, or air. And multiply a race of worshippers Holy and just ; thrice happy, if they know Their happiness and persevere upright." The Hebrew idea of the golden age of Eden is pure atod HAH. 223 exalted. It oonsists in the enjoyment of the faTOor of God, and of all that is heautifml and excellent in hit works. Qod and natnre are the whole. Nor is it merdy a rude, unintelligent, sensnons enjoyment. Man primeyfd is not a lasy savage gathering acorns. He is made in the image of the Creator; he is to keep and dress his garden, and it is famished with every plant good for food and pleasant to the sight Alas for fallen man, with his poor civilization ^thered little by little from the dnst of earth, and his paltry art that halts immeasnrably behind nature. How little is he able even to appreciate the high estate of his great ancestor. The world of fallen men has worship- ped art too much, reverenced and stndied nature too littie* The savage displays the lowest taste when he admires the rude figures which he paints on his face or his garments, more than the glorious painting that adorns nature : yet even he acknowledges the preeminent excellence of nature, by imitating her forms and colors, and by adapting her painted plumes and flowers to his own use. There is a fiwide interval, including many gradations, between this low position and that of the cultivated amateur or artist The art of the latter makes a nearer approach to the truly beautiful, inasmuch as it more accurately represents the geometric and organic forms, and the coloring of nature ; and inasmuch as it devises ideal combinations not found in the actual world ; which ideal combinations, however, are beautiful or monstrous, just as they realise create somethiDg that may give him an undy- ing reputation, — his idolatrous desire to ^nbody in* material form, something that he or others may reverenee or worship; these and such reasons are sufficient to aecount for art aspirations, as constant products of our mental constitution. Let us accord to art the admiration which it deserves, but let us not f(Hrget that nature is the highest art — the art which embraces ia itself all dse that truly deserves the name. One essential difference between' imitatrveart and nature^ is that the former is- wh(41y superficial, while the latter has an inner life and finer structure, corresponding, to its out- ward form. The painter's bouquet of flowers may charuk >». tts with its fine combination of forms and colors, and with the thought and taste that ^ak in every hue and tint ;. but examine it closely, and U becomes a mass o£ patches of color, in which the paxts of the actual flower are but rudely shadowed forth. The natural flower, on the other hand,, yields to the clc^^st ezaminatum, only new structures and more delicate beauties not perceived at the first- glance;; and even under the microscope,^ we find It pregnant witk •', Kf' '■! '^4 HAH. 22» new wonders, so that if we represent separately all ita yarious parts and internal stractores, we have a series of pictures, each full of beauty and interest, and the whole showing us that the painter's genius has availed only to depict that outer layer of charms which lies at the very surface. And then in the actual flower, we have all those changes of beauty that march in procession from the an« folding bud to the ripening fruit. Truly may the lily of the field laugh to scorn the efforts of human art, when we place them in competition as objecta addressed to our higher powers and tastes. In like manner the Apollo of the Sculptor may repre- sent, not only years of study and laborious days of delicate chiseling, but also a beau-ideal of manly symmetry and grace, such as we can seldom find approached in the real world ; but take, for comparison, the living, well-developed human form, and you have an object infinitely more full of beauty. Every motion of sudi a form is a new statue. In a few minutes it gives you a whole gallery of varied attitudes ; and then within, you have the wondrous mechar nism of bones and muscles, which, if not individually beautiful, become so to our inner mental vision, when we consider their adaptation to this infinity of graceful form and motion. The frame contrived to enshrine the immor- tal mind of man, is the chief of the works of God known to us; and is not the lods beautiful, that, in our present fallen state, considerations, both moral nnd physical, require that the nakedness, which was its primeval glory and di&- ▲BOHAIA. II 'I I tinotion, shoold be covered from our Bighi. It is a hi^ ambition that fires the sculptor with the hope, that he shall be able to embody even one of those attitudes that speak the emotions of the soul within. Yet, after he has ex- haiisted all his art, how cold, how dead, how intensely wearisome and monotonous, when'oompared with the living form, is the ohanf»less beauty of the statue. The Uttle- Bess of art is equally apparent when it attempts to rival the grandeur of nature. Her towers and spires have less effect than those rocky pinnacles and mountain pedes ; her pillared porticos do not equal nature's colonnades of stately trunks and graceful foliage. We habitually acknowledge this, when we adorn our finest buildings with surrounding trees, just as nature masks with foliage the bases of rude oliffs, and the flanks of precipices. Art takes her true place when she sits at the feet of Bature, and brings her students to drink in its beauties, that they may endeavor, however imperfectly, to reproduce them. On the other hand, the student of nature must not content himself with "writing Latin names on white paper," wherewith to label nature's productions, but must rise to the contemplation of the order and beauty of the Cosmos. Both will thus rise to that lughest taste, which will enable them to appreciate not oidy the el^noe of individual forms, but their structure, their harmonies, their grouping and their relations, their special adaptation, and Af&t places as parts of a great system. Thus art will •ttain that hi^iest point in whieh it diq^lajB original MAN. 227 geniiu, without yiolatmg natural truth and unity, and nsr tore will be r^arded as the highest arti Much is said and done in 0:17 time, with reference to the ottltivation of popular taste for fine art as a means oi dvilitation ; and this, so fkr as it goes, is well : but the only sure path to the highest taste-edueation, is the oulti- * vition of the study of nature. This is also an easier branch of education, provided the instructors have suffi- cient knowledge. Good works of art are rare and costly ; but good works of nature are everywhere around us, wait* ing to be examined. Such education, popularly diffused, would react on the efforts of art. It would enable a widely extended public to appreciate real excellence, and would cause wcrks of art to be valued just in proportion to the extent to which they realize or deviate from natural truth and xadty. I do not profess to speak authoritatively on such subjects, but I confess that the strong impression on my mind is, that neither the revered antique models, nor the practice and principles of the generality of modem art reformers, would endure such criticism ; and that if we could combine popular enthusiasm for art, with soientifie appreciation of nature, a new and better art might arise from the union. I may appear to dwell too long upon this topic ; but my excuse must be, that it leads to a true estimate both of natural history and of the Hebrew literature. The study of nature guides to those large views of tlie unity and order of creation, which alone are worthy of a being of the rank 228 AROHAIA. of man, and which lead him to adequate oonoeptions of the Creator. The truly wise recognise three grades of beauty. First, that of art, which, in its higher efforts, can raise ordinary minds far above themselves. Secondly, thki o£ nature, which, in its most common objects, must transcend the former, since its artist is that God, of whose infinite mind the genius of the artist is only a faint reflection. Thirdly, that pre-eminent beauty of moral goodness, re- vealed only in the spiritual nature of the Supreme. The first is one of the natural resources of fallen man in his search for happiness. The second was man's joy in his primeval innocence. The third is the inheritance of man redeemed. It is folly to place these on the same level. It is greater folly to worship either or both of the first, without regard to the last. It is true wisdom to aspire to the last, and to regard nature as the handmaid of piety, art as but the handmaid of nature. Nature to the unobservant, is merely a mass of things more or less beautiful or intei'esting, but without any defi- nite order or significance. An observer soon arrives at the conclusion that it is a series of circling changes, ever re- turning to the same points, ever renewing their courses, under the action of invariable laws. But if he rests here, he falls infinitely short of the idea of the Cosmos ; and stands on the brink of the profound error of eternal suc- oession. A little further progress conducts him to the inviting field of special adaptation and mutual relation of things. He finds that nothing is without its use ; that MAN. 229 every stnictare is most nicely adjusted to special ends ; that the supposed ceaseless circling of nature is merely the continuous action of great powers, by which an infinity of utilities are worked out — the great fly wheel, which, in its unceasing and at first sight apparently aimless round, is giving motion to thousands of reels and spindles and shut- tles, that are spinning and weaving, in all its varied patterns, the great web of life. But the observer as he looks on this web, is surprised to find that it has in its whole extent a wondrous pattern. He rises to the contemplation of type in nature, a great truth to which science has only lately opened its eyes. He begins dimly to perceive that the Creator has from the be- ^nning had a plan u afore his mind, that this plan embraced various types or patterns of existence ; that on these pat. terns he has been working out the whole system of nature, adapting each to all the variety of uses, by an infinity of minor modifications. That in short, whether he study the eye of a gnat, or the structure of a mountain chain, he sees not only objects of beauty and utility, but parts of far- reaching plans of infinite wisJom, by which all objects, however separated in time or space, are linked together. How much of positive pleasure does that man lose who passes through life absorbed with its wants and its artifici- alities, and r^arding with a " brute, unconscious gaze," the grand revelation of a higher intelligence in the outer world. It is only in an approximation through our Divine Redeemer to the moral likeness of God, that we can be w 230 AROBAIA. tndj happy ; but of ih» aabsidiary pleaBores which we an hue permitted t9 enjoy, the oontempUtion of nature is ond of the best and purest It was the pleasure, the show, the speetaole prepared for man in Eden, and how much true ^liloBophy and taste shine in the simple words, that in tliat paradise, God planted trees " pleasant to the sight," as well as "good for food." Other things being equal, the nearer we can return to this primitive taste, the greater will be our sensuous enjoyment, the better the influence of our pleasures on our moral nature, because they will then depend on the oultivation of tastes at once natural and harmless, and will not lead us to eommiinion wiUi, and reverence for, merdy human genius, but will conduct us into the presence of the infinite perfection of the Creator. The Bible knows but one species of man. It is not said that men were created after their species, as we read of the groups of animals. Man was made, "male and fe* male"; and in the succeeding more full details given in the second ohapter-^where the writer, having finished his general narrative, commences his special history of man- but one primiUve pair is introduced to our notice. We scarcely need the detailed tables of affiliation afterwards given, or the declaration of the Apostle who preached to the supposed autochthones of Athens, that " God has made of one blood all natioiM^" to assure us of the scriptural unity of man. If, therefore, there really is good reason to bdlieve with some modem naturalists, that man is not of one but several origins, we must admit Moses to have been MAH. 281 veiy iirperfeotly infonned. Nor, on the other hand, does the Bible allow vs to aaeign a very high antiquity to the origin of man. Its oarefiil genealogical tables tiOmit of but very narrow limits of difference of opinion as to the age of the human world or aeon ; and especially of the deluge, firom which man took his seoond point of departure. These questions, so much agitated now, demand a separate and oarefiil conuderation ; but we must first devote » few pages to the simple statements of the Bible respecting tfa« 8abp . bath of creation, and its relation to human hiskny. 4 ."'-i'- J^rci.• " -fir ^^ ^1 '.*.4*~fl-.'-> I .. fi , - .f: •-r>..*' ■ -*-.(¥?*' CHAPTER XV. THE BB8T OF TBI ORIATOR. Gmmh ii. 1 and 3 : " And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and he rested on the seventh day firom all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it God rested firom all his work which he had created to make." Thx end of the sixth day closed the work of creation pro> perly so called, as well as that of forming and arran^ng the things created. The banning of the seyenth intro* duced a period, which, according to the views already stated, was to be occupied ty the continued increase and difinsion of man and the creatures ider his dominion, and by the gradual disappearance of tribes of creatures un> connected with his well-being. Science in this well accords with scripture. No proof exists of the production of a new species since the creation of man ; and geological evidence points to him and a few of the higher mammals as the newest of the oreatui'es. There is, on the other hand, good evidence that several species have become extinct since his creation. Some geo- ogists, it is true, are not prepared to admit that new species have not been created during the human era ; but they do not maintain that any positive evidence of such creaUon exists. Others strongly contend, that the negative THl RI8T Of tBl OBIATOB. 233 evidence is sufficiently perfect to warrant us in affirming that the creation terminated in man. Perhape on this subject no authority is better than that of the late Prof. S. Forbes — a most careful observer and accurate reasoner on the more recent changes of the earth's surface. He infers, from the distribution of species from their centres of creation, that man is the latest product of creative power ; or, in other words, that none of those species or groups of species which he had been able to trace to their centres, or the spots at which they probably originated, appear to be of later or as late origin as man. " This consideration," he says, " induces me to believe that the last province in time was completed by the coming of man, and to maintain an hypothesis that man stands unique in space and time, himself equal to the sum ox any pre-existing centre of crea^ tion or of ail, an hypothesis consistent with man's moral and social position in the world." The seventh day, then, was to have been that in which t31 the happiness, beauty and perfection of the others were to have been concentrated. But an element of instability was present, in the being who occupied the summit of the animal scale. Not r^ulated by blind and unerring instincts, but a free agent, with a high intellectual and mor ' nature, and liable to be acted on by temptation firom without; under such influence, he lost his moral balance, in stretch- ing out his hand to grasp the peculiar powers of deity, and fdl beyond the hope of self-redemption — ^perpetuating, by oie of those laws which r^ulate the transmission of mixed 234 ABOHAIA. corporeal aad spiritoal oatores, hb d^adatioo to eyerj generation of hia Bpeoies. And so Ood's great work wa« aarred, and all hia plans seemed to be foUed, when they had just reached their completion. Thus far science might carry us unaided ; for there is not a true naturalist, how- ever, skeptical as to revealed religion, who does not feel in his inmost heart, the disjointed state of the present relft* tions of man to nature; the natural wreck that results from his artificial modes of life, the long trains of violations of the symmetzy of nature that follow in the wake of his most boasted achievements. But here natural science stops ; and just as we have found that, in tracing back the world's history, the Bible carries us mudi farther than g^logy, so science, having led us to suspect the ffdlen state of man, leaves us henceforth to the teaching of revelation. And how glorious that teaching I God did not find him- self baffled — ^his resources are infinite — ^he had foreseen and prepared for all this apparent evil ; and out of the moral wreck he proceeds to work out the grand process of redempUony which is the especial object of the seventh day, and which will result in the production of a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleU:^ righteousness. In the seventh, as in the former days, the evening precedes the momii^. For four tJiousand years the world groped in its darkness, — a darkness tenanted by moral monsters as pow- otfiil and destructive as the old pre-adamite reptiles. The Sun of Righteousness at length arose, and the darkness bogan to pass away ; but eighteen centuries have elapsed. TDK RUT or TUK CRSATOR. 23ft and wo still see but the gray dawn of morning, which we yet firmly believe will brighten into a glorious day that shall know no succeeding night.* The seventh day is the modem or human era in geology ! and, though it cannot yet boast of any physical changes so great as those of past periods, it is still of great interest, as affording the facts on which we must depend for explana- tions of past changes ; and as immediately connected in time with those later tertiary periods which afford so many curious problems to the geological student. This last sub- ject is still involved in some obscurity, though there are no geological reasons for assigning to man any greater anti- quity than that of the Bible ohronology.f I shall, there- fore, in this place notice some general facts deducible from the Bible, and which may be useful in appreciating the true relation of the human era to those which preceded it. 1. The local centre of creation of the human species, and probably of a group of creatures coeval with it, was Eden ; a country of which the scriptures give a somewhat miiiute geographical description. It was evidently a dis- trict of Western Asia ; and, from its possession of several important rivers, rather a region or large territory than a limited spot, such as many, who have discussed the ques- tion of the site of Eden, seem to suj^se. In this view * For an exposition of the details of the fall, I beg to refer the reader to McDonald's " Creation and the Fall," to Kitto's " Antediluvians and Patriarchs," and Kurtz's " History of the Old Covenant." * Appendix L. 236 ARCHAIA. '>'■■ it is a matter of no moment to fix its site more nearly than the indication of the Bible that it included the sources and probably large portions of the valleys of the Tigris, the Euphrates, and perhaps the Ozus and Jaxartes. Into the minor difficulties respecting the site of Eden it would be unprofitable to enter. I may merely mention one, because it throws light on the great antiquity of this geographical description, and has been strangely mystified by exposi- tors, — the relation of those rivers to Cush or Ethiopia, and Havilah a tribe name derived from that of a grandson of Gush. On consulting the tenth chapter of Genesis, it will be found that the Gushites under Nimrod, very soon atter the deluge, pushed their migrations and conquests along the Tigris to the northward, and established there the first empire. It is probably this primitive Gushite empire which, in the epoch of the description of Eden, was limited to the north by the Oxus, and was believed to extend over the old site of Eden ; an interesting coincidence, throwing light on many obscure points in the early history of man ; and since this Gushite empire had perished even before the time of Moses, indicating a still more ancient tradition respecting the primeval abode of our species. 2. Before the deluge this region must have been the seat of a dense population, which, according to the biblical account, must have made considerable advances in the arts, and at the same time sunk very low in moral debasement.* * The Bible specifies, perhaps only as the principal of theue arts, music and musical instrumeats by Jubal, metallurgy by THE BEST OF THK CREATOR. 237 Whether any remains of this ancient population or its works exist, will probably not be determined with certainty, till we have accurate geological investigations of the whole country in the neighbourhood of the Caspian Sea, and along the great rivers of western Asia. Should such remains be found, we may infer, from the extreme longe- vity assigned to the antediluvians, that their skeletons would present peculiarities entitling them to be considered a very well-marked variety of the human species.* We may also infer tiiat the family of man very early divided into two races — one retaining in greater purity the moral endowments of the species, the other excelling in the me- chanical and fine arts ; and that a subsequent mixture of these tribes produced, as generally occurs in such cases, a race excelling both in energy and physical endowments — the " giants " — mighty men of violence — that were in those Tubalcain, the domestication of cattle and the nomade life hj Jabal. It is highly probable that these inventors are introduced into the Mosaic record for a theological reason, to point out the folly of the worship rendered to Phtha, Hephaestos, Vulcan, Horus, Phoebus, and other inventors, either traditionary repre- sentatives of the family of Lamech, or other heroes wrongly identified with them. Very possibly their sister Naamah, " the beautiful," is introduced for the same reason, as the true original of Ashtaroth, Diana, Aphrodite, and other female deities of the heathen. * Should such remains be found, it would not be at all sur- prising to find many anatomists recognising in them the relics of a new and extinct species of man. 238 AROHAIA. days.* If any undoubtedly aat«di\nvian remains are ever discovered, we may confidently anticipate that the distinc- tive characteristics of these races may be detected in thejbr osseous structures as woll as in their works of art. Far- ther, it is to be inferred from notices in the fourth chapter of Genesis, that before the deluge there was both a nomadic and a citizen population, and that the principal seat of tibe Gainite, or more debased yet energetic branch of the human family, was to the eastward of the site of £den. No intimations are given by which the works of art of antediluvian times could be distinguished from those of later periods, except the presumption, based on negative eviden ^e, that no mode of writing had been invented pre- vious to the deluge. 3. When the antediluvian population had ftdly proved itself unfit to enter into the divine scheme of moral reno- vation, it was swept away by a fearful physical catastrophe. The deluge might, in all its relations, furnish material for an entire treatise. I may remark here, as its most impor- tant geological peculiarity, that it was evidently a local convulsion. The object, that of destroying the human race and the animal population of its peculiar centre of creation, the preservation of specimens of these creatures in the ark, and the physical requirements of the case, shut us up to this conclusion, which is now accepted by the best * I cannot for a moment entertain the monstrous supposition of many expositors, that tlie "sons of God" of these passage are angels, and the Nephelim hybrids between angels and meo* THB RKST or TUX OKEATOB. 231 biblical ezposit(Hrs,* and whieb inflicts no yiolmioe on the terms of tbe record. Viewed in this ligbt, flie {dieiMnneiui recorded in the BiUe, in connection with ge(^(^oal ^pto- babilitieij, lead us to infer that the physical agencies evoked by the Divine power to destroy this ungodly race, were a subsidence of the r^ton they inhabited, so as to admit the oceanic waters, and extensive atmospherical disturbances connected with that snbsidenee, and perhaps with the ele- vation of n^ghbouridg r^ion8.t In this case it is possible that the Caspian Sea, which is now 160 feet below the level of the ocean, and which was probably much more extensive then than at present, reoei\ed much of the drain- age of the flood, an J >at Ibe mud and sand deposits of this sea and the adjoining, . t plains, once manifestly a part of its bottom, conce<^ any remains that may exist of the antediluvian population. In connection with this, it may be remarked that, in the Book of Job, Eliphcz speaks as if the locality of those wicked nations which existed before the deluge, was known aud accessible in his time : — " Hast thou marked th*i ancient way Which wicked men have trodden, Who were seized (by the waters) in a moment, And whose foundations a flood swept away?" Job zxii. IS. On comparing this statement with the answer of Job in the * See King's " Geology and Religion " ; also Hitchcock, and Dr. J. P. Smith, t See Appendix H. '^ 240 ABOHAU. 26th chapter, yer^e 5th, it would seem that the ungodly antediluviane were supposed to be still under the waters ; a belief ^uite intelligible if the Caspian, which, on the latest and most probable views of the locality of the events of this book, was not very remote from the residence of '/ob,* was supposed to mark the pcsition of the pre-Noaohic population, as the Dead Sea afterwards did that of the cities of the plain. Some of the dates ascugned to the book of Job would, however, render it possible that this last catastrophe is that to which he refers : — " The Rephaim tremble from beneath < The waters and their inhabitants. Sheol is naked before him, And destruction hath no corering." The word Bephaim here has been variously rendered " shades of the dead " and " giants." It is properly the family or national name of certain tribes of gigantic Ham- ite men, (the Anakim, Emim, &c.), inhabiting western Asia at a very remote period ; and it must here refer either to them or to the still earlier antediluvian giants.f After the deluge, we find the human race settled in the fertile plains of the Euphrates and Tigris, attracted thither * Kitto's Bible Illustrations — ^book of Job. t See article " Rephaim " in Kitto's Journal of Sacred Litera- ture. But Gesenius and others regard it, not as an ethnic name, but as a term for the " shades " or spirits of the dead. See Conant on Job. ^ ' TBI BIST OV Tmi ORIATOB. 241 by the fertility of their allavial snils. There ye find them engaging in a great political scheme, no doubt founded on recollections of the old antediluvian nationalities, and on a dread of the evils which able and aspiring men would anticipate from that wide dispersion of the human race, that appears to have been intended by the Creator in the new circumstances of the earth. They commenced accord- ingly the erection of a city or tower at Babel, in the plain of Shinar, to form a common bond of union, a great public work that should be a rallying-point for the race, and around which its patriotism might concentrate itself. The attempt was counteracted by an interposition of Divine providence;* and thenoefortl the diffusion of the human race proceeded unchecked. Out of the enterprise at Babel, however, arose a new type of evil, which, in the forms of military despotism, the spirit of conquest, hero-worship^ and the alliance of these influences with literature and the arts, has been handed down through every succeeding age to our own time. The name of Nimrod, the son of Gush, has been preserved to us in the Bible as the first rebel against the primitive patriarchal rule, and the founder of the first despotism. This bold and ambitious man, subse- quently deified under different names, established a Cushite empire, which appears to have extended its sway over the tribes occupying south-western Asia and north-eastern Africa, everywhere supporting its power by force of arms, and introducing a debasing polytheistic hero-worship and * Appendix I. 242 ABOHAU. oertain fonns of art probably deriyed from antedl* -^iKH times. The centre of this Oushite empire, howayer, gaye way to the rising power of Assyria or the Ashorite bramdi of the sons of Shem, at a period antecedent to the dawn of profane history, except in its mythical form ; and when die light of secular history first breaks on ns, we find Egypt standing forth as the only stable representatiye of the arts, the systems and the superstitions of the old Gushite empire, of which it had been t^e southern branch ; while other remnants of the Hamite races, included in ikt empire of Nimrod, were scattered oyer western Asia, and migrating into Europe, with or after the ruder but less demoralised sons of Japheth, carried with tLdm their cha* racteristio civilization and mythology, to take root in new forms in G-reece and Italy.* Meanwhile the Assyrian and Persian (Elamite) races were growing in middle Asia, and probably driving the more eastern remnants of the Nim- rodio empire into India, borrowing at the same time tibeir superstitions and their claims to universal dominion. These views, which I believe to correspond with the few notices in the Bible and in ancient history, and to be daily * On the biblical view of this subject, the so-called Ariaa mythology, common to India and Qreece, is either a derivativ* from the Oushite civilisation, or a spontaneous growth of the Japetic stock scattered by the Oushite empire. The Semitic and Hamitic mythologier are derived from the primeval cherubic worship of Bden, corrupted and mixed with adoration of deified ancestors and heroes. (See Appendix E.) wjipf'^ THX RI8T or THl ORSATOB. 848 receiving new oonfiimations firom the inveetigatioDfl of ih» ancient ABsyrian monuments, enable us to understand many mysterious problems in the early history of man* They give us reason to suspeot that the principle of the first empire was an imitation of the antediluvian world, and that its arts and customs were mainly derived from that source. They show how it happens that Egypt, a country so far removed from the starting-point of man after the deluge, should appear to be the cradle of the arts, and they account for the Hamite and pwhaps antediluvian elements, mixed with primeval biblical ideas, as the cherU' bim, &c., in the old heathenism of India, Assyria and Southern Europe, and "sHiich they share with Egypt, hav- ing derived them from the same source. They also show how it is that in the most remote antiquity, we find two well developed and oi^)08ite religious systems; the pure theism of Noah, and those who retained his faith, an the idolatry of those tribes which r^arded with adoring r ration the grander powers and objects of nature, the mighty Cainites of the world b^ore the fiood, and the po&t-diln- vian leaders who followed th^n in their violence, thdr cultivation of the arts, and their rebellion against God. These heroes were identified with imaginauve conceptions of the heavenly bodies, animals, and othor natural objects, associated with the fortunes of citieri and nations, with particdar territories, and with war and the useful arts, transmitted under different names to one country aflbw another, and localised m each; md it is only in compaift* 244 ABOHAIA. tiyely modern timeg, that we have been able to reoogniae the fiill certainty of the view held long since by many inge> nioQs writers, that among the greater gods of Egypt and Assyria, and of consequence among those also of Greece and Home, were Nimrod, Ham, Ashur, Noah, Mizraim, and other worthies and tyrants of the old world; and to suspect that Tnbalcain and Naamah, and other antediluvian names, were similarly honoured, though sub- sequently overshadowed by more recent divinities. The later Assyrian readings of Col. Rawlinson and Dr. Hincks, and the more recent works on Egyptian Antiquities, are full of pr^nant hints on these subjects. It would, how- ever, lead us too far from our immediate subject to enter more fully into these questions. I have referred to them merely to point out connecting-links between the secular and sacred history of the earlier part of the human period, as a useful sequel to our comparison of the sacred history with the conclusions of science, and as furnishing hints which may guide the geologist in connecting the human with the tertiary period, and in distinguishing between the antediluvian and post-diluvian portions of the former. In relation to this last aspect of the subject, we may fairly infer that the regions in which remains of antedilu- vian nations are most likely (according to the Bible) to be discovered, are the Aralo-Caspian plain, and the skirts of the Caucasus and Elburz mountains, and the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates. In connection with this, it may be remarked, that there is good geological evidence that both TBI B18T or TBI OBIAVOB. 245 the OauoasoB and the Himmalayah have ezperienoed im- portant elevatoxy moyemente in the later tertiary or modem periods, and that in the same periods the Oaspian r^on has heen depressed far below its present level.* These movements were possibly oonnected with the diluvial catas- trophe. We may also infer that the oldest remains of post-diluvial population, are to be looked for along the courses of the Euphrates and Tigris, though it is likely that nothing now remains older than the Assyrian dynas- ties that succeeded the old Cushite empire ; or that, if such remains exist, they may be deeply covered by the alluvial deposits of the rivers. Some fortunate discovery in these r^ons may yet, perhaps, enable us to fix with accuracy the point in geol<^oal time at which the human race ori- ginated, and its precise relations to the fauna of the later tertiary era. * See Appendix H. CHAPTER XVI. UKITT AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN. Qi>. X. 22 : " These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations : and by these were the na- tions divided in the earth after the flood." Thb theologians and evangelical christians of our time, and with them the credibility of the Holy Scripturen^ are supposed by many to have been impaliMl on a zoological and archaeological dilemma, in a manner which renders nugatory all attempts to reconcile the Mosaic cosmogony with science. The Bible, as we have seen, knows but one Adam, and that Adam not a myth or an ethnic name, but a veritable man: but some naturalists and ethnologists think that they have found decisive evidence that man is not of one but of several origins. The religious tendency of this doctrine no christian can fail to perceive. In what- ever way put, or under whatever disguise, it renders the Bible history worthless, reduces us to that isolation of race from race cultivated in ancient times by the various local idolatries, and destroys the brotherhood of man and the uni- versality of that christrian atonojaent which proclaims that " as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." Fortunately, however, the greater weight of scientific authority is still on the side of the Bible, and philology oomes in with strong corroborative evidence. But just as mCITT AND AMTIQUITT OF MAN. S47 the orthodox theologian is banning to congratulate him- lelf on the aid he has thos reo^ved, some of his new fKends gravely tell him that, in order to maintain their view, it it necessary to belieye that man has resided on earth fbr countless ages, and that it is quite a mistake to suppose that his starting-point Is so reoent as the Moeaio deluge. Nay, some very rampant theorists of the new American ethnological school, try to pierce Moses and his abettors with both horns of the dilemma at once, maintaining that men are of different species, and that tliey have existed for an enormous length of time as well. To sift thoroughly the mass of fact and supposed fact that has been accumulated by the advocates of the plura- lity of origin and pre-adamite antiquity of man, would demand a treatise of itself; but the question really hinges on a few poiots. These I shall endeavour to present to the reader as clearly as possible in a single chapter, that he may be able to weigh for himself the influence which they should have on our interpretation of the Bible or belief in its authority. I shall take first the question as to the unity of man, in its zoological aspect. The last common ground on which all opinions on this subject meet, is ihe truth that in nature all animals occur in species or " according to their kinds ;" these species being according to the Bible direct products of the crea- tive power, and science as yet knows nothing to the contrary of this. From this point the opinions of naturalists di- verge. Some maintain that men are of one species and u» A&OBAU. one origin. Others hold the ipeeifio unity in % limited flense, bat deny the common origin. Others deny both, erecting the races of men into distinct species. It is the difference here as to the real nature of species that compli- oates the question in its natural history aspect. If we are content to admit that the individuals of the species in natural history may or may not have had a common origin, we give up not only all the evidence that natural history ean afford as to the unity of man, but also as to the crea- tion of any species. We really give up much more, and unsettle the very foundations of natural science ; but this does not concern us here. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that the idea of species is necessarily connected with community of origin, we still have to show that the races of men present the characters, not of distinct species, but of varieties of one. We might, it is true, in such a case fairly throw the burden of proof on our opponents, and require them to show, in the case of some considerable number of species, that the individuals of each actually have had different points of origin ; and next, that these cases are, in their leading features, parallel to that of man. I prefer, however, the bolder and simpler course, of inquiry as to the positive evidence afforded by species of their unity of origin, and then as to that which connects all the races of man as parts of one species. I. What, then, are species ? Here it must be observed, that it is much more difficult to give a good definition of species than to assure ourselves of the reality of the exist- mflTT AMD ANTlQmrr OF MAH. enee of speeifie fbrms. Cuvier defined species to Ih " the ooUeciion of all the beings descended the one from the other, or from common parents, and of those which bear as close a resemblance to these as they bear to each other." De CandoUe somewhat modifies Cuvier's definition, in form though not in purport, including under one species all the individuals which bear to each other "so close a resem- blance as to allow of our supposing that they have proceeded originally from a single being or a single pair." Both these definitions assume continuous descent from a primal form or protoplast ^ and this view Dr, Morton, with a special application to the human race, has sought to express by defining species to be a group of individuals descended from a " primordial organic form," Other naturalists^ wishing to avoid, on the one hand, the hypothesis of deft- cent from a single pair, and on the other the obscurity arising from the question of the origin of primordial forms, have sought to frame a definition based simply on the created origin and observed properties of species. The most successful of these is, perhaps, that of Prof. Dana,* who defines species to be, "a specific amount or condition of concentrated force defined in the act or law of creation " ; a definition which, without stating it in terms, fully implies Jl that is demanded by that of Cuvier. But this and ail similar attempts have an abstract character which sepa- rates them very widely from the facts with which natural- TboQghts on Species, Sillimaa's Journal. 250 ABOHAU. ists work in determining speoiea. This and the previous difficulties Prof. Agassiz attempts to overcome by a defini- tion which assumes nothing, and confines itself to the mero apparent differences and resemblances. He regards a species as consisting of individuals distinguished by their relations " to one another and the world in which they live, as well as by the proportions of their parts, theiroma- mentation/' &c.t This definition is so vague that it allows room even to infer that the same species may have origi- nated from many protoplasts scattered in different places. It amounts, indeed, to little more than an admission that we cannot define species without including with the ob- served facts the deducti(ms as to unity of origin to which they lead. Let us inquire, Uien, how naturalists determine species, that we may if possible learn from this what is the real nature of the specific unit. We can determine species only by the comparison of individuals. If all these agree In all their characters ex- cept those aj^rtaining to sex, age, and other conditions of the individual merely, we say that they belong to the same species. If all species were invariable to this extent, . there could be no practical difficulty, except that of obtainii^ specimens for comparison. But in the case of vary many species there are minor differences, not sufficient to esta- blish specific diversity, but to suggest its possibility ; and in such cases there is often great liability to error. In t OontributioBS to Natural History of America, Yol. I, TJNITT AND ANTIQUITY OF HAN. 251 oases of this kind we have principally two criteria ; first, tlie nature and amount of the differences ; secondly, their ediading gradually into each other, or the contrary. Under the first of these we inquire : — Are they no greater in amount than those which may be observed in individuals of the same parentage ? Are thoy zto greater than those which occur in other species of sin^ilar structure or habits ? Do they occur in points known in other species to be readily variable, or in points that usually remain un- changed? Are none of them constant in the one supposed spxiies, and constantly absent in the other? Under the second we ask — Are the individuals presenting these difierences connected together by individuals show- ing a series of gradations uniting the extremes by minute di^ees of difference ? If we can anpwer these questions —or such of them as we have the means of answering — in the affirmative, we have no hesitation in referring all to the same species. If obliged to answer all or many in the native, we must at least hesitate in the identification ; and if the material is abundant, and the distinguishing characters clear and well defined, we conclude that there is a specific difference. Species determined in this way must possess certain general properties in common : 1. Their individuals must fall within a certain range of uniform characters, wider or narrower in the case of dif- ferent species. 2. The intervals between species must be distinctly marked, and not slurred over by intermediate gradations. 252 AROBLOA. 3. The specific characters must be invariably toansmit< ted from generation to generation, so that they remain equally distinct in their limits if traced backward or for- ward in time. 4. Within the limits of the species there is more or less liability to variation ; and this though perhaps developed by external circumstances, is really inherent in the species, and must necessarily form a part of its proper description.* These general properties of species will, I think, be ad- mitted by all naturalists as based on nature, and absolutely necessary to the existence of natural history as a soience.f • See, for farther illustration of these riews, Agassiz "Con- tributions to Natural History of America," vol 1, p. 51 ; Dana, " Thoughts on Species," Proceedings American Association and Silliman's Journal, 1856; Carpenter, "Varieties of Mankind, Todd's Cyclopedia; Pritchard, "Natural History of Man." f Certain views expressed by Mr. C. Darwin and Mr. Wallace in the Linnean Transactions for 1868, may be regarded as hos- tile to some of the general principles stated in the text, and as almost amounting to a revival of those exploded Lamarckian ideas of the transmutation of species, which are the extreme opposite of the views of Agassiz ; and yet, as often h&ppcss in such cases, meet them at certain points. I have seen only ab- stracts of these papers, but I believe Mr. Darwin's view to extend no farther than the assertion that withiu the limits of variation of a species there will be some varieties more capable of con- tinuous propagation and subsistence than others ; and that these last will die out, so that the species will ultimately be repre- sented, not by its typical form, but by a variety. This does not affect the question of the nature of species ; and, in so for as it a ti tINITT AND ANTIQUITY OP MAN. 263 I now proceed to give a similar summary of the laws of the varieties which may exist — always, be it observed, within the limits of the species. 1. The limits of variation are very different in different species. There are many in wliich no well-marked varia- tions have been observed. There are others in which the variations are so great that they have been divided, even by skilful naturalists, into distinct species or even genera. I do not here refer to differences of age and sex. These in many animals are so great that nothing but actual knowledge of the relation that subsists, would prevent the individuals from being entirely separated from one another. I refer merely to the varieties that exist in adults of the same sex, including, however, those that depend on arreet of development, and thus make the adult of one variety is true, perhaps means merely that since Tariability is a means of accommodation to physical changes, the species will follow the pressure of these as far as its elasticity permits. Mr. Wal- lace goes farther, and, because some species can vary very far from their original type, supposes that such variation may be indefinite. This assumption, for it can be nothing else, involves consequences in the indefinite gradation of specific forms which are contrary to all experience. I do not, therefore, think it ne- cessary to resume here the controversies about unlimited varia- tion and development which were urged some time since, and are now being supplanted by an opposite tendency equally unsafe, which, while professing great nicety as to specific deter- mination, threatens to break down the distinction of species in another way. (See Appendix F.) 254 ABOHAIA. resemble in some respects the young of another ; as, for instance, in the hornless oxen, and beardless individuals in man. If we inquire as to the causes on which the greater or less disposition to vary depend, we must, in the first place, confess our ignorance, by sayin^- th. i it appears to be in a great measure constitutional, or dependent on minute and as yet not distinctly appreciable structural, physiological, and psychical characters. We know, how- ever, very well, certain properties of species that are always or usually connected with great liability to variation. The principal of these are the following: — 1. The liability to vary is, in many oases, not merely a specific peculiarity ; it is often general in the members of a genus or femily. Thus the cats, as a family, are little prone to vary ; the wolves and foxes very much so. 2. Species that are very widely distributed over the earth's surface are usually very variable. In this case the capacity to vary probably adapts the creature to a great variety of circumstances, and so enables it to be widely distributed. It must be observed here that hardiness and variability of constitution are more important to extensive distribution than mere loco- motive powers, for matters have evidently been so arranged in nature, that, where the habitat is suitable, colonists will find their way to it, even in the face of difficulties almost insurmountable. 3. Constitutional liability to vary is sometimes connected with or dependent en extreme sim- plicity of structure, in other cases on a high degree of intelligence and consequent adaptation to various modes UNITT AND ANTIQUITT OF MAN. Wi of oabsistence. Those minute, simply organised, and very variable creatures, the Foraminifera, exemplify the first of these apparent causes ; the crafty wolves furnish examples of the second. 4. Susceptibility to variation is farther modified by the greater or less adaptability of the digestive and locomotive organs to varied kinds of food and habitat. The monkeys, intelligent, imitative, and active, are never- theless very limited in range and variability, because they can comfortably subsist only in forests, and in the warmer regions of the earth. The hog, more sluggish and less intelligent, has an omnivorous appetite, and no very spe- cial requirements of habitat, and so can vary greatly and extend over a large portion of the earth. Further in con- nection with this subject, it may be observed that the con- ditions favourable to variation are also in the ease of the higher animals favourable to domestication. 2. Varieties may originate in two different ways. In the case of wild animals it is generally supposed that they ai'e gradually induced by the slow operation of external influences ; but it is certain that in domesticated animals they often appear suddenly and unexpectedly^ and are not on that account at all less permanent. A large proportion of our breeds of domestic animals appear to originate in this way. Examples may be found in Pritchard, Eoulin, Ba«ribed by Darwin in his Voyage of a Naturalist. These cattle are believed to have originated about a century ago among the Indians to the south of the ha, Plata, and the breed propagates itself with great constancy. " They appear," says Darwin, " ex- ternally to hold nearly the same relation to other cattle which bull-dogs hold to other dogs. Their forehead is very short and broad, with the nasal end turned up, uud the upper lip much dmwn back j their lower jaws project out- wards; when walking they i.^rry tlieir heads low on a short neck, and their hinder lega are rather loiter com- pared with the front legs than h utjual." It is farther remarkable in re8^>ect to thi^ breed that it is, from its con- formation of bead, less adapted to the severe droughts of those regions than the ordinary cattle, and cannot, there> fore, be rogarded as an adaptation to circumstances.* Many writers on the subject of the Unity of Man assume that anj marked variety must require a long time for its production. Our experience in the case of the domestic • Darv/in iufbrma us that +he cattle introduced into the Falkland Islands, hare assumed three varieties of colour, which appear to keep themselves distinct. In the same Islands the' common rabMt has split into two varieties, one of which has been described as a distinct species. In St. Helena and the Gallipagos the rat has passed into varieties very distinct from the common breeds. All these changes must have oocurred' within a few geaecatioBSv UNITY AND ANTIQITITT OF HAN. 257 Animals teaches the reverse of this view ; a very important point in this oontroversy, too often overlocked. 8. Th?. duration or permanenc43 of varieties is very dif- ferent. S >me return at onoe to the normal type when the faases ' >f c.hange are removed. Others perpetuate them- selves nearly as invariably as speeies, and are named races. It is these races only that we are likely to mistake for true r^pecics, since here we have that permanent reproduc- tion which is one of the characteristics of the species. The race, however, wants the other characteristics of species as above stated ^ and it differs essentially in having branched from a primitive species, and in not having an independent origin. It is quite evident that in the absence of histori- cal evidence, we must be very likely to err by supposing races to have really originated in distinct "primordial forms." Such error is especially likely to arise, if we over- look the fact of the sudden origination of such races, and their great permanency if kept distinct. There are two facts which deserve especial notice, as removing some of the difficulty in such cases. One is, that well-marked races usually originate only in domesticated animals, or in wild animals which, owing to accidental circumstances, are placed in abnormal circumstances. Another is, that there always remains a tendency to return, in favourable circum- stances, to the original type. The domesticated races usually require a certain amount of care to preserve them in a state of purity ; both on this account, and on account of the readiness with which they intermix with other varie- 258 ABOHAU. ties of the same species. Many very interesting facts in illustration of these points might be addnoeu. TLu do mesticated hog diflfers in many important characters from the wild boar. In South America and the West Indies it has returned, in three centuries or less, to its original form.* The horse is probably not known in a state ori- ginally wild, but it has run wild in America and in Siberia. In the prairies of North America, according to Gatlin,f they still show great varieties of colour. The same is the case in Sauiti Island, off the coast of Nova Scotia,;}; where herds of wild horses have existed since an early period in the set^ tlement of America. In South America and Siberia they have assumed a uniform chesnut or bay colour. In the plains of Western America they retain the dimensions and vigour of the better breeds of domesticated horses. In Sable Island they have already degenerated to the level of Highland ponies; but, in all countries where they have run wild, the elongated and arched head, high shoulder, straight back, and other structural characters, probably of the original wild horse, have appeared. We also learn £rom such instances, that, while races among domesticated animals may appear suddenly, they revert to the original type, when unmixed, comparatively slowly ; and this espe- cially when the variation is in the nature of degeneracy. 4. Some characters are more subject to variation than others. We have already ascertained that variation never * Pritchard. f " North American Indians." t Haliborton's Nova Scotia ; Gilpin's Lecture on Sable Island. UNITY AMD AMTIQUITT OV MAN. 269 proceeds beyond the limits of the species. Consequently it cannot apply to those characters which are distinctive of the genus, or the order or class. But among the charao- ters of the species there are some that are usually little liable to change. In the higher animals variation takes place very readily in the colour and texture of the skin and its appendages. This, from its direct relation to the external world, and ready sympathy with the condition of the digestive organs, might be expected to take the lead. In those domesticated animals which are little liable to vary in other respects, as the cat and duck, the colour very readily changes. Next may be placed the stature and external proportions, and the form of such appendages as the external ear and tail. All these characters are very variable in domestic animals. Next we may place the form of the skull, which, though little variable in the wild state, is nearly always changed by domestication. Psy- chological functions, as the so-called instincts of animals, are also very liable to change, and to have these changes perpe- tuated in races. Very remarkable instances of this have been collected by Sir C. Lyell* and Dr. Pritchard. Lastly, important physiological characters, as the period of gesta- tion, &c., and the structure of the internal organs connected with the functions of nutrition, respiration, &c., are little * Principles of Gkology ; Natural History of Han. See also a very able article on the Varieties of Man, by Dr. Carpenter, in Todd's Cyclopedia. '860 ABOHAIA. liable to change, and remaiu una£fected by the most ex- treme variations in other points. 5. Varieties or races of the same species are fully repro- ductive with each other, which is not the case with true species. Attempts have been made by Dr. Morton and others to prove that mixed races, resulting from the union of individuals of distinct species, have been produced ; but, on carefully examining the evidence adduced, I find that the greater part of it consists of very doubtful statements ; and that no good case of this exceptional fact has really been made out. Dr. Bachman has, I think, very satis- factorily disproved the allegations o£fered on this point. Independently of this controversy, however, to which an exaggerated importance has been attached — even by Prof. jLgassiz, who writes as if naturalists had based the whole question on this one point,* — there are certain general principles which can scarcely be disputed: — 1. Intermix- ture of distinct species rarely, if ever, occurs freely in nature. It is generally a result of artificial contrivance. 2. Hybrids produced from species known to be distinct, are either wholly barren, or barren inter se, reproducing only with one of the original stocks, and rapidly return- ing to it ; or if ever fertile inter se, which is somewhat doubtful, rapidly run out. It has been maintained, espe- cially by Dr. Nott and Prof. Agaasiz, that there is still another possibility, namely, that of the perfect and con- * Contributions to the Natural History of America — Sectioa on Specie , UNITT AND ANTIQmTT Of MAN. 961 tinned fertility of such mixed races ; but their only proofii arc derived from the intermixture of the races of men, of dogs, and of poultry, all of which are cases actually in di0> pute at present, as to the original unity or diversity of the so-called species. II. We next proceed to inquire whether the characters of the races of men are those of distinct species, or only of permanent varieties. 1. It is necessary to premise that the case of man is not that of a wild animal ; and that it presents many points of difference even from the case of the domesticated lower animals. According to the Bible history, man was origi* nally fitted to subsist on fruits, to inhabit a temperate climate, and to be exempt from the necessity of destroying or contending with other animals. This view unquestion- ably accords very well with his organisation. He still subsists principally on vegetable food, is most numerous in the warmer regions of the earth ; and, when so subsist- ing in these regions, is naturally peaceful and timid. On the whcle, however, his habits of life are artificial — more so than those of any domesticated animal. He is, there- fore, in the conditions most favourable to variation. Again, man possesses mt)re than merely animal instincts. His mental powers permit him to devise means of locomo- tion, of protection, of subsistence, far superior to those of any mere animal ; and his dominant will, insatiable in its desires, bends the bodily frame to uses and exposes it to external influences more various than any inferior animal 862 AROHAIA. OMi dream of. Man is also more educable and plastic in his constitution than other animals, owing both to his being less hemmed in by unchanging instincts, and to his physical frame being less restricted in its adaptations. If a single species, he is also more widely distributed than any other ; and there are even single races which exceed in their ezt«nt of distribution nearly all the inferior ani> mals. Nor is there anything in his structure specially to limit him to plains, or hills, or forests, or coasts, or inland r^ons. All the causes which we can suppose likely to produce variation thus meet in man, who is himself the producer of most of the distinct races that we observe in the lower animals. If, therefore, we condescend to com- pare man with these creatures, it must be under protest that what we learn from them must be understood with reference to his greater capabilities. Another point which deserves notice under this head, is that man, whether or not a single species, constitutes a single genus, and this genus the only one of its order. The structural differences between man and the lower ani- mals have always indicated the propriety of constituting a distinct order for man. Professor Owen has very clearly pointed out the enormous width of the space which sepa- rates man from the most anthropoid of the apes ; and in his admirable new arrangement of the mammals, based on the form and complexity of the brain,* he separates man in the order Archencephala, rightly deciding that his her- * Journal of Linnean Society, 1857. VNITT AND ANTIQUITT OF HAH. 203 TOQB centre differs very materially in its stmotare and the proportions of its parts from that of all other mammals. These facts afford an additional reason for caution in com- paring man with the creatures beneath him. 2. The races of man are deficient of some of the essen- tial characters of species. It is true that they are repro- duced with considerable permanency; and it has even been assorted that no change whatever can be established. But this is not the f&ot ; though, from the intermixture of races, doubt may be thrown on many of the instances that have been adduced. The Jew, dispersed over all the world, but preserving his race almost unmixed, is fair or xanthous in the north of Europe, of a dark complexion in the south of Europe, and in Malabar, absolutely black. The Arab, in like manner, is fair in the mountains of Yemen ; black in Lower Mesopotamia and in Nubia. In both oases the features have experienced less change than the colour. The Magyars of Hungary and the Turks have, however, lost the characteristic Mongolian features of their ances- tors and assumed those of Europeans.* The Anglo-Ameri- can of the United States can already be easily distinguished ftom the Englishman. The same is the case with the French Canadian. Both, in those districts where they have been little mixed with new European blood, are gradually assuming a cast of feature and skull tending perhaps in some d^ree to those of the aboriginal American. * Carpenter, Todd's Oyclo., Pritchard, Latham, Layard. No doubt there have been mixtures more or less in the latter cases. 264 A&OHAIA. Similar changes have already been observed in Australia. The Negro population of the United States is now ex- tremely different, both in colour and form, from the low- oaste Africans in whom it originated ; and the difference is greater than the probable mixture of European blood can account for. Such changes are, however, necessarily slow, and the observation of them is difficult. But the most manifest deficiency in true specific characters, is in the invariable shading'off of one race into another, and in the entire failure of those who maintain the distinction of species, in the attempt accurately to define their number and limits. The characters run into each other in such a manner that no natural arrangement based on the whole can apparently be arrived at; and when one particular ground is taken, as colour, or shape of skull, the so-called species have still no distinct limits ; and all the arrange- ments formed differ from each other, and from the deduc- tions of philology and history. Thus, from the division of Virey into two species, on the entirely arbitrary ground of facial angle, to that of Bory de St. Vincent into fifteen, we have a great number and variety of distinctions, all incapable of zoological definition ; or, if capable of defini- tion, eminently v.anatural. One of the latest attempts of this kind is contained in an eccentric essay by the late Mr. Gliddon, in the conglomeration of works entitled the " Indigenous Baoes of the Earth." The essay, " The Monogenists and the Polygenists," is characterised mXich more by a rabid spirit of hostility to the scriptures than by I7NITT ANB AMTIQtnTT OT MAN. 265 wientifio precision ; bat its substance is attempted to be embodied in an " Ethnographic Tableau," exhibiting spe- cimens of the races of mankind, arranged first in the eight "reahns" or r^ons indicated by Prof. Agassiz, and then in no less than sixty-five groups, called " families " by the author. The production is interesting, as exhibiting in a striking manner the difficulty of arriving at a separa- tion of tT^e human race into distinct groups. The rows of heads are intended to be read horizontally ; but, if they are traced vertically or diagonally, we find nearly as great coincidences in colour, hair, feature, and skull, as in the direction intended to mark out the specific realms or fami- lies. The whole — if the representations could be relied on as fair average illustrations of the races — would form a very good antidote to the tendency of the book in which it appears; and it is certainly worthy of men who, like one of the contributors to the volume, can say in one breath that men appear to be of distinct species, and in the next that this question loses its importance " in the presence of a still higher one — the original diversity of all organic forms."* * I cannot conceal my belief that the appearance of such works as the "Types of Mankind" and "Indigenous Races of the Earth," which, under pretence of scientific investigation! deal so much in unverified statements as to facts, garbled quo- tations, and confused and illogical controversy, boldly asserting as facts or acknowledged principles the most doubtful prcposi- tions, and regarding with skepticism the best established resultf 266 AROHATA. 3. The races of men di£fer in those points in which the higher animals usually yaiy with the grwatest fiMsility. The physical characters chiefly relied on have been colour, character of hair and form of skull, t(^ther with diversi- tief« in stature and general proportion. These are precisely the points in whidi our domestic races are most prone to vary. The manner in which these characters differ in the races of men may be aptly illustrated by a £ew examples of the arrangements to which they lead. Dr. Pickering, of the U. S. Exploring Ei^dition,*^ — who does not, however, commit himself to any specific dis- tinctions; — ^has arranged the various races of men on the very simple and obvious ground of colour. He obtains in this way four races — the White, the Brown, the Blackish- brown, the Black. The distinction is easy; but it divides races historically, philologically, and structurally alike; and unites those which, on other grounds, would be sepa- rated. The white race includes the Hamlte Abyssinian, the Semitic Arabian, the Japetio Greek. The Ethiopian or Berber is separated &om the cognate Abyssinian, and the dark Hindoo from the paler races speaking like him tongues allied to the Sanscrit. The Papuan, on the other hand, takes his place with the Hindoo ; while the allied of previous investigations,—- are most discreditable to American science. It is even more lamentable that men like Agassis and Leidy should allow themselves to be identified with such works. * The Races of Men, &c. Boston, 1848. UNITT AND ANTIQITITT OF MAN. 267 Australian must be content to rank with the Negro ; and the Hottentot is promoted to a place beside the Malay. It is unnecessary to pursue any farther the arrangement of this painstaking and conscientious inquirer. It conclu- sively demonstrates that the colour of the varieties of the human race must be arbitrary and accidental, and altoge- ther independent of unity or diversity of origin. Much use has been made, by the advocates of diver- sity of species, of the quality of the hair in the different races. That of the Negro is said to be flat in its cross section — in this respect approaching to wool. That of the European is oval ; and that of the Mongolian and Ameri- can round.* The subject has as yet been very imperfectly investigated , but its indications point to no greater variety than that which occurs in many domesticated animals — as, for instance, the hog and sheep. Nay, Dr. Carpenter states,! — and the writer has satisfied himself of the fact by his own observation, — that it does not exceed the differ- ences in the hair from different parts of the body of the same individual. The human hair, like that of mammals in general, consists of three tissues : an outer cortical layer, marked by transverse striae, having in man the aspect of delicate lines, but in many other animals assuming the character of distinct joints or prominent serrations; a layer of elongated, fibrous cells, to which the hair owes most of its tenacity; and an inner cylinder of rounded * Browne, of Philadelphia, quoted by Eneeland and others. t Todd's Cyclopedia, Art. Yarieties of Man. 268 ABOHAIA. oells. In the proportionate development of these several parts, in the quantity of oolooring matter present, and in the transverse section, the human hair differs very consi- derably in different parts of the body. It also differs very markedly in individuals of different complexions. Similar but not greater differences obtain in the hair of the scalp in different races ; but the flatness of the Negro's hair connects itself inseparably with the oval of the hair of the ordinary European, and this with the round observed in some other races. It generally hoids that curled "».nd friz- zled hair is flatter than that which is lank and straight; but this is not constant, for I have found that the waved or frizzled hair of the New Hebrideans, intermediate ap- parently between the Polynesians and Papuans, is nearly circular in outline, and differs from European hair mainly in the greater development of the fibrous structure and the intensity of the colour. Large series of comparisons are required ; but those already made point to variation rather than specific difference. Some facts also appear to indicate very marked differences as occurring in the same raiee from constant exposure or habitual covering ; and also the occa- sional appearance of the most abnormal forms, without apparent cause, in individuals. The differences depending on greater or less abundance or vigour of growth of the hair, are obviously altogether trivial, when compaared with such examples as the hairless dogs of Chili, axid hairless cattle of Brazil ; or even with the differences in thit respeet observed in individuals of the game race oi inea. UMTIT AND AMTIQUITT OT MAN. 269 Confessedly the mmt important differences of the raoes of men are those of the skeleton, in all parts of which Tariations of proportion occur, and are of course more or leas communicated to the muscular investments. Of these, as they exist in the pelvis, limbs, &o., 7. need say nothing ; for, manifest though they are, they all fall far within the limits of variation in familiar domestic animals, and also of hereditary malformation or defect of development occur- ring in the European nations, and only requiring isolation for its perpetuation as a race. The differences in the skull merit more attention, for it is in this and in its enclosed brain that man most markedly differs from the lower animals, as well as race from race. It is in the form rather than in the mere dimensions of the skull that we should look for specific differences ; and here, adopting the vertical methodof Blumenbach, asthe most characteristic and valu- able, we find a greater or less antero-posterior diameter — a greater or less development of the jaws and bones of the lace. The skull of the normal European, or Caucasian of Cuvier, is round oval ; and the jaws and cheek-bones pro- ject little beyond its anterior margin, when viewed from above. The skull of the Mongolian of Cuvier is nearly rouiid, and the cheek-bones and jaws project much more strongly in front and at the sides. The N^o skull is lengthened from back to front ; the jaws project strongly, or are prognathous ; but the cheek-bones are little promi- n«tt. For the extremes of thnse varieties, Betzius has proposed the very suitable names of brafihy-kephalic or rs I! i. 270 ABOHAtA. shortrheaded, and dolioho-kephalio or long-headed. The differences indicated by these terms are of great interest, 9B distinctive marks of many of the nnmixed races of men ; bu.t, when pushed to extremes, lead to very incorrect gene- ralisations — as Prof. D. Wilson has well shown in his paper on the supposed uniformity of type in the American races — a doctrine which he fully refates, by showing that within a very tc. )it,.»w geographical range, this primitive and unmixed r :7:*esent8 very great differences of cranial form.* I > - <^ivc of idiots, artificially compressed heads, and deforsi < I ; j, ^ii>3 differences between the brachy-kephalie and doliohoke ■' \c heads, range from equality in the pari- etal and longituiilual diameter to the proportions of about 14 to 24. As stated by some ethnologists, these differ- ences appear quite characteristic and distinct ; but, so soon as we attempt aiy minute discrimination, all confidence in them as specific characters disappears. In our ordinary European races similar differences, and nearly as extensive, occur. The dolicho-kephalic head is really only an imma- ture form perpetuated ; and appears not only in the Negro but in the Eskimo, and in certain ancient and modem Celtic races. The braohy-kephalic head, in like manner, is characteristic of certain tribes and portion*? of tribes of Americans, but not of all; of many nirihern Asiatic na- tions ; of certain Celtic and SoandinaviriD tribes ; and oikii appears in the modem European races as an occasional oharacter. Farther, as Retzius has well shown, the long * Canadian Journal, 185*7. VNITT AND AMTKIVITT OT MAN. m heads and prominent jaws are not always associated with «aoh other ; and his olassifioation, as quoted hy Br. Meigs,* is really the testimony of an able observer against the value of these eharaoters. He shows that the Celtic and Gerr manic races (in part) have long heads and straight jaws ; while the Negroes, Auf tralians, Oceanians, Caribs, Green- landers, &C., have Ion ^ heads and prominent jaws. The Laplanders, Fins, Turks, Selaves, Persians, &e., have short heads and straight jaws ; while the Tartars, Mongo- lians, Ineas, Malays, Papuans, &c., have short heads and prominent jaws. Another defect in the argument often based on the diverse forms of heads, is its want of acknowledgment of the ascertained and popularly known fact, that these forms in different tribes or individuals of the same race, are markedly influenced by culture and habits of life. In all races ignorance and debasement tend to induce a progna- tiious form, while culture tends to the elevation of the nasd bones, to an orthognathous condition of the jaws, and to an elevation and expansion of the cranium. Any observer may satisfy himself of this by examination of the &cial forms in the natives of those ruder districts in Great Britain and Irelandjf wh^e the type has not been modified by culture, * Indigenoas Races, p. 253. t See Carpenter in Todd's Cyclopedia. These facts are re- markably manifest in the lower class of immigrants to America, whether from Britain, Ireland, or the continent of Europe. It is a question how far poor food and exposure, as well as the causes before mentioned, may tend to give a degraded form of skull. ^'30% 272 ABOBAU. and where he will often find forma as coarse as those d the N(^o or Mongol. Again, no adequate allowance has been made in the case of these forms of skull, for the influence of modes of nurture in infancy. Dr. Morton, observing that the braohy-kephar lio American skull was often unequal sided, and the occiput much flattened, suggests that this is " an exaggeration of the natural form produced by the pressure of the cradle- board in common use among the American natives." Dr. Wilson has noticed the same unsymmetrioal diaracter in brachy-kephalio skulls in British barrows, and has suspected some artificial agency in infancy; and says, in reference to the American instances, — " I think it extremely prober ble that further investigation will tend to the conclusion that the vertical or flattened occiput, instead of being a typical characteristic, pertains entirely to the class of arti- ficial modifioatious of the natural cranium familiar to the American ethcologist." To what extent may such forms become hereditary, and to what extent may the long heads of Negroes be due to the habit in some African nations of slinging the child sidelong on the back of the mother, in- stead of strapping it to a board as is the custom of the American Indians ? These ate questions pertaining to the nursery, and it might be well to have the verdict of a jur^ of matrons on them, before building new ethnological doc- trines on the comparison of crania. While the points in whidi the races of men vary are those in which lower animals are most liable to unde^ VNITT AND ANTIQTTTTT 01 MAN. 278 change, the seyeral noes display a remarkable oonsianoy in those which are asually less yariable. Pritchard and Oar- penter have well shown this in relation to physiological points, as for instance the age of arriving at maturity, the average and extreme duration of life, and the several pe* riods connected with reproduction. The coincidence in these points alone is by many eminent physiologists justly regarded as sufficient evidence of the unity of the species. 4. It may also be affirmed in relation to the varieties of man> that they do not exceed in amount or extent those observed in the lower animals. If with Frederiek Cuvier, Dr. Carpenter, and many other naturalists, we r^ard the dog as a single species, descended in all probability from the wolf, we can have no hesitation in concluding that this animal far exceeds man in variability.* But this is denied by many, not without some show of reason ; and we may, therefore, select some animal respecting which little doubt can be entertained. Perhaps the best example is the hog, an undoubted descendant of the wild boar, and a creature especially suitable for comparison with man, inasmuch as its possible range of food is very much the same with his, which is not the case with any other of our domesticated animals ; and as its head-quarters as a species are in the same r^ons which have supported the greatest and oldest known communities of men. We, of course, exclude from our comparison the native hogs of the Gape de Yerd Islands, * For an interesting inquiry into the origin of the dog, see the artiele in Todd's Cyclopedia already referred to. m ABOHAIA. of the Mmth of Afirioa, and of Papua, whi<^ have been legarded a« distinot species ; and we need not insist on the Chinese hog, thoogfa this can scarcely claim speoifie di»> linctness. The ookmr of the domestic hog varies, like that of man, from white to black ; and in the black hog the dun as well as the hair partakes of the dark colour. The abundance and <]puiHty of the hair vary eztrem^y ; the stature and fbrm are equally variable, much more so than in man. Blumenbach long ago remarked that the differ- ence between the skull of the ordinary domestic hog and that of the wild boar, is quite equal to that observed be> tween the Negro and European skulls. The breeds of swine even differ in directions altogether unparalleled in man. For instance, both in America and Europe, solid hoofed twine have originated and become a permanent variety ; and there is said to be another variety with five toes.* These are the more remat-kuble, because, in the American instances, there can be no doubo that the common hog has assumed these abnormal forms, \ All varieties or races of men intermix freely, in a man- ^ which strongly indicates specific unity. We hold here, as already stated, that no good case of a permanent race arifiing from intermixture of distinct spcoies of the lower animals has been adduced ; but there is another ^:act in relation to this subject which the advocates of specific diver- mtj would do well to study. Even in varieties of those domestic animals which are certainly specifically identical, * Pritchard, Baehman, Cabell. triflTT AND AHTIQtnTT OF MAM. 275 •B the hog, the sheep, the ox — although citMses between the Ttfieties may be easily prodaoed — they are not readily maintained, and sometimes tend to die out. What are called good crosses lead to improved energy, at id continnid breeding in and in of the same variety leads to degeneracy and decay : bnt, on the other hand, crosses of certain varie- ties are proved by experience to be of weakly and nnpro dnotive qnality ; and every practical book on cattle contains remarks on the difficulty of keeping np crosses, withont intermixture with one of the pure breeds. It would thus appear that very unlike varieties of the same species display in this respect, in an imperfect manner, the peculiarities of distinct species. It is on this principle that I would in part account for some of the exceptional facts which occur in mixed races of men. What, then, are the facts in the o:ise of man ? In pro- ducmg crosses of distinct species, as in the case of the horse and ass, breeders are obliged to resort to expedients to overcome the natural repugnance to such intermixture. In the case of even the most extreme varieties of man, if such repugnance exists, it is voluntarily overcome, as thd slave population of America testifies abundantly. By ftf the greater part of the intermixtures of races of men tend to increase of vital energy and vigour, as in the case of judicious crosses of some domestic animals. Where a dif- ferent result occurs, we usually find sufficient secondary eauses to account for it I shall refer to but one such o&se —that of the half-breed American Indian. In so far as I IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) z. . rations tend to the condusion that these varieties are inseparably connected with external conditions. It may stiU be asked — ^Were not the races created as they are, with especial reference to these conditions? I answer no * Latham, in his late work, " Descriptive Etlinology," illus- trates this fact very tallj, showing that the Tala tribes occupj the dry plateaus, and the Negroes the worst ralleys. He far^ ther adds,— "Hark on a map the areas on which these sever varieties are spread, c<»npare it with the geological ch rt Bussegger, and the closeness of the coincidences will perhaps surprise you. The blacks are found on the Tertiary and recent deposits. The primltiTe and yolcanio tracts will gl /e the Euro- pean faces. The intermediate conformations will be found on the sandstone. Bead Livingstone. The same results will pre- sent themselves, and the author himself will draw attention to them. The Negro is an exceptional African." // VNITT AND ^MTUXffSn Of XAH. 919 indon ■ pre- Ltiottto — beoaoae the difbraiMM mm of a ehyattar in eiery rah p«ol like ihoM thai a|qpear in oHum tnie tftmm m th« fMolta of inflnenoes fion withoat Farther, not only have we Taneiiea of Bum xemltiog fipom the slow operation of olimatal and other oonditioni^ bat we have the sadden development of raoee. One w> markable instance may illustrate my meaning. It is the haiiy family of Siam, described by Mr. Crawford and We, Yqle.* The peonliarities here consisted of a fine silky coat of hair covering the face and less thickly the whole body, with at the same time the entire absence cf dm canine and molar teeth. The person in whom these oha* noters originated was sent to Ava as a cariosity when five years old. He married at twenty-two, his wife bang an ordinary Burmese woman. One of two children wha aorvived infancy, had all the oharaete^s of the &thfir. This was a girl ; and on her marriage, the same charaetem re-i^peared in one of two boys oonstitating her fiunily whi^ seen by Mr. Yale. Here was a variety of a most extreme character, originating without apparent cause, and capable of propagation for three generations, even when crossed with the ordinary type. Had it originated in ciiv oomstances favourable to the preservation of its purity, it Fight have produced a tribe or nation of hairy men, with no teeth except incisors. Such a tribe would, with some ethnologists, have consatuted a new and very distinct spa- des; and any one who liad su^ested the possibility of its * Latiham't Descriptive Bthnology. 280 ABOHAZA. having originated within a few generations as a yariely, would have been laughed at for his credulity. It is unne* oessaiy to cite any farther instances. I merely wish to insist on the necessity of a rigid comparison of the varia* Uons which appear in man, either suddenly or in a slow or secular manner, with the characters of the so-called races or species. I have been obliged, by the finuts to whidi this subject must here be necessarily confined, to restrict myself to a very short review of the points in which the races of men resemble varieties rather than species. Every reader, how- ever, has some knowledge of the facts as to the variations observable in the same and different races, and the pheno- mena connected with them, and may thus mtke the com- parison for himself. Further information may be found in Pritohard,'in Baohman, and in a very useful summary of the argument by Prof. Cabell in his review of the Types of Mankind and Indigenous Baoes of the Earth.* We must now proceed to the third department of our inquiry; Are the individuals of one species necessarily of one oripn, and does the unily of the human species thus prove its unity of origin ? III. A few years ago it would hardly have been consi- dered necessary to ask such a question : naturalists were generally disposed to agree with the great G avier, that " We are under the necessity of admitting the existence of Published separately under the title, "Unity of Mankind." VNirr AMD ANTIQUXTT OF MAN. 281 oertun forms which have perpetuated themBeWes from the banning of the world withoat exceeding the limita first prescribed; all the indiyiduals belonging to one of these forms oonstitate what is termed a species." The necessifj of the case is indeed apparent at first sight. We observe in any species continuous unchanged reproduction and increase. Traced forward, if no obstacles intervened, this would give us indefinite multiplication. Traced back- ward, it would lead to the smallest possible number of individuals; that is, to origin in a single individual, or angle pair. If any one asks us to admit more, he asks us to admit more than a sufficient cause for the observed phenomena, and must, therefore, be put on the proof of the necessily of such additional causes. Farther, he may be required to prove the plurality of origin in the case of every species in question. The only modem naturalist of eminence who seems dis- posed to attempt this proof of the diversity of origin of species, is Prof Agassiz, whose principal argument is the geographical distribution of animals. The world may, in reference to its animal inhabitants, be divided into several zoological districts, more or less distinctly limited, and more or less lai^, in each of which there is a special group of species created for and probably in that region ; but there always are a few species, sometimes many, that are common to two or more r^ons. These species naturalists have usually supposed to have extended themselves from 282 ABOHAIA. one region into another} and the late Prof. E. Forbes* has brought together a remarkable and ourioiu seriefl of facts to show that this must have been actually the case with the plants and animals of the West of Europe.f Prof. Agassiz prefers to believe that these species, common to two centres of creation, have originated separately in each. It is quite plain that no one can be fairly called on to be- lieve this, unless, after making all allowance for possible modes of transference and for changes of surface that may have occurred, there shall remain no possibility of the transmission of the species in question from one of its sup- posed or known centres of creation to the other. Agassiz, however, overlooking the necessity which continuous re- production lays upon us to demand such proof, really begs the question in so far as distribution is concerned, and substituting for evidence a definition of species altogether excluding the idea of common origin, thus tries to shift the burden of proof on his opponents. Let us examine his definition as stated in the Contributions to the Natural History of America. Its shorter form has already been given, but a more full explanation is afforded by the follow- ing passage, which I quote, along with some objections which I have urged against it elsewhere;]: : — * Memoirs of Geological Surrey of Great Britain. t Prof. Gray haa also on similar principles very ably account- ed for the remarkable resemblance of the floras of Eastern< Asia and Eastern America. — (Silliman'a Journal, Aug. 1869.) t Canadian Naturalist and Geologist, Aug. 1868. VNITT AND AKnaUITT Of MAN. " The ■pedei is tax idesl entilj, as much as the genus, the ftmily, the order, the class, or the type ; it oontinnes to exist, while its rejHresentadTes die, genwation after generation. But these representatives do not simply re- present what is specifie in the individual, they exhibit and reproduce in the same manner, generation after generation, all that is generic in them, all that characterises the family, the order, the class, the bnmch, with the same fullness, the same constancy, the same precision. Species, then, exist in nature in the same manner as any other groups ; they are quite as ideal in their mode of existence as genera, families, &c., or quite as real. But individuals truly exist in a different way : no one of them exhibits at one time all the characteristics of the species, even though it be her- maphrodite ; neither do any two represent it, even though the species be not polymorphous; for individuals have a growth, a youth, a mature age, an old age, and are bound to some limited home during their lifetime. It is true, species are also limited in their existence ; but for our pur- pose, we can consider these limits as boundless, inasmuch as we have no means of fixing their duration, either fw the past geological ages, or for the present period, whilst the short cycles of the life of individuals are easily mea- surable quantities. Now, as truly as individuals, while they exist, represent their species for the time being, and do not constitute them, so truly do these same individuals represent at the same time their genus, their family, their order, their class, and their type, the characters of which they bear as indelibly as those of the species." y-! 284 ABOHAU. In this general statement, with the explanations else- where, given of it, in relation to the supposed capacity of species for intermixture, and original creation of nnmben of representatives of the same qpecies in different places, we see much that is objectionable, and a want of that accn- racy of thought which is essential in treating of such a subject. The author, indeed, reverses the processes of sound reasoning — first framing a definition which excludes some of the usual characters of species, and then deducing firom it certain conclusions as to their origin. The defini- tion itself will not endure criticism. First, we cannot admit the high standing here given to the individual animal. The individual is confounded with an entirely different thing, gamely, the tmit of the science. As has been well stated above, the individual rarely represents the species as a whole. To give this we have to employ a series of individuals, including the differ- ences of age and sex, and the limits of variation under external circumstances. The individuals representing these varieties are, therefore, only fractional parts of a unit, which is the species. Let it be observed, also, that the relation here is different from that which subsists between the species and the genus. Each species should have all the generic characters with those that are specific; but each individual, as a fraction of the species, need not neces- sarily possess all the mature characters of the species ; and this is one reason of the indistinct notion in many minds that the limits of species are more uncertain than those of '/ VNXTT AMD AmriQITITT Of MAN. 285 genen. On the other hand, the idea of speoifio unity ia expreaaed by our attaching the apecifio name to any bdi- yidual that we may happen to haye; and even popular •peech expresBea it when it saya the griuly bear, the Arctic fox. Secondly, the speoiea is not merely an ideal unit: it ia a unit in the work of creation. No one better indicates than Agassis the doctrine of the creation of animals; but to what is it that creation refers? — not to genera and higher groups, they express only the relations of things oreated, — not to individuals as now existing, they are the results of the laws of inyariability and increase of the species, — ^but to certain ori^-^nal indiyiduals, protoplasts, formed after their kinds or species, and representing the powers and limits of variation inherent in the species — the potentialities of their existence, as Dana well expresses it. The species, therefore, with all its powers and capaci- ties for reproduction, is that which the Creator has made, his unit in the work, as well as ours in the study. The individuals are merely so many masses of organised matter, in which, for the time, the powers of the species are embo- died ; and the only animal having a true individuality is man, who enjoys this by virtue of mental endowments, over-ruling the instincts which in other animals narrowly limit the action of the individual. To this great difference between the limitations imposed on animals by a narrow range of specific powers, and the capacity for individual action which in man forces even his physical organisation, 286 ABOHAIA. in itself more plutio thin that of mofi other ftninuJs, to bend to his dominant will, we trace not only the Tarietiei of the human species, bnt the changes which man effect! mpon those lower animals which in instincts and oonstitn- iion are sufficiently ductile for domestication. Thirdly, the species is different, not in degree, bnt in kind, from the genus, the order, and the class. We may recognise a generic resemblance in a series of line engraV' ings representing different subjects, bnt we recognise • specific unity only in those struck firom the same plate ; and no one can convince us that the resemblance of a series of coins, medals, or prints, from different dies or plates, is at all of the same kind with that which subsists between those produced from the same die or plate. In like man- ner, the relation between the members of the biood of the songHsparrow of this spring, is of a different kind as well as different degree from that between the song-sparrow and any other species of sparrow. So of the brood of last year to which the parent sparrows may have belonged ; so by parity of reasoning of all former broods, and all song-spar- rows everywhere. The species differs from all other groups in not being an ideal entity, but consisting of individuals struck from the same die, produced by continuous repro- duction from the same creative source. Nor need we sup* pose with our author — for as yet it is merely an hypothesis — that species may have sprung from two or several origins. We cannot be required to assume a cause greater than that which the effect demands ; and if one pair of the American UMITT AND ANTIQUITT Of MAN. 287 Orow or Canada Goose would now be sniBcient, in a oal- enlable number of years, to supply all America with these species, we need not suppose any more. Even in those eases where one eentre of creation appears to be insufficient, this may only be a defect in our information, as to the precise range of the species, its capabilities for accommo- dating itself to external differences of habitat, and the geological changes which may have occurred since its crea- tion. Take the example given at page 40 of the " Contri- butions." The American Widgeon and British Widgeon, and the American and British red-headed Ducks, are d» tinet species. The Mallard and Scaup Duck are common to both sides of the Atlantic. The inference is that since the distinct species of Widgeons and Red Ducks were pro- bably created on the opposite sides of the Atlantic, so were the Mallards, though specifically identical. To prove this is obviously altogether impossible; but even to establish some degree of probability in its favor, it would be neces- sary to show that the Widgeons and Bed Ducks equal the Mallard and Scaup Duck in hardiness, in adaptability to different conditions of climate and food, in migratory in- stinct and physical powers of migration ; and farther, that these species are equally old in geological time. We do not happen to know, in reference to this last particular, which species is the oldest, if there is any difference ; but remains of ducks have been found in the later deposits, and if it should prove that the species now more widely distributed eiisted at a time when the distribution of land 888 .4B0HAIA. and water was different from that which now prevails, we flhoold have a ease quite parallel to many known to geolo- gists, and utterly subversive of the view before us. The Mallard is also an unfortunate instance, firom its well- known adaptation for domesticity, and consequently proved capability of sustaining very different conditions of ezisir enoe. The Scaup Duck, hardy and carnivorous, a searduck and a good diver, and Asiatic as well as European, is pro- bably far better fitted for extensive migration than the Widgeon. It is on such grounds, incapable of positive proof, and with palpable flaws in even the n^ative evi- dence, that we are required to multiply the miracle of creation, rather than to submit patiently to investigate the psychical, physiological, and physical agencies involved in one of the most interesting problems of zoology, the geo- graphical distribution of animals. One farther remark is rendered necessary by the illus- tration above referred to. No one knows better than Agassiz that to compare, in reference to their geographical distribution, animals nearly related, may often lead to errors greater than those likely to result from the compari- son of creatures widely different in structure but adapted for somewhat similar external conditions of existence. It is a fact very curious in itself, independently of this appli- cation, that we find closely related species differing remark- ably in this respect ; and that, on the other hand, animals of ^ery different grades and structures are equally remark- able for wide geographical ranges. The causes of these UNITT AMD AMTIQUITTT Of MAIT. 289 differenoes are often easily found in stractoral, pliysiologi- oal, or psyohical peooliarities ; ba« in many oases th^ depend on minute differences not easily appreciable, or on the effects of geological changes. Fourthly. — Our author commences his dissertation on species by taunting those who maintain the natural limits set to hybridity with a petitio principii. The accusation might be turned against himself. The facts shewing that species in their natural state do not intermix, and that hybrids are only in exceptional cases fertile, so enormously preponderate over the tew cases of fertile hybridity, that the latter may be r^arded as the sort of exception which proves the rule. The practical value of this character in ascertaining the distinctions of species in difficult cases is quite another question, as is the precise nature of the re- semblanoc.o in distinct species which most favour hybridity, and the greater or less fixity of the barrier in the case of species inhabiting widely separated geographical areas, when these are artificially brought together. Nor is the specific unity to be broken down by arguments derived from the difficulty of discriminating or of identifying spe- cies. The limits of variability differ for every species, and must be ascertained by patient investigation of large num- bers of specimens, before we can confidently assert the boundaries in some widely distributed and variable species ; but in the greater number this is not difficult, and in all may be ascertained by patient inquiry. Fifthly. — The above considerations, in connection with ^ ABOBAIA. the doctrines of created protoplasts, and the immntabiUty of species, as so ably argued by Agassiz himself, we hold irresistibly compel us to the conclusion of Guvier, that a species consists of the " beings descended the one from the other or from common parents." This being admitted, it must be only on the most cogent grounds, to be established in every individual case, that we can admit a difference of origin either in geological time or in space, for animals that on comparison appear to be specifically identical ; and we cannot allow ourselves to be required to prove the unity of origin of species in general, any farther than in cases where there appears to be actual evidence of diverse origin. Such evidence must be required not only by those who hold the unity of origin of man, but also by the physical geographer and geologist. If the same species has in many or ordinary cases been created several times over in different regions or in different geological times, the occurrence of such species can be no certain evidence either of locality or of geological date. Farther, although in the varieties of a species all derived from one origin, we can have some guarantee for the limitation of these varieties by a certain law, this can scarcely hold if we allow the individuals assigned to one species to have been, with the ▼ariations incidental to them, the product of different local creations. In this case, we reduce species to mere types, graduating insensibly into each other. In short, for prao» tioal purposes, there m*y as trell be nt) species at all, sined #e then have no fixed limits on which to base our larger UNirT AND AMTIQCr . Of MAN. 291 aggi^ates; and, on the principle tliat extremes meet, thii doctrine leads to precisely the same practieal results with the Lamarokian hypothesis of transmutation. Farther, it is manifestly not tme that species are limited in any precise manner to geographical districts. Nay more, we have evidence in modern times of species having extended their limits over several r^ons. The black rat (Mus rattus) has done so long since. The brown rat (Mm decwmanus) has done so in still more modern times, and not only over-rides all regions, but domiciles itself against their will with all races of men. The horse, the ox, and the hog, only required to be brought to America, to show that they needed no second local creation to allow them to flourish in a new r^on. Man brought them, it is true ; but he had to extend himself first. The modern extension of the European race of men is itself a case in point. The Teutonic and Celtic man seems to live and thriv^ albeit with some small tendency to vary, in the fauna of temperate America, of South Africa and of Aus- tralia, as well as in nearly every other " region " of the earth. Nor is this peculiar to civilised man. The Malay race, against the enormous physical obstacle of a wide ocean area, has extended itself from Madagascar to 'Elaotet Island and the coast of California, and from the Sandwich Islands in the north to New Zealand in the south, inde- pendently of its affinities with tribes on the mainland of Asia; "thus reaching, chiefly ^thih the tropics, over 200 d^rees of longitude, or 20 degrees more than half the ABOHAIA. oiroomferenoe of the globe, and spreading in a direction north and south oyer 70 degrees." * This extension is proved, not merely by physical characters, but by language, a far more certain criterion. Nor is this race, so widely distributed, altogether isolated. It is connected, through the continental Malays, with the populations of Sou liei n and Eastern Asia; and even in Madagascar, its language retains some Sanscrit words.f The Eskimo of Arctic America is identical, in structure and language, with his neighbours on the Asiatic side of Behring's Straits; and these graduate insensibly into a long chain of northern tribes, ending in the Fins and Laps, and sending off many links of uuuneotion to all the Mongolian nations. Nay, even the Caucasians, long re- garded as the type of the European races, appear, accord- ing to Latham, to be connected by language with this stock. On the other hand, although in Eastern America the Eskimo come abruptly into contact with tribes some- what unlike themselves, on the west coast they graduate insensibly into the Indian ; and Wilson has shown that their conformation of skull is much less unlike that of the normal Indian than Dr. Morton had supposed. The American runs across all regions, with little change of feature, colour, or skull, except when the latter has been artificially compressed; and it has recently been ascer- * Ellis, " Madagascar," Appendix. See also lijell's Princi- ples of Geology. t W Humboldt. UNITT AMD ANTIQUITT OF MAN. 293 tained that the oharaoters of the Eskimo and Samoyede re-appear in Patagonia,* jnst as somewhat similar Mongol oharaoters re-appear in the Hottentot of South Africa; a singular proof that olimate, food, and other external con- ditions, rather than race, must be r^arded as the cause of variation in these instances. Such facts show that what> ever difficulties may attend the explanation of the wide geographical distribution of some animals, there are none in the case of man. The attempt, then, sanctioned by so great a name as that of Agassiz, to establish diversity of origin for the individuals of the same species on the ground of geographical distribution, falls to the ground ; and per- haps fails most signally of all in the case of man. We may, therefore, safely rest on that philosophical necessity for the unity of origin of each species with which we com- menced this part of the inquiry ; at least until it shall be shown that the individuals of some one true species must be diverse in origin. I have now presented a brief summary of the zoological facts and principles bearing on this question ; and have, I trust, shown that what we know of species and their dis- tribution should at least induce us to regard as probable the specific unity and common origin of all nations of men. We may now turn to these questions as they present them- selves in the light of philology and history. lY. In many animals the voice is useful as a distinctive character; but in man it has an importance altogether • Latham, "Varieties of Man." m AlOHAIA. peculiar. The gift of speech is one of hie sole inrerogaiiyes, •ad identity in its mode of exercise is not only the strong- est proof of similarity of psychical constitution, but, more than any Other character, marks identity of origin. The tongues of men are many and various ; and at first sight this diversity may, as indeed it often does, convey the impression of radical diversity of race. But modem philo- logical investigations have shown many and unexpected 'inks of connection in vocabulary, or. grammatical struc- ture, or both, between languages apparently the most dis- similar. I do not here refer to the vf^e and fancied parallels with which our ancestors were often amused, but to the results of sober and scientific inquiry. Let us ex- amine for a little these results as they are presented to us by Latham, Muller, Bunsen, and other modem philolo- gists. A convenient starting-point is afforded by the grea^ group of languages known as the Indo-European or Japetio. From the Ganges to the west coast of Ireland, through Indian, Persian, Greek, Italian, German, Gelt, runs one great language — the Sanscrit and the dark Hindoo at one extreme, the Erse and the xanthous Gelt at the other. No one now doubts the affinity of this great belt of lan- guages. No one can pretend that any one of these nations learned its language from another. They are all decided branches of a common stock. Lying in and near this area, are other nations, as the Arabs, the Syrians, the Jews, speaking languages differing in words and structure — the tmiTT Ain> AMTiQmrr or man. 206 Semitic tongaes. Do these mark a different origin ? TIm philologists answer in the native, pointing to the fea- tures of resemblance which still remain, and aho\h all to certain intermediate tongaes of so high antiquity that thej are rather to be regarded as root stocks from which other languages diverged than as mixtures. The principal of these is the ancient Egyptian, represented by the inscrip- tions on the monuments of that wonderful people, and by the more modern Coptic, which, according to Bunsen and Latham, presents decided affinities to both the great classes previously mentioned, and may be regarded as strictly intermediate in its character. It has accordingly been designated by the term Sub-Semitic* But it shares this character with all or nearly all the other African languages, which bear strong marks of affinity to the Egyptian and Semitic tongues. On this subject Dr. Latham says, " That the uniformity of languages throughout Africa is greater than it is either in Asia or in Europe, is a state- ment to which I have not the least hesitation in commit- ting myself."f To the north the Indo-European area is bounded by a great group of semi-barbarous populations, * Donaldson haa pointed out (Brit. Association Proceedings, 1861) links of connection between the Slavonian or Sarmatian tongues and the Semitic languages, which, in like manner, indi- cate the primitive union of the two great branches of languages. (See also Appendix I.) t Man and his Migrations. See also " Descriptive Ethnolo- gy," where the Semitic a£Ei]utieg are very strongly brought oat. 296 AKOHAU. mostly with Mongolian featores, and speaking languages whioh have been grouped as Turanian. These Turanian languages, on the one hand, graduate without perceptible break into the Eskimo and American Indian; on the other, aooording to Muller and Latham, they are united, though less distinctly, with the Semitic and Japetic tongues. Another great area on the coasts and in the islands of the Pacific is overspread by the Malay, which, through the populations of trans-gangetic India, connects itself with the great Indo-European line. If we r^ard physical cha- racters, manners and customs, and mythologies, as well as mere language. It is much easier thus to link together nearly all the populations of the globe. In investigations of this kind, it is true, the links of connection are often delicate and evanescent; yet they have conveyed to the ablest investigators the strong impression that the pheno- mena are rather those of division of a radical language than of union of several radically distinct. This impression is farther strengthened when we r^ard several results incidental to these researches. Latham has shown that the languages of men may be r^arded as arranged in lines of divergence, the extreme points of which are Fuego, Tasmania, Easter Island; and that from all these points they converge to a common centre in Western Asia, where we find a cluster of the most ancient and per- fect languages. Farther, the languages of the various populations differ in proceeding from these centres in a manner pointing to degeneracy such as is likely to occur VNITT AMD AHTIQUXTT 01 XAH. 297 IB imall and rode tribM separating from a paxent atook. Tbftm linei of radiation follow the most eaay and probable lines of migration of the human raoe spreadii^ from one centre. It must also be observed that in the primary I'Ugration of men, there must of necessity have been at its extreme limits outlying and isolated tribes, placed in oir^ oamstances in which language would very rapidly change ; •specially as these tribes, migrating or driven forward, would be continually arriving at new r^ons presenting new circumstances and objects. When at length the ut' most limit in any direction was reached, the inroads of new races of population would press into .dose contact these various tribes with their di£feront dialects. Where the distance was greatest before reaching this limit, we might eiqwct, as in America, to find the greatest mutual variety and amount of difference from the original stock. After the primary migration had terminated, the displacements arising from secondary migrations and conquests, would necessarily complicate the matter by breaking up the ori- ginal gradations of difference, and thereby rendering lines of migration difficult to trace. Taking all these points into the account, along with the known tendencies of languages in all cireumstances to vary, it is really wonderful that philology is still able to give so dedded indications of unity. There is, in the usual manner of speaking of these sub- jects, a source of misapprehension, which deserves special mention in this place. The scriptures derive all the n»> u tiou of tht ftoeiant mxid fkam thret pfttrianhs, and the BUMS of thMe 1mv« «AeB been atUohed to pertioultf noes of men uid their kngnagee; bvt it ihonld noTor be rap. poeed diat these oliSBiiieations aie likely to agree with the Kble afifiation. They may to a oertain extent do ao, bnt not neoeaaarily or even probably. In the nature «f the oaae, thoae portions of theae fiuniliea which remained near the original eentre, and in a dyiliied atate, wonld retain the original language and ftatnrei oomporatiTely nnohanged. Thoae whieh wandered far, fell into barbarism, or became sabjeoted to extreme olimatio ininenoes, wonld taiy more all respeots. Henee any general olasriieotion, whether on i^yuoal or philologioal oharaotera, will be likely to nnite, aa in the Cbmoasian gronp of Onyier, men <^ all the three primitiye fiuniliea, while it will separate the ontlyii^ and aberrant portions ftom their main stems of affiliation. Want of attention to this point has led to mnch misoon- o^>tion ; and perhaps it wonld be well to abandon altoge- ther terms ibnnded on ihiQ names of tiie sons of Noah, exeept where historioal affiliation is the pMnt in qnestion. It would be well if it were understood that when the terms Semitk), Japhetio,* and Hametic are used, direct referenoe is made to the Hebrew ethnology ; and that, where other arrangements are adopted, other terms riiould be need. It * I can scarcely except such terms as " Japetic," and ** Ja- petidae," for lapetag can hardly be anything else than a tradi- tional name borrowed from Semitic ethnology, or handed down from the Japhetic progenitors of the Oreeks. UNITT AND AMTiqDITT Of HAH. Il ohnamAj un&ir to apply th« toroM of Moim in s dUfcr* «it vay from thai ia whidi lie uti tkMn. A yary pi«v»- l0iit error of this kind haa been to apply the term Japhetic Id a number of nationa not of aoeh origin aooording to the Bible; and another of move modem dale is to extend the krm Semitic to all the races descended from Ham, becanse cf resemblance of language. It should be borne in mind (hat, assuming the truth of the scriptural affiliation, there should be a " central " group of races and languages where the whole of the three families meet, and ** sporadic " * groups representing the changes of the outlying and bar- barous tribes. While, however, all the more eminent philologiBts adhere to the original unity of language, they are by no means agreed as to the antiquity of man ; and some, as for in- stance Latham and Dr. Max Muller, are disposed to daim an antiquity for our species far beyond that usually admitted. In 80 far as this affects the Bible history, it is of less im- portance than the denial of the unity of the species, since the Bible does not precisely limit the antiquity of man, or of the deluge, which, on its view, is of the same import. The date of tiiis CTcnt has been variously estimated, on Biblical grounds, at from 1650 B. C. (Usher) to 3155 B. C. (Josephus, and Hales) ; but the longest of these dates does not appear to satisfy the demands of philology. The rea- son of this demand is the supposed length of time required to effect the necessary changes. This is a subject on which • See Art "PhUology" Enoy. Brit., last edition. 800 AlOHAIA. definite dsU een eouoely be obtained. Languagee ohangB now, even when redooed to a oomparatiyely itable fonn bj writing. They change more rapidly when men migrate into new climates, and are placed in contact with new objecti. The English, the Dutch, and the German, were perhaps all at the dawn of the mediaetal era Maeso^thie. At the same rate of change, allowing for greater bar- barism and gpreater migrations, they may very well have been something not far firom Egyptian or Sanscrit 2000 years before Ohrist. The truth is, that present rates of variation afford no criterion for the changes that must occur in the languages of small and isolated tribes lapsing into or rising from barbarism, possessing few words, and constantly requiring to name new objects ; and until some ratio shall have been established between these conditions and those of modern languages, fixed by literature and by a comparatively stationary state of society, it is useless to make any demands for longer time on this ground.* Had the human race everywhere preserved its histoiy firom its origin, we should then have had certain evidence as to its points and times of origination. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Barbarous nations have no histoiy. Most of the so-called ancient nations are compa- * See Appendix I. Qrammatical straoture ii no doabt more permanent than rocabulary, yet we find great changes in the latter, both in tracing cognate languages from one region to another, and from period to period. The Indo-Oermanic lan- gaages In Barope furnish enongh of familiar instances. VNITT AND ANTIQUITT OV MAM. 801 ntitelj modem, and ev«n their history loeee itself in myths. The only tneient nations that hav. given us in detail their own written hbtory are the Hebrews, the Hin- doos, and the Ohinese. The last people, thoogh professedly yery ancient, traoe their history firom a period of harbar- ism; a view confirmed by their physical characters and the nature of their civiliiation ; and on this account, if no other, their history cannot be considered as of any eth- nological value. The early Hindoo history is palpably fabulous or distorted, and hss been variously modified and changed in (Comparatively modem times. The Hebrew history, as it bears on this point, we shall notice in the sequel. There is one great and very ancient people — ^the Egyptian— evidently civilised from the beginning of all history, that have not succeeded in transmitting to ns, except in garbled fragments, their history ; but have left abundant monumental evidence of great events that trans- pired among them; and, except the Hebrews, these are the only people who can profess to give us any authentic ancient history carrying us back to the origin of man. The Egyptian history has been gathered first from sketches by G-reek travellers, and Arom fragments of the chronicles of M&netho, one of the later Egyptian priests, and secondly from the inscriptions deciphered on Egyptian monuments and papyrL It is still in a very fragmentary and uncertain state, but has been used with considerable eflfeot to prove both the diversity of races of men and the pre-Noaohio anUquity of the species. The Egyptian, in ftlitttiM and phjueal totSumaitian, tMded to the BofOi pean forms, jut a« iA» modern FeUilui tod Berben do; hvA he had « dark ofMi^eaLMm, a fomewhat eknqjated head and flattened Upe, uid eertain negroid peoiiliaritiei in hii Itmbfl. His llMigaage eombined many of tiie peouliarities of the SemitiO) Atlan, and African tongnes^ indieating fheroby great antiquity or else great intemuxtiure ; bnt notj as some ethnographnis demind^ bothr-moBt probably the Unrmer — the BgypCfaas being really the oUket dltilised people that we oertainly^know ; uid thnefote^ if langnsged ha^s otie oi^n, likely to be near its root-stook. The aotntl hietoiy of Bgypt be§^ ilrom Menee, the fliil human king, a mimareh, or rathMr tribal deposited around that statue firom its ereetion until the diestruction of Memphis, perhaps 800 years B.O. Further, we have to take into account the natural or artificial changes of the river's bed, which in this rery place is said to hare been direrted from its course by Menes, and which near Cairo is now nearly a mile from its for- mer site. The liability to error and fraud in boring operations is also very well known. It has fUrther been suggested that the deep cracks which form in the soil of Egypt, and the sink- ing of wells in ancient times, are other probable causes of error ; and it is stated that pieces of burnt brick, which was not in use in Egypt until the Roman times, have been found at even greater depths than the pottery referred to by Mr. Horner. This discovery, at first sight so startling, and vouched for by a geologist of unquestioned honour and ability, is thus open, to VRXTT AHD AHTIQinTT OF MAM. time, this obvioaaly ezaggented date, we may roughly eeti- mate the date of Menee as 2000 to 2500 yean B. 0.,« and prooeed to state some of the facts relating to our present subject developed by Egyptologists. One of the most striking of these is the proof that Egypt was a new country in the days of Menes and seyeral gene- rations of his successors. The monuments of this period show nothing of the complicated idolatry, ritual, and oaste system of later times, and are deficient in evidence of the refinement and variely of art afterwards attained. They also show that these early monarehs were prindpally en- gaged in dyking and otherwise reclaiming the alluvial flats ; an evidence precisdy of the same ehamot^ with that which every travdlw sees in the more reoently settled dis- tricts of Canada^ where the forest is giving way to the exertions of the farmer. This primitive state of things is the same doubts with the Ouadalonpe skeletons, the human bones in ossiferons caverns, and that found in the mud of the Mississippi ; all of which have, on examination, proved of no value as proofli of the geological antiquity of man. See also Appendix L. * Perhaps the earliest certain date in Egyptian history is that of Thothmes III. of the eighteenth dynasty, ascertained by Birch on astronomical evidence, as about 1445 B. 0. ; and it seems nearly certain that before the 18th dynasty, of which this king was the 6th sovereign, there was no settled general government over all Egypt. See on this and other points re- lating to Bansen^B views, an able review in the London Quarterly, No. 2, 1859. ittMiblj Htmped ob tiM mrittMi Md monvmeBtal liislor]^ of this period ift Egypt FirUier, in this primitive period, kAOHU ai the " old monarahy," lerj few dcmieetio animals appear, and experiments sean to have been in progress to tetM others, nativee of the ooantry, as the hyena, the an- tilope, the stotk. Bven the dog in the older dynasties is NpNsented by OM or at most two varieties, and the pre* filent one is a wolish-lookittg animal akin to the present w3d or half-tamed dogs of the East* The Egyptians) too, of the earlier dynasties are more homt^eneons in theiv appearanoe than tiiose of the later, aftor eonqnest and mi- gtatMB had in^«dneed new races; and the earliest monn- mental notiee referring to N^ro tribes does not appear vnlil Ihie 12th dyiMsty, about half way between the epoeh of Menee and the ohristian era, ncr does any represent»> tioa of the Negro featnite ooeur until, at the earliest, the 17th dynasty. This allows ample time, 1000 years at the least, for the development, under abnormal oiromustanoes and iBolation, of all the most strongly-marked varieties of man. For proof of these statements I may refer to the * The Bgjptians seem, like our modem eattle-breeders, to have taken pride in the initiation and preservation of varieties. Their sacred bull, Apis, was required to represent one of the varieties of the ox ; and one can scarcely avoid believing that some of their deified ancestors must have earned their celebrity as tamers or breeders of animals. At a later period, the experi- meats of Jacob with Laban's flock, Airnish a curious instance of attempts to induce variation. VNITT AMD AUtflmtT OV MAM. wr iMWkf of my of tlM Bgyptologlito, tad lakj merely ftM ihRt tiiew and muiy other remtrkable fkote in the eerly moBttmentel hietory of Egypt, which are patent to any reader, have been strangely overlooked or misapplied by ethnologists. Osbnm,* though on many points too ready to follow Teiy dender and donbtftd ehies, deserves credit fer the attention whieh he has given to these hints. But^ in notioing the historioal information as to the unity and antiquity of man, we must torn to the Bible itself, whieh, independently of its religions daims, is sorely an histotieal doooment quite as lespeotnble as even the monumental records of Bgypt. And what a contrast do we find here to the darkness of Egyptian history and the dfieenlations <^ those who attempt to reason on itt The Bible has no mythical period. It treats of no ages of godtt end demi-gods, claims no &bulotts antiquity fin* its people^ asserts no divine origin for its heroes. It has many mait* vels and wonders, but they are ell wrought by the Omni- potent Creator. Its human history is stamped with the impress of truth and nature, and its chronology is that merely (^ a continuous suooession of human beings, differ ing from our present experience only in the duration which it assigns to human life in tiiose primitive periods when Ottr species was young on the earth ; a point on which we have no data as yet from other sources either to oppose or conftnn its doctrine. Nor does the Bible ever personiff * Monements cf Bgyp^ 808 AIOHAIA. Dftkunl dbjeotf or prooeaiet, in that Tagne way which ren- der! Q8 doabtftil whether in the ancient myths of the heathen we are reading of eyery-day phenomena in a fim- diful dresB, or of human history seen through a coloured and distorting medium. The Bible gives us a definite epoch, that of the deluge, for all human origins; but though no family but that of Noah survived this terrible catastrophe, it would be a great error to suppose that nothing antediluvian appears in the subsequent history of man. Before the deluge there were arts and an old civilization, and after the deluge men carried with them these heirlooms of the old world to commence with them new nations. This has been tacitly ignored by many of the writers who underrate the value of the Hebrew history. It may be as well for this reason to place, in a series of propositions, the principal points in Genesis which relate to the question of the unity of man. 1. Adam and Isha, the woman, afterwards called Eve (Life-giver) in consequence of the promise of a Bedeemer, oommenr)ed a life of husbandry on their expulsion firom Eden; and during the lifetime of the primal pair, the sheep, at least, was domesticated. A few generations after, in the time of Lamech, cattle were domesticated; and the metals, copper and iron, were applied to use — the latter probably meteoric iron ; and hence, it may be, the Hindoo and Hellenic myths of Twachtrei and Hephaestos in con- nection with the thunderbolt. In the time of Noah the distinction of dean and unclean beasts, and the taking of imXTT AND AHnQVITT OF MAN. 800 BBVen pain of oertain beuts and birds into the ark, im- ply that MTeral mammala and birds were domesticated.* 2. Before the flood, as already remarked, there was a diyision of man into two nationalities or races ; and there was a citizen, an agricultoral, a pastoral, and a nomadio popolation.f 3. After the deluge, the arts of the antedilnmns and their oitisen life were almost immediately revived in the plain of Shinar ; but the plans of the Babel leaders, like those of many others since, who have attempted to foroe distinct tribes into one nationality, fidled. The guilt at- tributed to them probably relates to the attempt to break up the patriarchal oiganisation, which, in these early times, was the outward form of true religion. 4. The human race was scattered over the earth in family groups or tribes, each headed by a leading patriarch, who gave it its name. First, the three sons of Noah formed three main stems, and from these diverged several family branches. The ethnological chart in the 10th chapter of Genesis, gives the principal branches ; but these, of course, continued to sub-divide beyond the space and time referred to by the sacred writer. It is simply absurd to object, as some writers have done, to the universality of the statements in Genesis, that they do not mention in detail the whole earth. They refer to a few generations * Genesis 4, 5, 6 and 7th chapters. See also oar preyioas remarks on the deluge, t Oenesis 4. mlj, Mid UB7o»4tliitieskrwttlMBNwlf«i to ^ mmhnmk of tiM ItaBMB ftnuly to whioli tht BiUe prhmpiiUj fltlalif. W9 0ho«ld be tlunkM ibr to m«oh ef th« leading )in«i of etimologioal diveigeBoa, witluoat oomplttiuog thit it ii not Ibllowed o«t into its nin«to nnifioAlionft and into aU hit- tory. 5. The tripartito diriaion in Oeneaia 10th, indioatas a •onewhat a^ot geegraphieal aeparation of the three nudn tmnka. The regions marked ont Ibr Japhet indnde Jitnrope and North-weateni Aaia. The name Japhet, as veil 88 the Btatonentfl in the table, indicate a Teraaiile, ttomadio, and colonldng dkpeaition aa diaraeteristio of theee tribea.* The Mediaa popolation, the aame with a portion of that now often oalled Arian,t waa the only branch * Japhet is " enUrgemeat," his aoni are Scythiang and inhtbi- tantB of the isles, varying in language and nationality ; and Noah predicts, " Ood shall enlarge Japhet, he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, Ham shall be his servant." These are surely character* Istic ethnological traits for a period so early. On the rationalist riew, it may be supposed that this prediction was not written ontil the characters in question had developed themselves ; but since the greatest enlarganent of Japhat has occurred since the discovery of America, there would be quite aa good ground for maintaining tliat Noah's prophecty was interpolated after the time of Oolumbus. t The language of this people, the stem of the Indo-European languages, is, though in a later form, probably that of the Ari»n or Persepolitan part of the trilingual inscriptions at Behistun and elsewhere in Persia. * UNITT AMD janOIDITT OF MAN. 811 ibt ofjgiMl sette cif the iftdM^ hi4 m% Mfttled oonditioB. TIm ontlyiBg portioMi of ike pofiarity of J^pliet, on aooowitof thoriridodifpcnioii, mvtiftfcAtwy owly period latfB teflen into oomperetiTe WbsrisB, nicli m we find in historie periode ell oyer Weeten tad Nortbern Europe end Nm the sui^ vivors of the deluge. Yet his tribe increases inoom- paiatively few years to a considerable number. He is treated as an equal by the monarohs of Egypt and Philistia. He defeats, with a band of three or four hundred retainers, a confederacy of four Euphratean kings representing the embryo state of the Perdan and Assyrian empires, and already relatively so strong that they have overrun mudi of Western Asia. All this bespeaks in a most consistent manner the rapid rise of many small nationalities, scattered over the better parts of wide regions, and still in a feeUe condition, though inheriting from their ancestors an old civilization, and laying the foundations of powerAil states. The Hebrew ethnology excels all others in its breadth of conception and freedom from local prejudices. The Egyp- tians, the Greeks, and probably most other ancient nations, had no true conceptions of the unity of man. Their hero- wonihip and local polytheism fostered narrow views of the V 814 ABOHAU. fabjeot. The Hebrews, with m much national pride aa any other people, were restrained by their monotheistic theology from elevating their anoestors into gods, and from worship* ping local divinities. They based their claims to eminence on their being the people chosen of God as the depository of his sacred truth, and that tmth required them to acknow- ledge the brotherhood of man. A Jew of Tarsus first maintained this doctrine and its companion one of the va- nity of polytheism and merely local reli^on, before the literati of Athens. Ohristianity has borne it aloft on its banner over the world, proclaiming the common origin and common destiny of Greek and Jew, Barbarian and Scy- thian, bond and free. The tenet is a noble one. The tyrant and the slaveholder may well turn pale in its pro> sence, and secretly rejoice if any doubt can be cast on its tmth ; but no true-hearted lover of his kind, will part with it, unless wrung from him by the compulsion of far stronger arguments than those which I have attempted to review in the previous pages. I purposely close with this view of the subject, because it brings us back again to the mosaic record. To persons unacquainted with the many forms in which the doctrine of the unity of origin of man has recently been assailed, this chapter may appear unnecessarily prolix. To those who have waded through the ponderous tomes of some modern ethnographers, it may appear a too meagre review. My object has been merely to expose the slendemess of the grounds on which certain theories on this subject have been tniXTT AlID AMTIQCIITT Of HAH* 81ft bnilt, tad tiM MoeMitj, if nitanl hietoiy if to b« ottted on to batr eridonoe in the quMtion of unity or diTonitj of ipeeiM in man, thai patient inyeiligalion of the probable extent of his migrationi and limita of hisTariationa,ahoQld take the place of hasty annimptiona of limitation to geo* graphical regiona, and of primitiye diTonity of fonna» CHAPTER XVm C0MPABISON9 AND OONOLUSIONS, 3o3 zr7i., 14 : ^ Lo these are bat outlines of His ways^ aal how faint the whisper which we heir of Bim-Mihe thunder of His power who could understand." In the preeeding pages 1 haye^ as far a« possilile, avoided that mode of treating my svbjeet whieh was wont to he expressed as the " reeoneiliation " of Scripture and Natural Science, and have followed the direet guidance of the Mosaic record, only turning aside where some apt illustrar tion or coinmdenoe could he perceived. In -the present chapter I propose to enquire what the science of the earth teaches on these same subjects, and to point out certain manifest and remarkable correspondences between these teachings and those of revelation. Here I know that I enter on dangerous ground, and that if I have been so for' tnnate as to carry the intelligent reader with me thus far, I may chance to lose him now. The Hebrew scriptures are common property j no one can deny me the right to study them, and even if I should appear extreme in some of my views, or venture te be almost bb enthusiastic as the com^ mentators of Homer, Shakespeare or Dante, I cannot be very severely blamed. But the direct comparison of these ancient records with results of modem science, is obnozioui 00M7ABI80MB AXD OONOLUBIONB. 317 te many laiadsoii veij diffBrentgroandB : and all Uw more 60 that 80 few mm are ardest students both of nature and fevelation. There ar«^ ae yet, l>ut im eyen of eduoated tten whose taqge of stsdy has iBoluded anything that is praotieal or us^d either in M^bnm litorature or geological «i^nce. That sUpehod ^ristianitj which contents its^ with supposing ^at eondusions w^h are &lse in nature may be true in theoh)gy, is m«re superstition or professional priestcraft, and has Botiiing in eomteon with the Bible ; btt there are ^rtifl ttoltitudes of good men, trained in the ^ibal and abstraii^ ledtumg wlufih at one dme constituted newly the whole of education, who regard geology as a. tnalB of erude hypotheses destitute of eoherenee, a per- petual battle ground of ecmflieting opinions, all destined In <&Qe to be swept away. It must be admitted too that, ^m tfa^ nature of geological evidence, and firom the lia- bility to f^cnx in d^iails, the solidity of its conclusi(»uB Is not likdy soon to be appreciated as ftdly ai is desiraUe by the common mind. Oa the other hand, the geologist, lully ftware of the substantial nature of the foundatiles m axi ancient theological woric StUl th^w are possilde meeting points of things so dissimilar fts Bible lore and geological ex- f loratioB. If maa is a b^ng eonnected on the one hand with material nature, and on the other with the spirituid essence of the Creator ; if that Creiator has given to mai powers of oqdwing and ew^rabending hie {dans in the 318 ABOHAIA. universe, and at the same time has condescended to reveal to him directly His will on certain points, there is nothing unphilosophioal or improbable in the supposition that the same truths may be struck out on the one [hand by the aotion of the human mind on nature, and on the other by the aotion of the Divine mind on that of man. But few of our greatest thinkers, whether on nature or theology, have reached the firm ground of this high^ probability; or if they have reached it, have dreaded the scorn of the half-learned too much to utter their convictions. Still this is a position which the enlightened christian and student of nature must be prepared to occupy, humbly and with admission of much ignorance and incapacity, but with bol4 assertion of the truth, that there are meeting-points of nature and revelation which afford Intimate subjects of study. In entering on these subjects, we may receive certain great truths in reference to the history of the earth, as established by geological evidence. In the present rapidly progressive state of the science however, it is by no means easy to separate its assured and settled results from those that have been founded on too hasty generalisation, or are yet immature ; and at the same time to avoid overlooking new and important truths, sufficiently established, yet not known in all their dimensions. In the following summary I shall endeavour to present to the reader only well ascer- tained general truths, without indulging in ihoae deviations from accuracy for effect too often met with in popular books. On the other hand we havo already found that OOHPABISONS AMD 0ON0LTT8I0N8. 319 the scriptures enunciate distinct doctrines on many points relating to the earth's early history, to which it will here be necessary merely to refer in general terms. Let us in the first place shortly consider the conclusions of geology as to the origin and progress of creation. 1. The widest and most important generalization of modem geology, is that all the materials of the earth's crust, to the greatest depth that man can reach, either by actual excavation or inference from superficial arrangements, are of such a nature as to prove that they are not, in their present state, original portions of the earth's structure; but that they are results of the operation, during long periods, of the causes of change, whether mechanical, che- mical, or vital, now in operation, on the land, in the seas, and in the interior of the earth. For example, the most common rocks of our continents are conglomerates, sand- stones, shales and dates ; all of which are made up of the debris of older rocks broken down into gravel, sand or mud, and then re-cemented. To these we may add limestones, which have been made up by the accumulation of corals and shells, or by deposits from calcareous springs ; coal, composed of vegetable matter ; and granite, syenite, green- stone, and trap, which are molten rocks formed in the manner of modern lavas. So general has been this sorir ing, altering, and disturbance of the substance of the earth's crust, that, though we know its structure over large por- tions of our continents, to the depth of several miles, the geologist can point to no instance of a truly primitive rock. 320 ABOHAIA. which can be affiimed to faaye remained cnohanged and in ntn since the beginrmg. " All are aware that the solid parts of the earth consist of distinct substances, such as day, ohalk, sand, limestone, coal, slate, granite, and the like ; bat, previously to obser vation, it is commonly imagined that all had remained 6rom Ihe first in jhe state in which we now see them — that they were created in their present forms and in their pie- sent position. The geologist now comes to a different inclusion ; discovering pro<^s that the external parts of the earth were not all produced in the banning of things, in the state in which we now behold them, nOr in an instaut of time. On the contrary, he can show that they have acquired their actual condition and configuration grar dually, and at successive periods, during each of which distinct races of living beings have flourished on the land and in the waters; the remains of these creatures stall lying buried in the crust of the earth." * 2. Having ascertauied that the rocks of the emrth have thus been produced by secondary causes, we next affirm, on the evidence of geology, that a distinct order of suocessicHi of these deposits can be ascertained ; and though there are innumerable local variations in the nature of rocks formed at the same period, yet there is, on the great scale, a regu- lar sequence of formations over the whole emrth. This succession is of the greatest importance in the case of aqueous rocks, or those formed in water ; and it is evident * Lyell'8 Manual of Elementary Qeology. OOMPABiaONS AUD OON0LUBION8. m that in the case of beds of iand, clay, &o., deposited in this vay, the Bpper must be the more teoent of any two layers. This simple principle, oomplioated in varions ways by the fractures and disturbances to which the beds have been subjected, forms the basis of the succession of "fyi- jLatiions " in geology. 3. This T^ular series of formations would be of little value as a histoiy of the earth, were it not that nearly all the aqueous rooks contain remains of lihe oontemporaty anunals and pknts. Ever «inoe the earth began to be tenanted by organised beings, the various aooumtdations formed in the bottoms of seas and at the months of riv^ have entombed remains of muine aidmak, more espeeiafly their harder parts, a« shells, oonh and bones, and also fragments or entire specimens of land animals and planti. Hence, in any rook of aqueous formalion, we may find fossil remains of the living careatnres that existed in tJve waters in which that rook was accumulated or on Hxb neighbouring land. If in the process of building up the continents, the same locality constituted in succession la part of the bottom of the ocean, oi an inland sea, of an estuary and a lake, we should find, in the fossil remains entombed in the depodts of that place, evidences of lihese various conditions; and thus a somewhat curioufl histooty of local changes m%ht be obtained. Geology afFords more extensive disclosures of this nature. It if^ows, that, as We descend into the oldw formations, we gradually lose sight of the existing animals and plants^ and find the remains «f 322 ABOHAIA. others not now existing; and these, in turn, themselyes disappear, and were preceded by others ; so that the whole living population of the earth appears to have been several times renewed, prior to the banning of the present order of things. In the sediment now aocumnlating in the bottom of the waters, are being buried remains of the existing animals and plants. A geological formation is being produced, and it contains the skeletons and other solid parts of a vast variety of creatures belonging to all climates, and which have lived on land as well as in fresh and salt water. Let OS now suppose that by a series of changes, sudden or gra- dual, all the present oi^anised beings were swept away, and that, when the earth was renewed by the fiat of the Creator, a new race of intelligent beings could explore those parts of the former sea basins that had been elevated into land. They would find the remains of multitudes of crea- tures not existing in their time; and by the presence of these they could distinguish the deposits of the former period from those that belonged to their own. They could also compare these remains with the corresponding parts of creatures which were their own contemporaries, and could thus infer the circumstances in which they had lived, lihe modes of subsistence for which they had been adapted, and the changes in the distribution of land and water and other physical conditions which hod occurred. This, then, is precisely the place which fossil organic remains occupy in modem geology, except that our present system of na- OOMPAKIBONB AND 00N0LU8I0N8. 323 tare rests on the ruins, not of one prevkms system, bnt of several. 4. By the aid of the superposition of deposits and their organic remains, geology oan mark out the history of the earth into distinct periods. These periods are not sepa- rated by merely arbitrary boundaries, but to some extent mark important eras in the progress of our earth, though they usually pass into each other at their confines, and the nature of the evidence prevents us from ascertaining the precise length of the periods themselves, or the intervals in time which may separate the several monuments by which they are distinguished. The following table will serve to give an id'^a of the arrangement at present gene- rally received, with some of the more important facts in the succession of animal and v^etable life, as connected with our present subject. It commences with the oldest periods known to geology, and gives in the animal and v^table kingdoms the Jirst appearcmce of each class, with a few notes of the subsequent history of the principal forms : — PIBIODS. SrSTBMS OF FOBUATIOMB. CLASSES OF ANIMALS. PLANTS. I. Azoio PiB I OD . Ancient Meta- m r p h i c rocks of Scandinavia, Canada, &c. ■ II. Pbimabt OB PlLAIOZOIO PiBIOD. Gambrian .. • Radiata — Hydrozoa (7) Molluscn — Brachiopoda. Jrticulata—'A n n e li da, Orastacea. Algae. JLKOHAUk. PIBIODB. STSTm Ot rOBMATIONfl. OLABBIS or ANIMALS. PLAHTS. n. PaiMABT «B Palaiozoio Continued. Silariata,... Devoiiian|». Garbonifer* ous, Permian, Hbufioto— Protoioa, An thozoa, Echinodermata MolluKa — Pol7Eoa,Tun{- Aetof%^ eata, Lamellibranohi- nous Land ata, Gasteropoda, plantst Pteropoda, OephaU opoda. VertebriMw^Fishet at close of period. VertebraitO'—TvBheBj Ga- Acrogfinis. noid and Placoid" andGjrmn- Reptnes (?) nosperms. Molhttca^P a 1 m o n a ta, AcrogenS| Gymno- JWiraJof a •— Insects, spenns, Araohnidans. Endo- Ferf ebrafa— Batrachiahs, gens ? prevalent. Vertebrata — - Lacertian Reptiles. in. SlOONDABT OR MlSOZOIO PlBIOD. Triassic,.... Jorassic,... Cretaceous, f'erfebra/a— Higher Rep- tiles prevalent ; Birds. Vertebrata — Great pre- Endoge- ▼alenee of higher Rep- nous trees tiles ; Fishes, homocer ective; ami fknirished, and during wldoh Afferent kinds of 8odi« nmt were depouted/' 5* The lapse of time embraced in tise geologioal hiatoiy of the earth is enormous. Fully to appreriate this, ii ie necessary to study the science in detail, and to explore its ]Aienomena a» disclosed in actual nature. A few facts, how- ever, out of hundreds which might have been selected, will Bujffioe to indicate the state of the case. The delta and allu- ABOBAIA. ml plain of the MiflBissippi, belong to the post-pliocene or modern period. Taking in conneotiun the maag of ma^ ter in the delta and the known rate of deposition by the river, we are obliged to admit that the period occupied in the deposition of this mass of muddy sediment must have ez« tended to " many ten thousands of years."* To be quite safe, let us take 40,000 years. We may then safely mul- tiply this number by ten for the length of the tertiaiy period. We may add as much more for the mesocoic period, and this will be far under the truth. It will then be quite safe to assume that the palaeozoic period was ai long as the mesozoio and tertiary together. Great though these demands may seem, they are probably far below the rigid requirements of the oase.f Take another illustration from another formation. An ezceU it coast section at the Jo^ns in Nova Scotia, exhibits in the coal formation proper, a series of beds with erect trunks and roots of trees in situ, amounting to nearly 100. About 100 fore&ts have successively grown, partially decayed and been entombed in muddy and sandy sediment. In the same section, including in all about 14,000 feet of beds, there are 76 seams of coal, each of which can be proved to have taken more time for its accumulation than that required for the growth of a forest ♦ Lyell. t A perfectly parallel example is that of the growth of the peninsula of Florida in the modern period, by the same processes now adding to its shores, and this has afforded to Prof. Agassis a still more extended measure of the Post tertiary period. OOMPABIBONS AND OONOLUBIONS. 827 Supposing all these separate fossil soils and coals to have been formed with the greatest possible rapidity, ten thou- sand years would be a very moderate calculation for this portion of the carboniferous system ; and for aught that we know, thousands of years may be reprerented by a sin- gle fossil soil. But this is the age of only one member of the carboniferous system, itself only a member of the great palaeozoic group, and we have made no allowance for the abrasion from previous rocks and deposition of the immense mass of sandy and muddy sediment in which the coals and forests are imbedded, and which is vastly greater than the deltas of the largest modem rivers. Thus, then, we find that the earth in its present state is the product of changes which have proceeded pro;, ably during countless years, yet we have no geological evidence that even this great lapse of time carries us back to that b^inning revealed in scrip- ture, in which the materials of the universe sprang into being at the word of God. 6. During the whole time referred to by geology, the great laws both of inorganic and organic nature have been the same as at present. The evidence of light and dark- ness, of sunshine and shower, of summer and " nter, and of all the known igneous and aqueous causes of change, extends back almost, and in some of these cases altogether, to the banning of the palaeozoic period. In like manner the animals and plants of the oldest rocks are constructed on the same physiological and anatomical principles with existing tribes, and they can be arranged in the same JlIOBAU. genen, orders or cImmi, though fpeoifically diBtinct. The reyolatioiui of the globe have involyed no change of the general laws of matter; and though it is possible that geology has carried us back to the time when the Uws that regulate life began to operate, it does not show that they were less perfect than now, and it indicates no trace of the beginning of the inorganic laws. Geological changes have resulted not from the institution of new laws, but from new dupoiUiom, under existing laws and general arrange, ments. There is every reason to belieye that in the inor^ gunio world these dii^sitions have required no new creative interpositions during the time to which geology refers, but merely the continued action of the properties bestowed on matter when first produced. In the organic world the case is different. 7. In the succession of animal and v^etable life we find instances of improvement and advance by the intro- duction of new types of being, but not of development of one species from another. We have already given a gene- ral outline of this advancement of organised nature. It has consisted in the creation, from time to time, of new and more highly organised beings, so as at once to increase the variety of nature, and to provide for the elevation of the summit of the graduated s(»Je of life to higher and higher points. For instance, in the earlier palaeozoic period, we have molluscous animals and fishes, then appa* rently the highest forms of life, appearing with a very advanced organization, not surpassed, if even equalled, in OOMPABUONf AlfD 00M0LU8I0X8. 339 modern times. In the later part of the same great period, some lower fonus of v^table life, now restrioted to a oomparatively humble place, were employed to oonatitute magnifioont forests. In the Mesoioic period again, reptiles attained to their highbct. point in organization and variety of form and employment, while mammalia had as yet soaroely appeared.* * I am quite aware that it may bo objected to all thli that it Ib based on merely negative erideiiue ; but tliii is not strictly the case. There are positive indications of these truths. For example, in the Mesozoin epoch, the lacertian rep dies presented huge elephantine, carnivorous and herbivorous species, the Ifegalosaurus, Iguanodon, ins. ; flying 8pecios,with hollow bones and ample wings, the Pterodactyles ; aud aquatic whale-like species, Oetiosaurus, Ichthyosaurus, &c. These creatures ac- tually filled the offices now occupied by the mammals ; and, though lacertian in their affinities, they must have had circula- tory, respiratory, and nervous systems far in advance of any modern reptiles even of the order of Loricates. Even compara- tive anatomists have given to this "view of the subject less atten- tion than it deserves ; and the author was once taken to task for an assertion of this nature, by one of our ablest living natu- ralists, to whom it did not appear to hare occurred that a Dhiosaurian walking the earth with elephantine tread, or a Pte- rodactyl cleaving the air with rapid wings, must necessarily have enjoyed a far more perfect circulation and respiration than the highest living reptiles, and so have approached more nearly to the mammals and birds, and have been fitted to fill their offices, to their exclusion. 330 ABOHAIAr These and similar faot& have oUiged geologists to admit that the advance of organic natoie must have been the result of direct creative interposition. Hence we find that geology, which, more than any other science, has heen ac- cused of infidel tendency, is the only one which leads us directly into the presence of the Author of nature, and finds itself obliged,, in order to account for the phenomena which it observes, to have recourse to the " Miracle of GreatioUr" I cannot better close this head and this part of the subject, than by quoting some of the views expressed by leading geologists, on this important pari of the relations of geology to revelation. Prof. Piotet of Geneva, a very able and oareftd palaeon- tologist, in the introduction to his " Traite de Palaeontcl- ogie," as translated for the Journal of the Geological Society, remarks: — " It seems to me impossible that we should admit as an explanation of the phenomena of successive faunas, the passage of species into one another ^ the limits of such transitions of species, even supposing that the lapse of a vast period of time may have given them a eharaeter of reality much greater than that which the study of existing, nature leads us to suppose,, are still infinitely within those differences which distinguish two successive faunas. Lastly^ we can least of all account by this theory for the appear- ance of new typcB^ to explain the introduction of whidi we must necessarily, in the present state of science, recur tG» the idea of distinct creations posterior to the first.." ofi OOMPABISOMS AMD OONOLUBIONS. 831 RvLgh. Miller, in his " Footprints of the Creator," thus strongly asserts the same view : — " With the introduction of man into the scene of exist- ence, creation, I repeat, seems to have ceased. What is it that now takes its place and performs its work ? During the previous dynasties, all elevation in the scale was an effect simply of creation. Nature lay dead in a waste theatre of rock, vapour and sea; in which the insensate aws, chemical, mechanical and electric, carried on their blind, unintelligent processes. The creative fiat went forth, and amid waters that straightway teemed with life in its lowest forms, vegetable and animal, the dynasty of the fish was introduced. Many ages passed, during which there took place no further elevation ; on the contrary, jjx. not a few of the newly introduced species of the reigning dass, there appeared for the first time examples of a sym- metrical misplacement of parts ; and, in at least one family of fishes, instances of defect of parts. There was the mar nifestation of a downward tendency toward the degradation of monstrosity, when the elevatory fiat again went forth, and, through an act of creation, the dynasty of the reptile began. Again many ages passed by, marked apparently by the introduction of a warm-blooded oviparous, animal, the bird, and a few marsupial quadrupeds ; but in which the prevailing class reigned undeposed, though at least un- elevated. Yet again, however, the elevatory fiat went forth, and, through an act of creation, the dynasty of the mam- miferous quadruped began. And, after the further lapse of ages, the elevatory fiat went forth yet once more in an 332 ABOHAIA. act of creation, and with the human, heaven-aspiring dy- nasty, the moral government of God, in its connection at least with the wor?d which we inhahit, " took banning"; and then creation ceased. Why?— simply because God's moral government had hegVLn" Sir 0. Lyell, in an Anniversary Address as President of the Geological Society (1851), largely and ably discusses the subject of progressive development and introduction of types and species. There is probably no geologist of our day more favourably situated for sketching the present aspect of geology in reference to these great principles, or more fully possessing the wide range of knowledge and thought necessary for the task. His views differ in some points from those just quoted, but their general tendenqr is the same : — " If, therefore, the doctrine of successive development had been palaeontologically true, as I have endeavoured to show that it is not ; if the sponge, the cephalopod, the fish, the reptile, the bird and the mammifer, had followed each other in r^ular ohronolc^cal order, the creation of each of these classes being separated from the others by vast intervals of time ; and if it were clear that man had been created later by at least one entire period, — still I should have been wholly unable to recognize, in his entrance on the earth, the last term of one and the same series of de- velopments. Even then the creation of man %ould rather seem to have been the beginning of some new and differ- ent order of things. * * By the creation of a species I simply mean the beginning of a new series of oiganio 0OMPABI8ONS AND CONOLUFIIONS. 333 phenomena, snch as we usoallj understand by the term " species." Whether such commencement be brought about by the direct intervention of the First Cause, or by some luknown second cause or law appointed by the Author of nature, is a point upon which I will not venture to offer a conjecture. " In the first publication of the Huttonian theory, it was declared that we ean neither see the beginning nor the end of that vast series of phenomena which it is our business as geologists to investigate. After sixty years of renewed inquiry, and after we have greatly enlarged the sphere of our knowlet^"^, the same conclusion seems to me to hold true. But if ^v. > oc^e should appeal to such results in support of the doct r. . ^f an eternal succession, I may reply that the evidence has become more and more decisive in favour of the recent origin of our own species. The intellect of man and his spiritual and moral nature are the bigliest works of creative power known to us in the uni< verae ; and to have traced out the date of their commence- ment in past time, — to have succeeded in referring so memorable an event to one out of a long succession of periods, each of enormous duration, — is perhaps a more wonderful achievement of science than it would be to have simply discovered the dawn of animal or vegetable life, or the precise time when out of chaos or out of nothing, a globe of inanimate matter was first formed." * * It appears (or some years past to have become a recognized' practice of the Presidents of the Geological Society, in their annual addresses, to devote a few concluding paragraphs to 334 ABOHAIA. The actual position of geology in relation to the succes- sion cf organic life and the creation of species, cannot be n> ore shortly or dearly stated than in the following propo- sitions by Dr. Bronn, in his essay on the " Laws of Deve- lopment of the Organic World," to which the prize was awarded by the French Academy in 1856. I quote from the translation in the notice of the work by Mr. Hamilton, such general subjects. In 1852, Mr. Hopkins vindicated the doctrine of the progression of the inorganic 'arrangements of the earth, from the period of its first creation. In 1864, Prof. Forbes introduced his remarkable doctrine of polarity in the introduction of organic forms, which, had he lived, he might have followed out into other general views. Its bearing on our subject is merely that it is a hint toward the tracing of a general plan in creation, of such a character, that, while generic forms were more plentifully developed at the beginning of the Palaeo- zoic and more sparingly toward its close, the reverse mode appears in the Me^ozoic and Tertiary. In 1856, Mr. Hamilton ably exposed the fallacies of Prof. Powell's reasonings on the supposed infinite variability of species. In 185*7, Major-General Portlock, while protebtlng against the limitation of scientific inquiry by any views of the Bible narrative, maintains the crea- tion of species by the Divine fiat, locally, and in adaptation to the circumstances of their several localities. In 1858, he attacks, perhaps too severely, Mr. Gosse's ingenious but eccentric theory. It is instructive to observe how carefully these men, writing for the most advanced geological minds, touch on the mystery of creation, and how little in the main their views as to its probable nature differ from the doctrines of revelation. €OHPAKI80N8 AND OON0LIT8IONS. 336 in the Journal of the Qeolo;poal Society of Lrogressive improvement of the animal kingdom consisted in the addi- tion, nrst of the reptile, which attained its highest perfec- tion and importance in tlie Mesozoio period, and then of the bird and mammal, which did not attain their highest forms till the modern period. This geological order of animal life, it is scarcely necessary to add, agrees perfectly with that sketched by Moses, in which the lower types are completed at once, and the progress is wholly in the higher. In the inspired narrstive^ we have already noticed some peculiarities, as for instance the early appearance of a highly developed flora, and the special mention of great reptiles in the work of the fifth day, which correspond with the significant fact that high types of structure appeared at the very introduction of each new group of organized beings — a fact which, more than any other in geology, shows that, in the organic department, elevation has always been a strictly creative work, and that there is in the constitution of animal species no innate tendency 00MPABI80N8 AND 0ON0LU8ION8. 345 to eleyation, but that on the contrary we ehonld rather sospeot a tendency to d^neraoy and nltimate disappear- ance, requiring that the fiat of the Creator ehould after a time go ont again to " renew the face of the earth." Is the natural as in the moral world, the only law of progress is the will and the power of Ood. In one sense, howevor, progress in the organic woild has been dependent on, though not caused by, progrefs in the inorganic. We see in geology many grounds for believing, that each new tribe of animals or plants was introduced just as the earth became iated for it ; and even in the present world, we see that r^ons composed of the more ancient rocks, and not modified by subsequent disturbances, present few of the means of support for man and the higher animals; while those districts in which various revolutions of the earth have accumulated fertile soils, or deposited useful minerals, are the chief seats of civilixalion and population. In like manner, we know that those r^ons which the Bible informs us were the cradle of the human race, and the seats of the oldest nations, are geologically among the most recent parts of the existing continents, and were no doubt selected by the Creator partly on that account^ for the birth-place of man. We thus find that the Bible and the Gev^iogists are agreed not*only as to the fact and order of progress, but also as to its manner and use. 3. Both records agree in affirming that nnce the ban- ning there has been but one great System of nature. We can imagine ii to have been otherwise. Otir existing 346 ABOHAIA. nature might have been preceded by a state of things having no connection with it. The arrangements of the earth's surface might have been altogether different; races of creatures might have existed having no affinity with or resemblance to those of the present world, and we might have been able to trace no present beneficial consequences as flowing from these past states of our planet. Had geology made such revelations as these, the consequences in relation to natural theology and the credibility of scrip- ture, would have been momentous. The Mosaic narrative could scarcely, in that case, have been interpreted in such a manner as to accord with geological conclusions. The questions would have arisen, — Are there more creative powers than one ? If one, is he an imperfect or capricious being who changes his plans of operation ? The divine authority of the scriptures, as well as the unity and per- fections of God, might thus have been involved in serious doubts. Happily for us, there is nothing of this kind in the geological history of the earth; as there is manifestly nothing of it in that which is revealed in scripture. In the s(Nripture narrative, each act of creation prepares for the others, and in its consequences ezteudb tc then) all. The inspired writer announces the introduction of each new part of creation, and then leaves it without any reference to the various phases which it assumed as the work advanced. In the grand general view which he takes, the land and seas first made represent those of all the following periods. So do the first plants, the first 0OMPABIBON8 AND OONOLUSIONB. 347 inyertebrate animals, the first fishes, reptiles, birds, and mammals. He thus assures as, that, however long the periods represented by days of creation, the system of nature was one from the banning. In like manner, in the geological record, each of the successive (Auditions of the earth is related to those which precede and those which follow, as part of a series. So also a uniform plan of con- struction pervades organic nature, and uniform laws the inorganic world in all periods. We can thus include in one ^stem of natural history, all animals and plants, fossil as well as recent; and can resolve all inorganic changes into the operation of existing laws. The former of these facts is in its nature so remarkable, as almost to warrant the belief of special design. Naturalists had arranged the existing animals and plants, without any reference to fossil species, in kingdoms, sub-kingdoms, classes, orders, families and genera. Geological research has added a vast number of species not now existing in a living state ; yet all these fossils can be inserted within the limits of recog- nized groups. We do not require to add a new kingdom sub-kingdom, or class; but on the contrary, all the fossil genera and species go into the existing divisions, in such a manner as to fill them up precisely where they are most deficient, thus occupying what would otherwise be gaps in the existing system of nature. The principal dif- .fioulty which they occasion to the zoologist and. botanist^ is that by filling the intervals between genera previously widely separated, they give to the whole a degree of con- 348 AKOEAIA. tinuitj, whioh renders it more difficult to decide where the boundaries separating the groups should be placed. Wo also find that the animals and plants of the earlier periods often oomlnned in one form, powers and properties, afterwards separated in distinct groups thus in the earlier formations, the sauroid fishes unite pe iliivities afterwards divided between the fish and reptiles, constituting what Agassiz calls a synthetic type. Again, the series of crea- tures in time accords with the ranks which a study of their types of structure induces the Naturalist to assign them in his system ; and also, within each of the great sub-king- doms, presents many points of accordance with the progress of the embryonic development of the individual animal. Nor is this contradictory to the statement that the earlier representatives of types are often of high and perfect organization, for the progress both in geological time and in the life of the individual, is so much one of specialization, that an immature animal often presents points of affinity to higher forms that disappear in the adult. la connection with this, earlier organic forms often appear to fore-shadow and predict others that are to succeed them in time, as tie winged and marine reptiles of the Mesozoic rocks, the birds and the cetaceans. Agassiz has admirably illustrated these links of connection between the past and the present, in the essay on classification prefixed to his " Gontributions to the Natural History of America." In reference to "jHrophetio" types, he says: — "They appear now like a prophecy in those earlier times of an order of things not OOMPARISONB AND OONOL178XONS. 349 possible with the earlier combinations then prevailing in the animal kingdom, bat exhibiting in a later period, in a striking manner, the antecedent oonuid«ration of every step in the gradation of animals." 4. The periods into which geology divides the history of the earth, are different from those of scripture, yet when properly understood, there is a marked correspond- ence. Geology refers only to the fifth and sixth days of creation, or at most, to these with parts of the fourth and seventh, and it divides this portion of the work into several eras, founded on alternations of rock formations and changes in organic remains. The nature of geological evidence renders it probable that many apparently well- marked breaks in the chain, may result merely from deficiency in the preserved remains ; and consequently that what appear to the geologist to be very distinct periods, may in reality run together. The only natural divisions that scripture teaches us to look for, are those between the fifth and sixth days, and those which, within these days, mark the introduction of new animal forms, as for instance the great reptiles of the fifth day. We have already seen that the beginning of the fifth day can be referred almost with certainty to that of the Palaeozoic period. The beginning of the sixth day may with nearly equal certainty be referred to that of the Tertiary era. The introduction of great reptiles and birds in the fifth day, synchronizes and cok'responds with the beginning of the Mesozoic period ; and that of man at the dose of the sixth day, with the 350 ABOHAIA. oommenoement of the modern era in geology. These four great coincidences are so mvch more than we could have expected, in records so very different in their nature and origin, that we need not pause to search for others of a more obscure character. It may be well to introdnce here a tabular view of this correspondence between the Geolo- gical and Biblical periods, eisitending it as far aa eiti\er record can cany us : — PARALLELISM OF THE SCRIPTURAL COSMOGONY WITH THE ASTRONOMICAL AND GEOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE EARTH. BIBLICAL ABOKS. The Beginnmg. First Day. — Earth mantled by the Vaporous Deep—- Produc- tion of Light. Second Day. — ^Earth covered by the Waters. — Formation of the Atmosphere. J^ird Day, — Emergence of Dry Land — Introduction of Vege- tation, Fourth Day. — Completion of the arrangements of the Solar System. Fifth Day. — Invertebrates and Fishes, and afterwards great Reptiles and Birds created. VKUIODP CEDUCTBD VEOH BCIBMTI- 710 tiONSIDBBATIONS. Creation of Matter. Condensation of Planetary Bo- dies from a nebulous mass- Hypothesis of original incan- descence. Primitive Universal Ocean, and establishment of Atmosphe- ric equilibrium. Elevation of the land which furnished the materials of the Azoic rocks— Azoic Period of Geology. Metamorphism of Azoic rocks and disturbances preceding the Cambrian epoch — ^Domi- nion of "Existing Causes" begins. Palaeozoic Period — Reign of Invertebrates and Fishes. Mesozoic Period — Reign of Rep- tiles. COMPABI80N8 AND 00N0LUBI0M8. 351 BIBLIOAL ABOMR. Sixth Day. — Introdnotion of Mammala — Creation of Man Avd Bdenic Group of Ani- SeverUh i)ay. — Cessation of Work of Creation — Fall and Redemption of Man. Eighth Day. — New Heayens and Earth to sacceed the Human Epoch— "The Rest (Sabbath) that remains to the People of God."* PUUODB DBDDCro VBOX BOIBB- TSnO OOMSIDBBATIOHS. Tertiary Period-Reign of Mam- mals. Post Tertiary— Existing Mam- mals and Man. Period of Hnman History. • Heb. lY.. 9, 2 Peter UL IS. 5. In both records the ocean gives birth to the first dry land, and it is the sea that is first inhabited, yet both lead at least to the suspicion that a state of igneous fluidity preceded the prindtive universal ocean. In scripture the original prevalence of the ocean is distinctly stated, and all geologists are agreed that, in the early fossiliferous periods, the sea must have prevailed much more ezten- avely than at present. Scripture also expressly states that the waters were the birth-place of the earliest animals, and geology has as yet discovered in the whole Silurian series no terrestrial animal, though marine creatures are extremely abundant; and though air-breathing creatures are found in the later Palaeozoic, they are, with the exception of insects, of that semi-amphibious character, which is pro- per to alluvial flats and the deltas of rivers. It is true that the native evidence collected by geology does not render it altogether impossible that terrestrial animals, 362 ABOHAIA. even mammals, may have existed in the earliest periods;, yet there are, as already pointed out, some positive indica- tions of this kind. The scripture, however, oommits itself to a positive statement that the higher land animals did not exist so early, though it must be observed that there is nothing in the Mosaic narrative adverse to the existence of birds, insects and reptiles, in the earlier Palaeozoic periods. Though, however, the Bible informs us of a universal ocean preceding the existence of land, it also gives indications of a still earlier period of igneous fluidity or gaseous expansion. G^lo^ also and astronomy have their reasonings and speculations as to the prevalence of such conditions. Here, however, both records become dim and obscure, though it is evident that both point in the same direction, and combine those aqueous and igneous origins which in the last century afforded so fertile ground of one-sided dispute. . 6. Both records concur in maintainii^ what is usually termed the doctrine of existing causes in geology. Scrip- ture and geology alike show that since the beginning of the fifth day, or Palaeozoic period, the inorganic world has continued under the dominion of the same causes that now regulate its changes and processes. The aoiaed narrative gives no hint of any creative interposition in this depart- ment, after the fourth day ; and geology assures us that all the rooks with which it is acquainted, have been produced by the same causes that are now throwing down detritus ii^ the bottom of the waters, or bringing up volcanic pro- OOMPARISOm AMD OONOLVBIONS. 4aot8 from the interior of tbe earth. Thie grand general- iiation, therrfore, first worked oat in modem timee by • Sir Charles Lyell, from a laborious ooUeoiion of the changes oeeorring in the present state of the world, was, as a doo- trine of divine revelation, annonnoed more than three thou* Band years ago by the Hebrew law-giver ; not for soientifie purposes, bat as a part of the theology of the Hebrew monotheism. 7. Both records agree in assuring as that death {««- vailed in the world eversinoe animals were introdaeed. The panishment threatened to Adam, and oonsideratiou oonnected with man's state of innooenoe, have led to the belief that the Bible teaches that the lower animals, as well as man, were exempt from death before the fall. When, however, we find the great tamninim or crocodilian reptiles, created in the fifth day, and beasts of prey on the siztb, we need entertain no doubt on the sabjeot, in so far as scripture is concerned. The geological record is equally explicit. Oamivorous creatures, with the most formidable powers of destruction, have left their remains in all parts of the geological series ; and indeed, up to the introduction of man, the carnivorous fishes, reptiles and quadrupeds, were the lords and tyrants of the earth. There can be little doubt, however, that the introduction of man was the beginning of a change in this respect. A creature destitute of offensive weapons, and subsisting on fruits, was to rule by the power of intellect. As already hinted, it is probable that in Eden he was surrounded by 854 ▲BOHAU. * group of inoffensive animals, and that those oreatnrei which he had cause to dread, would have disappeared as he extended his dominion. In this way, the law of violent- death and destruction which prevailed under the dynasties of the fish, the reptile and the carnivorous mammifer, would ultimately have been abr(^ted; and, under the milder sway of man, life and peace would have reigned in a manner to which our knowledge of pre-Adamite and present nature, may afford no adequate key. Be this as it may, on the important point of the original prevalence of death among the lower animals, both records are at one. 8. In the department of " final causes," as they have been termed, scripture and geology unite in affording large and interesting views. They illustrate the procedure of the All-wise Creator, during a long succession of ages, and thus enable us to see the effects of any of his laws, not only at one time, but in far distant periods. To reject the consideration of this peculiarity of geological science, would be the eztrenest folly, and would involve at once a misinterpretation of the geolc^o record, and a denial of the agency of an intelligent Designer as revealed in scripture, and indicated by the succession of beings. Many of the past changes of the earth acquire their full ngnificanoe only when taken in connection with the present wants of the earth's inhabitants; and along the whole course of the geological history, the creatures that we meet with are equally rich in the evidences of nice adaptation to <»rcumstanoes, and wonderful contrivances for special OOM^ARIlOlfS AMD OONOLTTBIOMB. du ends, ^th their modern repreeentatiyes. As an example of the former, how wonderful is the connection of the great ratable accumulations of the ancient coal stamps, and the bands and nodules of ironstone, which were separated from the ferruginous sands or clays in their vicinity by the action of this very v^table matter, with the whole fabric of modem ciyilization, and especially with the pros- perity of that race which, in our time, stands in the fit>nt of the world's progress. In a very ancient period, wide swamps and deltas, teeming with vegetable life, and which if they now existed, would be but pestilent breeders of miasmata, spread over large tracts of the northern hemis- phere, on which marine animals had previously aocuma> lated thick sheets of limestone. Vast beds of v^table matter were collected by growth in these swamps, and the waste particles that passed off in the form of organic acids, were employed in concentrating the oxide of iron in under- lying days and sands. In the lapse of ages, the whole of these accumulations were buried deep in the crust of the earth; and long periods succeeded, when the earth was tenanted by reptilian and other creatures, unconscious of the treasures beneath them. The modem period arrived. The equable climate of the coal era had passed away. Continents were prepared for the residence of man, and the edges of the old carboniferous beds were exposed by subterraneous movements, and laid bare by denudation. Man was introduced, fell from his state of innocence, and was condemned to earn his subsistence by the sweat of his 866 AROHAIA. brow ; aod now for the first time ftppean the um of theie buried ooal swamps. They now afford at onoe the mate- rials of improvement in the arts, and of oomfortable 8ab> sistenoe in extreme climates, and subjects of surpassing interest to the naturalist. Similar instances may be gjeaned by the natural theologian from nearly every part of the geological history. Lastly, — Both records represent man as the last of Qod's works, and the oulminating-point of the whole creation. We have already had occasion to refer to this as a result (^loology, geology and scriptural exegesis, and may here confine ourselves to the moral consequenees of this great truth. Man is the capital of the column ; and, if marred and defaced by moral evil, the symmetry of the whole is to be restored, not by rejecting him altogether, like the extinct species of the ancient world, and replacing him by another, but by re-casting him in the image of his Divine Bedeemer. Man, though recently introduced, is to exist eternally. He is, in one or another state of being, to be a witness of all future changes of the earth. He has before him the option of being one with his Maker, and sharing in a future glorious and finally renovated condition of our ^anet, or of sinking into endless degradation. Such is the great spiritual drama of man's fate, to be acted out on the theatre of the world. Every human being must play his part in it, and the present must decide what that part flhall be. The Bible bases these great foreshadowings of the future, on its own peculiar evidence; yet I may ven- OOMPARUONB AMD OONOLUBIOlfS. 86V tare humbly to maintain that ill harmony with natonJ aoienoe, as fkr as the latter ean aseend, gites to the word of Ood a preeminent olaim on the attention of the natu- ralist. The Bible, unlike every other system of religions doctrine, foam no investigation or disenssion. It courts these. " While science," says a modem divine,"* is fatal to superstition, it is fortification to a scriptural faith. The Bible is the bravest of books. Coming Arom God, and conscious of nothing but God's truth, it awaits the progress of knowledge with calm security. It watches the antiquary ransacking among classic ruins, and rejoices in every medal he discovers and every inscription he deci- phers ; for flrom that rusty coin, or corroded marble, it expects nothing but confirmations of its own veracity. In the unlocking of an Egyptian hieroglyphic, or the unearth- ing of some ancient implement, it hails the resurrection of 80 many witnesses ; and with sparkling elation it follows the botanist as he scales Mount Lebanon, or the zoologist as he makes acquaintance with the beastR of the Syrian desert ; or the traveller as he stumbles on a long-lost Petra, or Nineveh, or Babylon. And from the march of time it fears no evil, but calmly abides the fulfilment of those prophecies and the forthcoming of those events, with whose jNredioted story inspiration has already inscribed its page. It is not light but darkness which the Bible deprecates; and if men of piety were also men of science, and if men •Hamilton. 818 of science were to search the scriptures, there would he more faith in the earth, and also more philosophy." The reader has, I trust, found, in the preceding pages, sufficient evidence that the Bihle has nothing to dread from the revelations of geology, but much to hope in the way of elucidation of its meaning and con- firmation of its truth. If convinced of this, I trust that he will allow me now to ask for the warnings, promises and predictions of the Book of God, his entire confidence; and in conclusion to direct his attention to the glorious prospects which it holds forth to the human race, and to every individual of it who, in humility and self-renuncia- tion, casts himself in faith on that Divine Redeemer, who is at once the creator of the heavens and the earth, and the brother and the friend of the penitent and the con- trite. That same old book, which carries back cur view to those ancient conditions of our planet, which preceded not only the creation of man, but the earliest periods of which science has cognizance, likewise carries our minds forward into the farthest depths of futurity, and showt) that all present things must pass away. It reveals to us a new heaven and a new earth, which are to roplace those now existing ; wl.on the Eternal Son of Qod, the manifestation of the Father equally in creation and redemption, shall come forth conquering and to conquer, and shall sweep away into utter extinction all the blood-stained tyrannies of the present earth, even as ho has swept away the brute dynasties of the pre-Adamite world, and shall establish a OOXPABISONS AlfD OONOLUSIONS. 859 reign of peace, of love and of holineis, that sliall never pass away : when the purified sous of Adam, rejoicing in immortal youth and happiness, shall be able to look back with enlarged understandings and gratefol hearts, on the whole history of creation and redemption, and shall join their angelic brethren in the final and more ecstatic repe- tition of that hymn of praise, with which the heavenly hosts greeted the birth of our planet. May God in 'da mercy grant, that he who writes and they who read, may " stand in their lot at the end of the days," and enjoy the full fruition of these glorious prospects. of til S( er ne set on mil ] ezii am Ptc obs mu( est couj itsi mod 3. Sami king ested 4. and 4 seque belon const gony, APPENDIX. A.— AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS OP THE MOSAIC BOOKS. This quoBtion has been so thoroughly settled by the laboun of many eminent scholars, that I have assumed in the text, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, as an undeniable fact. Still, as it is sometimes called in question by that class of erratic critics who make skepticism in all that is Biblical a necessary accompaniment of historical and ethnological re- search, I may shortly state one of the lines of argument followed on this subject, and which is quite sufficient to satisfy my own mind. 1. The septuagint translation proves the Pentateuch to have existed in its present form, and to have been recognized in Egypt and Palestine as genuine, about 300 years B. C, in the reign of Ptolemy I., when that translation was commenced. This, be it observed, is as far back as the time of Manetho, on whom so much reliance has been placed for early Egyptian history. 2. It was received by the Jews, on the return from Babylon, as their proper national law, and was acted on as such. Nor could it have been written or even compiled at that time, else its acceptance must have been local, and its language more modern. 3. The independent preservation of the Pentateuch by the Samaritans shows that its acceptance was not confined to the kingdom of Judah merely, and aftbrds a distinct and disinter-' ested evidence to its purity and authenticity. 4. The Mosaic books do not recogniee the kingly constitution, and therefore could not have been a forgery of any period sub- sequent to the time of Samuel. Further, the Psalms, which belong to the period of David, and thence to the captivity, constantly recognize the history of the Pentateuch, its cosmo- gony, and its ritual, as those of the nation. 362 APFBBTDIX, 5. The above considerutions carry back the antiqaity of these books to the time of Samuel^ say 260 years after the contempo' varies of Mo8e». But tb« whole history of Samuel^ as well a» that of Joshua and the Judges^ implies the eusteaee of the Mosaic ritual, aad the accuracy of its history. It is not possible that in the time of Samuel^ or at any prerious period^ this connected history could bare been ibrged or palmed on the poople. 6. The books of Moses hare nothing of the mythical aspect of the legends of other nations relating to the same early periods. They do narrate miracles^ but these are aecribed to the direct interposition of God ; and their human history is of a rational and sober character,, ascribing no superhuman feats to man. They have^ farther, in so far as the eyents stated to have occur- red in the time of Moses are coucerned, strong, indications of being tbe narrative of a contesqiorary. For esample,- they detail with great accuracy many points in the &.anners, religion and government of Egypt, now known from the monuments to be strictly correct ; but which couM in ancient times have been distinctly known only to contemporaries,, and these are not paraded as remarkable, but introduced artlessly and ineidea- tolly. Fasther, we know from Sgyptias discoveries, that the Mosaic books could have been committed to writing at the time when they were composed,, and may have been directly handed down to US' in that way. We have Egyptian inscriptions of a date considerably prior to that cf Moses ; and the Hebrew and Phenician alphabets,- confessedly the oldest in the world, are manifestly derived from the phonetic hieroglyphs of Egypt. Moses was not, therefore^ like some early bards in Europe, uo' der the necessity of entrusting his compositions to oral trans- mission. He could leave them in a written form, and in the hands of en organized priestly body interested in preserving them. Lastly, the pre- Mosaic history, the events of the exodus^ and the provisions of the law, all harmonize with each other, and coincide in so many complicated ways, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine any way in which they could itave been concocted at a time posterior to that of the exodas. Nothing in ancient literature^ and little even in more modern literatuie, can thus be more certainly ascertained to be genuine than the Pentateuch ; and, in addition to the above and many other arguments which have been adduced, those who attach any value to the authority at our Saviour^ as recorded by the Evangelists, have his testimony that tbe .tews in bis time possessed " Moms and tbe Prophets." It is evident that if Moses was the writer oi Genesis, tbe " Document " hypothesis is reduced to tbe comparatively insig' aificant qfuestion^-Did Ho8e» avadl hinMetf mi any aaered lost APPINDIX. 363 that maj hare existed in liis time 7 Eren this, however, hai scarcely any ground for its support, except the general diffusion of similar views of creation; whicU appears to imply that this part of revelation preceded the dispersion of man. The sup- po&od contradictions of different parts of the earlier chapters, will be seen in the text to have no existence. The few diversities of style are quite insignificant, and fully accounted for by the changing nature of the subject. T lie only other argument of any weight is the use of the diiT'srent names Elohim and Jeho- vah for God. The first is his name considered as the Almighty, the Creator. The second as the Self*Exintent— He who* was and is and is to come — and in more especial relation to his moral government. With respect to the use of these names, a very little comparison of scripture passages assures us— 1. That Elo- bim is specially appropriate in speaking of creation and nature. 2. That Jehovah is specially appropriate in speaking of man and of redemption. 3. This distinction is kept up in the early chapters of Genesis, but with a conjoint use of the terms in passing from the creative work to the human history. 4. In the later books, except in certain solemn and peculiar circum- stances, the terms are used as synonymous. I have not noticed, as having no practical bearing on the solution of the question as to the origin of the narrative of creation, the ingenious but fanciful theory of Ho£fman, that the perfect intellect of man before the fall embraced a kind of intuitive knowledge of the facts of creation, which has formed the substratum of Genesis 1st. Kurtz, on the other hand, main- taining that it is truly a divine revelation, but older than the time of Moses, argues very ingeniously that its probable date is that of Enoch, in whose time men began to call on the " name of the Lord " in a formal and public manner — in connection, perhaps, with the first revelation made to man after the fall. (See Introd. to " History of the Old Covenant," translated by Edersheim.) B— RELATION OF THE HUMAN AND TERTIARY PERIODS. That explanation of the Mosaic cosmogony which supposes that a long time elapsed between the " beginning," and that condi- tion of the earth mentioned in verse 2nd of Genesis Ist ; and that the chaos of verse 2nd immediately preceded the creation of man, raises the geological question ; Was there any such chaos at the close of the tertiary and before the modern period. Geology answsrs in the negative, and offers most conclusive reasons. In the Pleistocene period, raised beaches and other indications show that our existing continents w«rA gradually rising and assuming their present outliaes, vhiie the nigher animals of the 364, APPENDIX. Und were in the main quite diitinet from the present. But thejr were not wholly distinct. While species of Mastodon and Mam* moth, for example, roamed over the northern parts of both con* tinents, thej were accompanied bj the Mnsk Oz and some other quadmpeds that still sarTiTe, and were sheltered by forests of Norway spruce, arbor ritae, balsam poplar, and other trees that still clothe these regions. In the same period the inhabitants of the seas were almost without exception the same as at presemt. These statements are prored by the eyidence of well explored depO!^ts on both sides of the Atlantic. Before the commence* ment of the Pleistocene period, nearly the whole land of the northern hemisphere appears to have been submerged, and dur- ing or in the progress of this submergence, the great Bouldet formation or 3 r i nras deposited. But though this great sub- mergence mum \,vfe been fatal to most of the inhabitants of the land, and forr .i marked separation between the newer Pliocene and Pleistoc ' 'idods, it scarcely affected the Marine inverte' brates, '' ar«!>^ lu tboir geographical distribution, and these con* sequent ^ ^ u< back into the Pliocene periods, where they become < ^iitemporaries of quite a different creation of terres- trial araiii)tf{itil!7. If instead o acmg life backward, we begin at the Eocene tertiaries wheii the first modern animals appear, we Irad first a few marine inyertebrates that still exist ; in the Miocene and Pliocene the proportion increases, and in the Pleistocene exist- ing species of the higher animals and of terrestrial plants make their appearan 3e in the same gradual manner. Nor is there any- where, between the Eocene aud the^ modern period, any break in the chain of existence at all comparable with that which occurs between vhe Eocene and the preceding mesozoic forma- tions. In short, geology testifies to the gradual introduction of existing forms, species by species, and to the similar gradual extinction of previous forms, and the modern world is connected by one unbroken chain of organic existence with those pre-ada- mite worlds which hare passed away. Further, if we trace back existing species of animals to their origin, we first lose man, then tl^ other Mammals, and last of all the invertebrates of the sea ; so that the duration of the existence of species is parallel to that of generic and family forms in the whole geologic history, when we trace this back to what appears ^o be the origin of animal life. The application of these facts to the argument respecting .'!, very clearly and with more of illustration, in Hugh Miller's Ificture on the '' Two Records" in the Testimony of the Rocks. Further details will be found in Lyell's Elements, and with special reference to Great Britain, in Forbes' paper on the Tertiary and Pleistocene Faunae, in the Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great APPCNDIX. 365 Britdn. Facts relating to Canada, where these later formationi are Tery clearly exhibited, will be found in papere by Prof. Bamaay and the author in the Canadian Natnraliit, 185 1 k 1868. I am truly sorry that the absence of a Qeologieal chaoe im- mediately before man, and the riewn giren in the text as to the nature of the primeyal " desolation and emptiness," remove one of the foundations on which Kurti has chosen to rebuild the remarkable doctrine of the original association of angels with our planet, which has suggested itself to so many thinkers. It may be stated thus : — The angels were the original inhabitants of the earth as well as of other planets and perhaps of the stars also. Those inhabiting the earth fell, and the earth in conse> quence passed into that state designated by " tohu vabohn." From this state it was redeemed by the divine power, the fallen angels banished, and man introduced. Hence the possibility of man attaining to knowledge of ctU, and hence also the enmity of fallen angels and their desire to restore their power over this world. The theological harmonies of this doctrine are not, how- ever, affected by our dissociating it from its supposed geological relations. C.— ORIGINAL FLUIDITY OF THE EARTH. In the text, the original floi^ty or even gaseous expansion of the materials of our planet, is assumed as most in accordance with the scriptural intimations as to its earliest state. In the popular mind, however, this doctrine has been losing ground, owing to the circumstance, that, while the rate of increase of temperature from the surface, as measured in mines and other excavations, would give the earth a solid crust not more than a hundred miles in thickness, astronomical considerations show that its solid shell, if it be not wholly solid, must be at least eight times that thickness. In connection with this, the bold but baseless speculation of Poisson, that the whole solar system may be moving through portions of space d^urently heated, and thus in some geological period? acquiring and in others losing heat, and also the chemical theories of volcanic action proposed by Daubeny and others, — show that there may be other ways of accounting for the phenomena. Of the astronomical contributions to our knowledge of this obscure subject, one of the most important is the series of cal- culations, based on the phenomena of Precession and Nutation, by Mr. Hopkins of Cambridge. These calculations, it is true, rest on a very narrow basis, and have recently been disputed. Mr. Hopkins's general conclusion is that the "minimum thick- ness of the crust of the globe, consistent with the observed amount of precession, cannot be less than one-fourth of the earth's radius," in other words from 1000 to 800 miles. The 366 APPINDIZ. hypothetical yiewg stated by Mr. Hopkini, in reference to th« manner in which the earth reached its present state, are thus condensed bj Mr. McLaren in Jameson's Edinburgh Philosophi- cal Journal :— " If the earth was originally fluid, it might pass to the solid state in two modes. The heat would be continually dissipated from the surface, and would therefore be greatest at the centre ; and so long as the mass was fluid, the inequality of the heat would cause a constant circulation betwixt the surface and the centre. Now, if the eflRsct of heat in prerenting solidification was greater than that of pressure in promoting it. solidification would begin at the surface, where a crust would be formed, and would gradually inci'case in thickness, by the addition of layer after layer to its lower side. But if the eflbct of pressure in promoting solidification was greater than that of heat in pre* Tenting it, solidification would begin at the centre, and extend outwardly. While the process was going on, circulation would continue in the fluid part exterior to the solid nucleus. But, before the last portions became solid, a state of imperfect fluidity would arise, ju3t sufficient to present circulation. The coolest particles at the surface being then no longer able to descend, a crust would be formed, from which the process of solidification would proceed far more rapidly downwards than upwards from the solid nucleus. Our globe would thus arrive at a state in which it would be composed of a solid exterior shell and a solid central nucleus, with matter in a state uf fusion betwixt them." Such, then, according to Mr. Hopkins, may be the present condition of the interior of the earth ; and he farther supposes that within the solid shell itself, there are in all probability large reservoirs of melted rock, forming the foci of the volcanic action of the geological periods of the earth's history. The calculations of Mr. Hopkins have recently been discussed by Prof. Haughton of Dublin and Archdeacon Pratt of Calcutta ; the former maintaining that such calculations rest on arbitrary hypotheses and are of no real value, and that the crust of the earth may be either 10 miles or 4000 in thickness : — the latter supporting Mr. Hopkins' views. Should the astronomers finally adopt the view of Prof. Haughton, then the geologists must be content to return to their own lines of investigation ; and may pretty safely affirm on the evidence of the observed increase of temperature, the wide diffusion of volcanic action, the extensive lat«al motions which have taken place in portions of the earth's crust, the form of the great sunken area of the Pacific, and the extensive metamorphism of iht older stratified rocks, that what- ever its primitive state, the solid portions of the earfh known to ns do rest, in whole or in part, on fluid matter, and have been in tliat condition throughout geological time. Prof. T. Sterry Hunt has well explained the chemical ccndi- AvnifDnL 367 These roclcs, in so far as known, are destitute of well charac- terised fossils; but the officers of the Survey have recently found in one of the limestones, bodies resembling corals, and which may be organic; and the occurrence of carbonaceous matter in the form of graphite and of crystalline phosphate of lime, affords a strong presumption that they hare contained organic matters. They may, therefore, ultimately prove to be no older than the dawn of animal or plant life on our planet. However this may be, the occurrence of pebbles of sandstone in these beds shows that when they were formed there were shores or shoals on which pebbles were rounded, and that these shores or shoals were in part formed ot sedimentary rocks which must themselves have be«m a product of the waste of still older masses. These Laurentian rocks tbus carry us back two whole periods before the formation of the beds that contain the earliest known animal remaini*. Further details on this sub- ject will be found in the Reports of the Canadian Survey for 1853-6. E.— ANCIENT FLORAS. The most ancient land-flora of which we know anything with certainty, is that of the Devonian period. The Primordial zone or Cambrian system, and the Silurian system, though rich in marine animals, have as yet afforded no well-characterized land-plants. The Devonian flora contains some of the highw Cryptogams, representing two of the three leading families now existing, the Ferns and Lycopodiacen, e.g., Sphenopterit, IVeu- ropterit, Lepidodendron, Knorria, Pnlophyton. The gymnosperms are represented by the Coniferous genera Dadoxylon^ Proto- taxites, Aporoxylonj and by the Cycadoid genera Sigillariaf Calamite$i but the Sigillarese and Coniferse are rare. There is also :' genus of uncertain affinities, probably Cry^togamous— ■ Noeggeraihia. (See Goeppert's Transition Flora; linger in IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^ ^'"^41^ e ^4^ V 1.0 1.1 11.25 1^121 125 ■Itau IE 6" Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STRUT WnSTIR.N.Y. I45M (716)172-4503 '^ \ \\ 4^. v\ // ^g «•■#> ▼toaaft TnuMtiOBtk 1856; "Dmwamk o* !>»¥— hm Ptentf of CMuUUy Proo. Q«0l. Mey^ IM9.) In the loeeeediag e«vb(miferoas period, we hmf » great de- Telopmeot of Oryptogeau a«d Oyaaoepenu in ipeeief «ii4 genen, And peniblj n hw ^miogtaa. Netirithituiding tke gient ttunber of jcwbenillMMni ipeolef Imoini, tiicte ii ttill no >iepreaentotion of the highest (Kzogenoni) plnate and tieei. Thii Mooants for, and alaoat neeenarilj impliei, the "want 6f the higher land-aninala. With TCipeet to the time reqniied for the aeenmnlation of the '«oal meaanres, and the »ode ^formation of eoal, I may reflnr to the aeeonnt of the leetion of the South Joggins in " Acadian Oeelogy," and in Proe. Oeol. Soej. of London, 1868, and to mj on " The Structurei in Ooal," Proc. Geol. Socj. for 1868. ■r.^DBYBLOPMBlTT OF SPBOIFIO PORMS BT NATinUL LAW. i The mfiterfoaa fveetlen ef the origin of tpiftcies, itill oei^ 4fmiea to be agitated ; though it ia itill true that we hare no certain OTidenee dtiier that any mrganieed atmeture can origi- nateh under an j natural law, from dead matter,|or that aqr qpaeiee «an by any poMibility give origin to another. All that vVe «aa hope to feaeh, either by geological or soologioal iuTei- Hdpitimi of this snl^eet, is probably some more clear eonoeptimi «f the m«nner and 6rder of introduction ef speeies. On thissubjeet, geology appears to give a decided negative 4k» the graduiid derelopment of higher from lower forma; the law beUg rather the appearance of every type in its highest pwfeetion, and a development by the introduction of new types, ist modifiaatioas of types. Sir Oliarles Lyell, in his anniversary address quoted in the text, gives a very clear summary of toe K logical evidence on this subject, which still holds good, and even been strengthened by foots more recently acquired:— ** Before I go into details, whether of fact or argument, on ra with which we «aB be said to have any cmd aoquaintanee (the carboniftroni) m mteiM OoaUumtWiUk «• bj no mmu of tlMiowtst gni« In th* pluenogmoils elan, and, acoonUaf to naay botaaitta of ^h aatlioritjr, Pakni, whieli an as liighly orfaniaadM aay jJMmbafi of tlie ragotma enaittmi. ^ Thirdlj, ia iha leooadary fonoatioiis, from the triaatie to tka Parbeek indmitre, lyainoapame allied to Zaaia a»d Oyeai nredooinate ; bat wiw tbeee are aisoeiated eoaie monoeotyle- doM or endogeae, of epeoiet laftrior to no pbmogaaBoaa pliuMf in the perfeeUon or complexity of their orgaae. "Foorthlj, ia the etrata from the eretaeeons to the Bpper> BKMt tertiarj inelorire, all the principal claiaea of living plaaH occur, iaclnding the dicotyledoaont an^UMperms of Bnmi^iart. Onring thii raat lapae of time foar or fire complete changea of ipeciei took place, yet no atep whatever waa made laadTaaeo at any one of thefc periods by the addition of more higUj organised plants. " Fifthly, in regard to the animal kingdom, the lowest Silnika strata contain highly developed representatives of the Uiree great tivifions of radUta, articolata, and moUoaca, showing that the marine invertebrate animali were as perftct then as in the exlii* ing seas. They also comprise some indicatiMS of fish, the scarcity of which in a fossil state, as well as the absence of cetaceik does not appear inexplicable in the present imperfiiet state of our investigations, when we consider the correspondiag rarity and sometimes the absence of the like remains observed in dredging tiie beds of existing seas. "Bizttily, the upper Silurian gronp contains amongst its fbssil fish cestraciont sharks, than which no ichthyic type is more elevated. "Seventhly, in the carboniferous ftuna there have been recentty discovered several skeletons of reptiles of by no meaaa a low or simple organisation, and in the Permian there am sanrians of atf high a grade as any now existing ; while the al>> sence of terrestrial mammalia in the palseosoic rocks generally, may admit of the same explanation as our ignorance of most of Via insects and all the pulmonifbrons moUusca, as well as of Helices and other iMid-shells of the same era.* " Bighthly, the fish and reptiles of the 8ee hsfo oaly been able duioff the topee of egee to prodaee eome triflioff onange, which hM not elteiei the ^pe wthe epeelei^ an we not, from this exnaiiBation of the aeanetie Mbnale, joitified in beliering the penMuienoe of ^eciee rather than thdt tnneniatation? <* And thii riew Is the more probable, iinee the diflfereneee between one firana and another are Terj considerable ; and we hare not to treat of trifling modifications of a tTpe^ bat rather of complete transitions, often into rery remote fbrms. Some netaralJsts indeed hare not shmnk from each eonseqaences, ani hare asserted that tlie reptiles of the secondary period owe their perentage to the palMMoic fishes, and were themselres the pro- genitors of the tertiary mammals. Where is the physiologist who will admit sneh oondnsionsT and yet quite as much most be granted if it is attempted to dednee all the geological IknnM flrom an original one by the simple trantfmrmation of species, awi by means of a passage from one to another, without tiio direct interrention of a ereatiTe power acting at the commence* msnt of each epodh. " And if for the production of snoh rcsalts it is assumed, con- trsry to what we hare supposed, that these hare been great •Iterations of temperature, and changes in the constitution of ^ atmosphere, or that nature in her early youth was more Tigorous, the laws of physiology are not less riolated. Such eitremechanges in the external agents might well hare dettroyed the species, and they rery probably would hare done so, but they could hardly modify them in any essential point. ** It seems therefore to me impossible that we should admit aa •n explanation of the phnnomenon of successire fsunas the passage of species into one another. The limits of such transi- tions of spedes, eren supposing that the topse of a Test period of time may have giren them a character of reality much greater than that which tbe study of existing nature leads us to suppose, are still infinitely withhi those dillbrences which di»- tii^bh two successiTe Ifonnas. "And lastly, one can least of all account by this theory for the appearance of new types, to explain the introduction of which we must necessarily, in the present state of science, recur to tlM idea of distinct creations posterior to the first. *'The theory of MieetMt** erecrftont i» the only one tiiat reiuins; and although it is, like the rest, opposed by rery weighty objections, I am not aware of any good argument diiectir impugning it ; and I belicTO that in the present condi- tion of our knowledge it is the only theory admissible, although I am hound to add^t it it by no meant comj^tely satisflM* ' 8T« APmiDIZ* toiy, linM it doM oot imbi to me to Moovnt inflelently for all the foett, and porlum it if at beat only prorlaioBaij. It •xplalni well the dilnreneea which eziat between raeeeiiive flranaa, but there are alao reaemblanoei between theie fluuiaa for whioh it oflitri no eicplanatioB. *''In order to illustrate the vniatieflictory nature of thia theory, we hare onlr to oompai^ two ineceMire ereattona of the aame epoeh, aa for inatanee two fannaa of the cretaoeooi period. In luMi a oompariaon, no one conld foil to be itniek hy the intimate relation that ezista among them, since most of tM genera would be found the same, whue a large number of the species are so nearly allied tliat thej might eaaily be mis- taken for one another. In other words, two sueoessiTe faunas often hare the same phTSiognomlcal aspect; and in the case just mentioned, if we compare the fvronion with the ottioa fossils (those of the upper challc with the species from the uppermost greensand), we shall readily find close resemblances. Is it probable tliat the earlier fauna had been completely kiuA* Ulated, and then, by a new and independent act of creation,' replaced by another fauna altogether new and yet so much, resembling it? Surely there must be something which has still' escaped obserration; but I must repeat, that the somewhat ▼ague objections thus suggested are in no way to be compared to those more definite ones which militate against the other theories. " These fkots also influence the manner in which we regard the existing creation. Do all animals appear exactiy as they issued from the hands of the Oreator, or have only*a oertida number of types been introduced, whence the others weire derired ? It seems to me difficult to admit that each one of those innumerable species, of the accurate determination of which we are so often in doubt, was in all its characters of detail a distinct and separate act of creation. " To these questions, howerer, Palssontology is able to answer only in a rery insufficient manner. The succession of organized beings, the origin of existing species and their geographical distribution, tiie formation of the diffisrent families of mankind, all these are but dUferent aspects of the same great problem, a solution of which on any one point woilld neeesswily throw great light upon the others. " I belicTe, then, that the theory of snccessiye creation, which is the least objectionable of all, is true in a general sense, bat that other causes have perhaps combined with it to determine the actual state of existing creation and of earlier ^founas. FjjMsibly those modifications of species, which, as I hare already shown, cannot explain the introduction of new types and the Appearance of rery distinct species, have still had some sluue in producing a number of allied species from a common type ; vn «r la oUmt wordi, ptAant w« moft fai thii, u is otbtr qM^ lioiis, sot tspMi a too Ugh •xelosiTO txplnatlon, bnt adadt IIm iatorroatloa of Tarloni *' I do Bot, howoTor, beUore that oar soIobm if at prMtat la a eoadlUoB to giro a ■atiilketofy lolntioa of Umm dliBooltiM} aad thong h wo may with gnator or 1«m dlstiaetaoH foiwM faeh a iMVtloB, it oaanot jet bo domoaftratod. A •triot aad hitoUigoat itadj of natore if roqvirod, ia order to bring together the Tarionf materialf . We mne t know better than we do now each one of the f nooeef ire ereationf, in order to form a eoai- l^ete idea of their mntnal relatione, and of their difllnreneee froa thoee which have preceded and followed them. Thif if the meet important prcwlem of Palaontologj, and ite f olntion if only to.be foond in the obeerration of facte, for thej alone are permanent, and th^ perhape will ontlire all the theoriee dif- enmed at the pieeent daj." What maj be regarded ae a phrfical h]rpo^lM«if of the crea- tkm of f peeief, haf been maintiw^ by Prof. Powell, in hie cfifj on the " Fhilofophy of Oieatlon." It if thuf criticifed by Mr. Hamilton, in hif anniTereary addreef af Free ident of the Geological Society >— " Before condnding theee obeenratlonf , which, howcTcr im- perfect they may be, hare nererthelcff, I ISsar, greatly exceeded the ofual f pace allotted to theee Add^ffce , I am desiroof of faying a few wordf on a f abject cloeely connected with the higheet coneiderationf of oar f cience, and which hae been aigned with great ability by one of the moet philoeophical wmerf of the day. I allnde to the Be eay of Prof. Baden Powell Ml the PbUofophy of Oreation. One of the many great and trauoendental qaeetione die caffcd in thif Bffay is the oontro> Tcny af to whether we are to give a preference to the old doctrine tt^ ^iiAt appear* to be aftlla^jr b eoAie of the itatementi of Prof. Powell on thlc inl){|eot. " The argnmeati of the rartooi wrlteri on both eidei are ftally and flkfrly (iren in this wiork, and the anthor prOfMiN mereljr to point out the bearlnifs of the question, the difflcnltiee hi which it ii inrolred, and to oontrorert what he oonsiders histj and nntetaiable aesertloiu on either tide. Bat while doing this, !t if fanpoielble to mrciH the edarietion tiiat he has a decided Mas to one side, that he oOnSidets the doctrine of transmatatioo^ of species more consistent With foakid philosophical Indactioa than what he calls the hypothesis of an eternal ittnratabilitjr. I shall not pretend to oooopy year time by gcing through arga- menis so well known to erery paliBontotoglst and geologist. I only wish, as I said bdbi^, to point oat one or two condasions which iaTolre what appear to me a fallaoy. " After showing how the sacoessire InT^stigationS of the great oomparatire aniatoniiits and soologists of the last half-centitfy hare resnlted in the estaUhhment of the doctrine of the nnity of composition ,i.iM«i "(Birt, wUto Iht wi l t ^ If jBiM thM ttada «o iaftilMj fVMrti tht titraM 4IAf«BM btlwMi ■■■ (tot m nip- poM) At OM Md alWI « Moshflt At tht oUmt Mi «r lb* IMUt !• eoutMitly teH*; bwM tlM AtwMM dMmaet tetwwa uj two ipMlM tnidi to bMOMt 4M»•«• if tb« flitt flMtor b« ii^^iily, thb Mooad maitba ntro.*^ ** This arfmaaat a y pe a M to IbtoIto a fliHaoj. If tUs iaflaita aamber of *lll«d apaelM Is to pro^e the traanaatalKm of om fbrn faito anotbar by Aowtng thai the diibtaooe betweea tbeoR if laflaitely mall, it would be neeesiary to prore either that they had all existed eootemporaseoasly tofether, or that the idUed forms iniaediately saeeeeded eatb ower. Bat when the anthor eidls bi the aid of long gedtogieal epochs, in wUoh sobm of these elosely allied ftMrms existed at loag intenrei^g periods, I eanoot see how the ^aeetfoa of transtmitatioa is thereby strengthened. If A, B, and are the allied fims. and A and existed either together or in immediately sooeeeding periods, a^ B, whioh is we eoimeeting link between them, is only fonnd to exist after many millions of years, or eren only after the other two had died oat, the theonr of transmotation cannot be supported Iqr assami.:g the ipradaal chaage of A into 0, through the interTenisg ("orm of B. If erery possible gradation of Ibrm existed in the fauna of one period and of one region, «r of snccesshre periods and neighbouring regions, then indeed the advooates of the transmuti^on theory might endeavour to Burintsin that all these forms were only rarieties of one type occasioned by the peculiar conditions of life in which each waa placed; but this conclusion is no longer ralid when long periods haTC interrened between the existence of one form and that of the other. The utmost argument that could be drawn from such premises would be a con6rmation of the great doctrine of unity of plan in the creation xii aH organised life, extending ttoough all ages of the world. " Another fellacy may, I think, be detected in the manner in which Prof. Powell, after stating the arguments on both sides, points out the real iUternativo. He says, ' The only question is as to the sense in which such cAaiige of species is to be under^ stood; whether individuals naturally produced from parents were modified by succeSsiTe variations of parts in any stage of early growth or rudimental development, until in one or mote genen^ons the Whole species became in fact a diflbrent one ; or whether we are to believe that *o/« race perished witb> out reproducing itself while, independent of it, aaoMernswr^s, or other new individuals (by Whatever means) came into exisl- eace,ofanatufe ^s^ allied to the last, and diff»ring oAea by the sUghiteBt diadea, yet imcoanectadiwilh tbsm by desceai} ▲ffmiDis* wkttlMr tbti* WM A pffopMAtioB of tiM wuM p H nt lf h tfwUaUtm (la wh*t«T«r gvrm it aay b« IiMglM' to hart Imm oooTtjtd), or wholbir o mw priaelpl* or form orlglBftt»d iBdmmdrally «r " IB tht MBt«B«6 whieh I hBTt JiMt qvotod, tbtro u« Iwo itif of BltoniBtlTM, Md I thlBk that 1b Moh Ml tbo aaUior hag iBMrtod ft lUlftoy Ib ■toting th« Mf oBd BltMniBtiT* rMpoetlaf the theory of InmntabUity. Ib th« flrst let h« haa aMaiaad, without ftBj wftrrftBt, that a whol* ibrmer raoa hai ptriahtd imi i* fBeoMdtd by aaotlMr of a elotely allied aatoto aad oflaa dil^ ftriaff only by the ilif htott ihadM. Ib raeh a ease, via., when thi dlftroBoo it very ahght, it may be poMible that the leeoad raee if really the desoeadMit of that preriooily exIetlBg. slightly modllM by the external ooBditlons of life la whion it wae plaeed. Bat the author has omitted all referenee to tiiose ipe- oiee which oeonr in the new or upper formations, whose resem- blaaees or analogies to those of the preceding period are reiy distant or impernet, and which cannot therefore be looked upoof as the descendants or modifications of tiie pre-existing formsj There are undoubtedly species which hare been contkned' through many geological periods, hare surrired many looU disturbances, and which, while others may hare perished, hate been kept alire by greater ritol energies or other influences, aad hare become the associates of new forms introduced for the first time and baring no resemblance to or analogy with the ftNrms which had preceded them. We know that some species pass into many Tarieties, sometimes eren contemporaneously with the existence of the typical form ; there is, therefore, surely nothing inconsistent with the theory of immutability in suppos- ing, under peculiar circumstances, Uiat rarieties of some species may also take the place in a subsequent period of the original typical form. This, howerer, is the exception, and not the rule. ** With regard to the second set of altematlTes in the passage I hare quoted, I think Prof. Powell is too mneh begging the question when he concludes the sentence with these words: * out of the existing inorganic elemente.' Surely this is taking too physical or material a view of the matter, and one not requued by those principles of indnotlTC philosophy which he so strongly supports. The adrocates of immutability of species do not generally talk of a principle of ritality originating out of inorganic elemente. When old forms die out, and are succeeded by new, the matter of which the new consist is derired from the existing inorganic elemente ; but the life or principle of Titality by which It is animated must proceed from a di Arent soureeu mm that same source, mysterious it may be, which first breathed Itfit into those creatures which dwelt in the earliest palnosoie agti. Organic Ulb on this earth must hare had a beginningi Md th*t teglulac ••■* lM?« proMtdtd tkom a dUbiwt from ttoi 4Md BAtttr wbleb Ibimtd Um TtolU* bodyt Md from thftk MMM lowM |wo«Md«4 tk« prladpto ofTltalUif whioh Mimatod tb« mw IbnM wbtB iveoiMiTUj erMtod om tiM Murth. And with raikrwiM to this mmUob. I m«it taphft- lleaUj dtB7 Um right aMiiBtd hj Prof. Powoll, whoa ho patt what ho omIs *■ Im o gln o r y oom of o tralj bow spooloo mokiBf Its oppoonuieo, to qnoitloa thoM who doay tho imorj of tna^ natouoo, how thin bow opoelov audo Ito oppoBmaoo ; whotbor It BppOMTOd •• OB OTBIB Of iOOd, Or Ot whot poriod of gTOWth, Ao. WhtB Prot PowoU obb lUto ia what form tho flrtt llTiaf orgaaiiBis appoarod oa tho oartht larfheo, ho maj domaad as BBiwor to this qaostlon. It ii tho moro ronuurkabU that Prof. PowoU ihoald mako this domand. ao ho has ttatod, la a formor port of tho Bmaj, that ia a goologieal poiat of tIow tho torm < Oroatioa' oifnifloi tho Ihot of origuiatioB of a partionlar form of animal or TogotaUo lifb, without implyiag anything at to the proeioe mode of inoh origination : not that I think this doflf niUon altogotbor satisfiMtory, bnt yot it might bavo prodadod him from making snob a domand. " Bat I bare boon led into a longor statoment than I bad Intondod. I will moroly add that, notwithstanding thoso oriti- oisms that I baTO rontored on, tho essays of Prof. Powell deserro a eareftil and attentlTo reading. Thoj are eminently saggestivo and replete with deep thoughts and scientifle riews, and form an interesting element of tho geologioal| or rather googaostio, literature of the day." Agassis also combats this Tiew ia bis *< Oontributions to the Natural History of Amerioa," yol. 1, showing that its author has quite misapprehended the nature of organio ezistenoo and the order of its introduction. Perhaps, in oonsequence of tbos« and other eriticisms, Prof. Powell in his }ast series of Essays oa the Order of Nature, is a little less confident in the assertion c^ his yiews, though ho still characterises snooessiye acts of crea- tion as casual f>uspensions or interruptions of the order of nature; as if law and order were themselyes anything other than the more constant operations of the same power supposed to act at rarer interyals, though probably with equal regularity,, in the introduction of species. Such misconceptions are, bow- eyer, inseparable from tiie peculiarly shallow yiew which this writer and others of bis school take both of nature and royela- tion; compressing the former within the bounds of merely physical law, lopping off the Old Testament from the latter, and oyerlooking altogether the higher unity which binds both toge- ther as emanations of the same Almighty mind. In the concluding lecture of a course on the Fossil MammalS|. Prof. Owen has giyen utterance to some yaluable and snggestiya hints, which I giye as rep oonodons, and other mesozolc forms of mammals, has been followed by the introduction of much more numerous, raried, and higherH>rganiBed forms of the class, during the tertiuy periods. There are, however, geologists who malntoin that M§ k an assumption, based upon a partial knowledge of the flwts. Itore negatire evidence, th^ allege, can nerer satisfiietorily estoblish the proposition that the mammalian class is of late introduction, nor prevent the conjecture that it may have been as richly represented in secondary as in tertiuy times, could we but get evidence of the terrestrial founa of the oolitic con* tinent. To this ol>jection I have to reply: in the palseosoio stoata, which, from tbeir extent and depth, indicate, in the earth's existenoe as a seat of organic lifo, a period as prolonged as that which has followed their deposition, no trace of mam- mals has been observed. It may be conceded that, were mam- mals peculiar to dry land, such negative evidence would weiett little in producing oonyiction of their non-existenoe during the Silurian and Devonian teons, because the explored parts of such strata have been deposited from an ocean, and the chance of finding a terrestrial and air-breathing creatore's remains in oceanic deposits is vary remote. But, in the present state of the warm-blooded, air-breathing, viviparous class, no genera and species are represented bv such numerous and widely-dis- persed individuals, as those of the order Oetocea, which, under the guise <^ fishes, dwell, and can only live, in the odean. In all Oetocea the skeleton i» well ossified) and the vertebm are very numerous : ^e smallest cetoeeans would be deemed large amongst land mammals, the largest surpass any creatures of which we have yet gained cognizance : the hugest iehthyosanr, ^Plww^w^ri^^^* 8B8 IVftmi^ i^enlPM^, aiMPmp|h» <^ manuief thp ecanty evidence oi Qetaeea in cretfipeons be4s seems to indicate a sbnilar period for their beginnlog i^ Cm tho spfbrseMed cycloid and ctenoid fishps. i;hich haye snperr ipded the gaie^oid orders of mpsosoie times* M We cannot doaht but that had the genera lethyosanm^ Plioiwarns, or Plpsiosfiaras, been represented by species in the ia7«e ocean tiiat ifas tempested by the Bals^onodons and Dipr p1pP»;ss 0^ the miocene age, the bones and teeth of those m^^rinp rsptjles ^onld have testified to their ezistenoe as abundantly as they do. at i^ pre?ioas epoch in the earth's history. But no liMsU relio of an enaliosanr hss been found in tertiary steata, and no living; enaUosaur has been detected in the present seas ; and they are, consequently held by competent naturalists to bp extinct. In like manner does such negative evidence weigh with mA in proof of the non-existence of marine mammals in ue Usssic and oolitic times. In the marine dpposits of thosp secondary or meaozoie epochs, the evidence of vertebrates governing the ocean, and preying on inferior marhie vertebrates, ^ as abundant as that of air>breatbing Yertpbrates in the ter- tiary strata ; but in the one the fossils are exclusively of the eold«>blooded reptilian class, in the other of the warm-blooded mammalian class. The ^naliosauria, Oetiosauria, and Oroco- dilia, played the same part and fulfilled similar offices in the seas from which the lias and oolites were precipitated, as thp Deiphinidae and Balsnidw did in the tertiary, and still do ii^ tiie present seas. The unbiassed conclusion from both negative and positive evidence in tliis matter is, that thp Cetacea suo- ceeded and superseded the Bnaliosauria. To the mind that will «ot accept snch conclusions, the stiratifipd oolitic rocks must to be moniuMnti or tnutworthy neordi of tlw eoaditioBi of life OB the earth »t that period. So fiur, bowerer, •• soj Ciiend eoneloiUm een be dedaoed from the large inn of otI- noe aboTO referred to, and eontraited, it ia againit the doetriiw of the Uniformitaritaii. Organie reiBaiiii, traeed from their earliest known graTOi, are fuceeeded, one leriei bj anotter, to the present period, and nerer re-appear when onoe lost sight of the ascending' seareh. As well nught we expect a lirhig Ich-> tfajosaor in the Paoiflc, as a fossil whale in the Lias : the role gorerns as strongly in the retrospeet as the prospect. And not only as respetfts the Vertebrota, bat the sum of the animal spe- cies at each geological period has been distinct and pecoliar to •neh period. Not that the extinction of snch forms or speciee was sadden or simaltaneons : the CTidences so interpreted hare been bat local : OTcr the wider field of life, at any giren epoch, the change has been gradual ; and, as it would seem, obedient to some general, but as yet, ill-comprehended law. In regard to animal life, and its assigned woric on this planet, there haSi howerer, plainly been an ascent and progress in the main. ^ '" Although the Mammalia, in regaitl to the plenary derelop-.', ment of the characteristic orders, belong to the Tertiiury diyision of geological time, just as *Bcliini are most common in the superior strata; Ammonites in those beneath, and Product! with numerous Encrini, ia the lowest^ of the secondary stratai yet the beginnings of the class manifest themselree in the for^ mations of the earlier preceding diTision of geological time. No one, sare a prepossessed UnUbrmitarian, would infer from the Lucina of the permian, and the Opis of the tries, that the Lamellibranchiato HoUnsks existed in the same rich yariiety of derelopment at these periods as during the tertiary and present times ; and no prepossession can close the eyes to the feet that the Lamellibranehiate hare superseded the J^Iliobranefaiate bWaWes. " On negatire eridence Orthisina, Theca, Producta, or Spiri- fer are belieyed not to exist in the present seas : neither are the existing genera of siphonated biyaWes and uniyalyes deemed to haye abounded in permian, triassic, or oolitic times. To sus- pect that they may haye then existed, but haye hitherto escaped obseryation, because certain Lameltibranchs with an open man- tle, and some holoetomatous and asiphonate Gasteropods, haye left their remains in secondary strata, iS not more reasonable, as it seems to me, than to ooncIud« that the prc^ortion of mam- malian life may haye t>een as great in secondary as in tertiary strata, because a few small forms of the lowest orders haye made their appearance in triassie and oolitic beds. " Turning from a retrospect into past time to the prospect of time to come,— Htnd I haye receiyed more than one inquiry into the amount at prophetic insight imparted by Palaeontology,— 4 V imOL WMj enre indnlgmM for a ftw wofdf, of man lonnd, pDrh«p% thui ligniflMnoe. Bat the nfleetire mind eaanot vitniM or mift tho tendenoj to ipecnUto on tho fliture ooimo and nltf- awto foto of rital phenomena in thU planet. Then eeenui to haTO been a tine when life was not ; there may, therefore, be a period when it will ceaee to be. Our moot soaring apeonlationi still ehow a kinihip to oar natnre ; we see the element of finally in io maeh that we have cogniiance of, that it mast needi mingle with oar thoaghts, and bias oar eonelasions on manj things. The end of the world has been presented to man's mind ander dirers aspects :—%» a general conflagration ; as tha same, preceded bj a millennial exaltation of the world to a ParadisiaoAl state,— the abode of a higher and blessed race of intelligences. If the guide-post of Palaeontology maj seem t« p which coald produce so much yariety, and at the same time such perfect adaptations and endowments, out of means so simple. For, in what haye those mechanical instruments,— the hands of the ape, the hoofii of the horse, the fins of ^hw whale, the trowels of the mole, the wings of the bat,— «o yariously formed to obey the behests of yolition in denisens of different elements — ^in what, I say, haye they differed from the artificial instruments which we ourselves plan with foresight and calcu- lation for analogous uses, saye in their greater complexity, in their perfection, and in the unity and simplicity of the elements which are modified to constitute these seyeral locomotiye or^ gans. Eyerywhere in organic nature we see the means not only subsenrient to an end, but that end accomplished by the t^Mm^ittU, wA IUm oeitiOa phUoMphio ftnei«M«» «• Awiiibni «pd qnlMtint miM^ sf m aU!>ptrvadiB».afiJ^a «iiM Iwt «aM •oliTO and MticiptOaf intoUig»BM> fir Appljlvg' tli» l»i» «# Qwp wrtf MAtoMf to Um reiki of •ztiaol cmm qC ftplnalt •Mikinwi la «|iA charMteriiing tlM difftMni tttmUk of ^ ««r^% fmal, awl ooifMpoadiaff with •» many apooha to. tha aartVa Uatorjs va maka an Inportaataiap in advaaea of Ml inae«4iaff fUlMOphiM^ and- ara able, to danopatrata that tha wuta PMr «adiag. aotiM^ an4 baaefiaaat intaUiganee whioh «iMiif«it| jy«i fowar la ao* tioMM^ haa aUw manifaatiid hitpowar ia tivnnloiig •otariof to tha raeocda of oar aidilanoa. Bat wa Uhavipt^ |(j IMm ia«a■t^atioa■, gaia a atilt mora Inaportant truth, ^,; IImUi tha. phaaqawoa d the. world do pot saaceadaaahQlh^ «ith tlia aMehanieal uunaoeia attributed to than in. the grohw dthaJ^it ar ea a philoaophy ; for wa aeeahla to. dantopMirata Ihal tha dUKraa^apooha aC tha liiitovj of tha earth vava attapdad with eorrespoading.^chaBgaa- of organic etraetOBs; and that| |p ■U thaip inataocei of change, tha orgMS, aa far aa we could eompiafaand thair aae, were axaetljr thona baiit< anited to thp ftuMtioaa of^tha being. Hence we not only ahow intelUgeBoa MroUng, mwM adi^pted to, the «nd : bnt, at racoeaii^ tianf and peffodSf producfaig a change of meohaaiinn adaptad to a dbapga in external conditions. Thus the bighett geiieralJl«%r wmui in the seiaaea of- organic bodiea, like the Kew^niaa lawf of ni^Teraal matter, lead to tha uaeqaiv;ocal conTiotion of a great First Oause, which ia certainly not mechanical. Unfttr tared by narrow restrictions,— ^unchecked by the timid rad ppworthyftaraof miatrustfiil minds, clinging. in rsgaid tq ni9jm phydeal qnaations, tp beliefil, for which the Author oX all tri;^ 1^. been pleased to substitute knowledge,-!-our sn^noe beoomM connected with the loftiest of moral ^>eoulatioas ; and I know «Mf no topic raose itting to tiie sentiments with which I ded^s to conclude the present course. If I believed^to use. the lap* fuage of a gifted contemporary-— that the imagination, tha Kclings, the active intellectual powers, bearing' on the bosiqeai of life, and the highcat capacities of our nature, were blunted and implied by the study of physiological and palnontoloi^cal phenomena, I should then regard our science as little better than a. moral sepulchre, in which, like the strong man, we wem burying ourselres and those around us in ruins, of oar ovn •Keating. But surely we must all beliare toa firmly in the inr mntable attributes of that Being, in whom all truth, of whateyw kind, finda its. proper resting-plaice, to ^ink that the prbciplsf «f physical and moral truth can ever be in lastipg collision." At the meeting of the British Association in Aberdeen (1859)^ 9bt' Oharias Lyell announced a forthcoming work by Oharls!| Aarwia, in which that able aoologist will aadeaTour to prove MlbtiiiiMM powfM fffaiHHm irirfek ghw lift te imm moA |m» ■MMit v«ri«tiM Is uifanidt and pUati, «rt Ih* MMie m IImmm whieh, in vnoli knfMr periodst fvodiuM apMiM, aadi is » tliU longer leriM of ngM, giro dm to dUhrenoM of generic rank." It would, of oonne^ bo fanpnAepltneriUeiie thii work before iti nppeannce ; and we may rest aMnred, that, whateTer the Talve of hie eonolneione) a nataraliii lue Darwin nraeft a4d y$MlOf to oorknowled^ of the ISute bearing on the mibjeet. It ii qnite biA, Irowerer, to aeeert^ that he can nerer sneeeed ia proring thai variation Mid ipe^iflc nnitj are attributable to the game canee. The continuona reprodnotire power implanted in the speeiei, and the ohangeK imprceeed on it from without, are, like Qoheiipni «nd heM in reference to the partielea of matter— oppoiite inflnenoei. The one maj cowtera«t or mo^Cf ^* other, bat cannot take itp place. It is easy to nndentand hqw Tariation, combined with geogr»phi«^ changes and lAcal extinction, may lo ieparate tibe membeni of a species ap. tp limqlate dlstiiietneiML |t mnst also be adn^ittod from the ana- logy of Qod'i operftionji, that the creatire ucta, wbateTer tlie|F nature, mogt, 9s well ay tarinbility, be regnlated by some i(tif ; bnt the law of rariajUon cannot possibly be identical with the law of specific origin and continaation which it modifies, except in some saoh general semie as that in which graritation may S reduce disturbnnces ofmoTements which theqiselTcs are pro- uced by graTitation. But, in such a case, it is absurd, to Budntain that the disturbing cause of attraction firom withpn^i can hitve produced the original motions. In the same manner all tiiat we know of TariabQity points to the conclusion that It is subordinate to specific unity, though subject to the sanie vital laws. Specific origin it cimnot reach, though it may imilAtf Its effects, and present analogous phases of change, illuslrs^tiTp of the real laws of creation of species. It is to be hoped that Mr. Darwin will not neglect this distinction, and thus Titiat^ the great mass of fbcts which he h^g i^cumuUted, by grouping them around an untenable thesis, In this connection, I may direct attention to one of tiie laws of Tariation, not perhaps sufi^ciently insisted on in the text. On any theory of tiie origin of species, these qiust alwajrs hare originated in the physical conditions most ftvTOuirable to their existence in the ftiU integrity of their powers. This being ad- mitted, it follows that Tar^tion is. always in the direction of degeneracy, except where individnais already degenerate are in- duced by some new im^ fAVOurable combination of circumstiMices to retrace the steps of their degradation. Observed fitcts acoQr4 with tlUs, and show also, that, even under favourable circnn^ stances, re-elevation ia more slow and difficult than degeneracy. Willie, tiierefore, it is just conceivable that, a higher form being given, lower forms might result from its degeneracy or disinte- gration, it is impossible tibat the variation of lower forms could APmnoKZ* rtfolt In the prodaetion of uuthing higher. Oomeqneatlr, iomething beyond and higher thnn rarinbility ie leqolied to Moooat for the obierred taeeeeeion of epeciei in time. Q.— THB TANNINIM. TIm following ajnopeii of the instnneee of tlie oeeorrenee of the wordi Tam^ mad Tan will eMrTe to show the propriety of the meaning, " great reptiles," aaiigned in the test to the for- mer, ai well as to illostrate the utUity in such oases of " com- parhig scripture with scripture" :— 1. TAHvnr. Ex. ril. 9.— Take thy rod and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a Merpeni. Dent, zxxii. 23.— Their rine is the poison of dragotu. Job Tii. 12.— Am I a sea or a tehale, that thou settest a watch oyer me. Psal Izxir. 14.— Thon didst diride the sea br thy strength. Thou breakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. Psalm xci. 13.— The yonng lion and the dragon thou shalt trample under foot. Psal. cxlviii. Y.— Praise the Lord ye dre^on$ and all deeps. Is. xxvii. 1.— He shall slay the dragon in the midst of the sea (river.) Is. li. 9.— Hath cut Bahab and wounded the dragon. Jer. 11. 34. — (Nebuchadnes- sar) hath swallowed me up as a dragon. Esekiel zzix. 3.— Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the rivers. Probably a serpent, though perhaps a crocodile. (Septna* l^nt, " fpdcwv.") Perhaps a species of serpent, (Sept., " apdcwv.") Michaelis and others think probably correctly, that thi Nile and the crocodile, both objects of vigilance to the Egyptians, are intended. (Sep- tnaj^t, " JpdKwv.") Evidently refers to the des- truction of the Egyptians in the Red Sea, under emblem of the crocodile. (Septuagint, The association shows that a powerfhl carnivorous animal is meant. (Sept., " jpdcwv.") Evidently an aquatic crea- ture. (Sept., " ipdKvv.") A large predaceous aquatic animal (the crocodile), used here as an emblem of Egypt. (Sept., "apdKwv.") Same as above. A large predaceous animal. (Sept.,»J« apdiewv.") In the Hebrew tontm appears by mistake for tannifi. This is clearly the crocodile of the Nile. Verses 4 and 6 show that it is a large aquatic ani- mal with teaU$. (Septuagint, "^pdamv.'') jomantiL 88^ 1. Tai. Pnlm zUt. 19.— Thon halt ■on broken w in the plnee of drogoHi, U. Jjodr. 13.— (Bomb in Idome*) ehaU be a baUtotion otdragotu and a oonrt of owli (m trhieh iSMh species beounie difftisedj esch species being supposed to be compbieil of descendants from a single pair. On tnis VieW-. vritj eountiir l]tai|beenpebpM either— 1st, bVspedes cr^vd within its limits; or, Sttd, by secies Irioiiajporied to it; or, 8rd, by species irikich hate mUptaitd to it. Prof ForlHiJs reasons at grMt length Ml the sonriees of the prelent Flora aiM Fa'ona of the British IsUuids, which he belleteS to be descended malMy llroih prog " The distinctlTe characteristics of the Semitic languages may be said to consist in the generally triliteral form of thehr unin- flected words, and in the inrariably syntactical contriranees by which the whole mechanism of speech is carried on. I seek ths cause of this in the early adoption of alphabetical writing, hi the establishment of a literaturCi and in llie unusually frequent intermixture of cognate races." • Report Brit. AMOolation.l8n. Ajnm-^tsL 898 K» ibM vroeeedf to mttcrit tlutt Um SlftTonka, om of tho UrtMl tNnmenM of tht Indo*BnroD«m UagtugM to be reduMd to writlnf i diflktt uoit widely flroin the Semitic tonguei in gnuBflMitioM itrnetnre, though not In wordi. In * tubseqaeat peuKge he thne remnni on the Semitic alphabet :<— *m each other; processes which would naturally be rery rapid in the case of small tribes with a slender stock of words, and con- stantlr meeting in their wanderings with new objects, and adopting new contrirances and modes of subsistence. To arrest these changes, certain leaders attempted to collect all or most of these tribes into one ciyil or national organisation ; but the attempt only showed that the process of separation had al- ready proceeded too far— that toe plans of Divine Proridence could not be averted by merely political combinations ; and the race became dispersed, one portion of it to retain the primitiTo forms of expression, the others to modify indefinitely the con- struction of speech either in the direction of barbaric rudeness or of artificial complexity and polish. K.--ANOIBNT MTTHOLOOIES. The current views respecting the relations of ancient mytho- logies witii each other and with the Bible, have been continually shming and oscillating between extremes. The latest and at present most popular of these extreme views, is that so well expounded by Dr. Max. Muller in the Oxford Essays, and whidi traces at least the Indo-Buropean theogony to a mere personifi- cation of natural objects. The views given In the text are tiiose wbich to the author appear alone compatible with the Bible, and with the relations of Semitic and Arlan theology ; but, as the subject is generally regarded from a quite dilTerent point of view, a little further explanation may be necessary. 1. According to tiie Bible, spiritual monotheism is the primi- tive faith of man, and with this it ranks the doctrine of a malig- nant spirit or being opposed to Gk>d, and of a primitive state of perlbction and happiness. It is scarcely necessary to say that these doctrines may be found as sub-strata in all the ancient theologies. 895 I. In th* Htbrtw tlMologj Um fall IntiodaeM Um mw doo- tvlM of ft aii«dlAtor or dtliTtrtr, bumaa Mid dlTiM. and m tstonud lymbollfm, that of Um elioniblc forms, oompoMta flgaret mad* op of parts of tho nuuB, tbo Hon, tho ox and tho oaf 1«. TImm fonu art roftrred back to Bdsn, whort tbey ar« miwi- fitttlT tho omblomi of tho porfoetioni of tho Dotty, loot to num by too fkll. Mid now opposod to bis ontranoo into Idon and Moess to tho treo of life, the synibol of his immortal bappinoss. B^Mwqaontly, tho chembim aro tho risiblo indieotlons of tbo prosonoo of Ood in the tabemoele and temple ; Mid in the Apo- eolTpse they re-appear as emblems of the DlTine perlbotions, as remeted in the eharacter of man redeemed. Tho obembim, as goMrdians of tbo sacred tree, and of sacred places in leneral, appcM in the worship of the Assyrians and Egyptians, as the innged lions and bulls of the former, and the spliinz of tho lattei-. They can also be recognised m the sepnohral Ihona- ment" of Greek Asia and of Etruria. Tarther, it was oTidently an cAsy step to proceed firom these cherubic figures to the ado- ration of sacred animals. But the chembio emblems were connected with the idea of a coming Redeemer, and this was with equal ease perrerted into hero-worship. BrerT great con- queror, inrentor or reformer, was thus recognised as in some sense the " coining man," Just as Ere supposed she saw him in her first*bom. a The earliest ecclesiastical system was the patriarchal, and this also admitted of corruption into idolatfy. The great pa^Mch, Tcnerable by age and wisdom, when he left tills earth for the spirit world, was supposed there, in the presence of Ood, to be the special guardian of his children on earth. The greater gods of Egypt and of Qreeoe were obriously of this character, and in Ghlna and Polynesia we see at this day this kind of ido- latry in a condition of actiTO Titality. 4. As stated in the text, the mythology of Egypt and Oreeeo bears oTldent marks of liaTing personified certain cosmologieal facts akin to those of the Hebrew narraUre of creation. In tliis way ancient idolators disposed of the pre-historio and pre- Adamite world, changing it into a period of gods and demi- gods. 6. In all i(ude and imaginatire nations, which hare lost tho distinct idea of the one Ood, the Oreator, nature becomes more or less a source of superstitions. Its grand and more rare phe- nomena of volcanoes, earthquakes, thunderHitorms, eclipses, become supernatural portents; and as the idea of power asso- ciates itself with them, they are personified as actual agents and beeome gods. In lUce manner, the more constant and use- All objects and proeesses of nature, become personified as benefi- cent deities. This may be, to a great extent, the character of the Arian theology; bat| except whoi'O all ideas of primitiTO vl» 396 ▲SSffMDIX^ religion and traditions of early history hare been lost, it qwnot be the whole of the religion of any people. The Bible negatively recognizes thb source of idolatry, in so constantly referring ul natural phenomena to the divine decree. In connection with this, it is worthy of remark, that rude man tends to venerate the new animal forms of strange lands. Something of this Icind has probably led some of the American Indians to give a sort of divine honour to the bear. It was in Egypt that inan first becaue familiar with the strange and gigantic fauna of Africa, w;ho8e effect on his mind in primitive times we may gather from the boolc of Job. In Egypt, consequently, there must have been a strong natural tendency to the adoration of animals. The above origins of idolatry and mythology, as stated or implied in the Bible, of course assume that the Semite mono- theistic religion is the primitive one. The first deviations from it probably originated in the family of Ham. A city of the Rephaio^ of Bashan was in the days of Abraham named after Ashteroth Karnaim — the two horned Astarte, a female divinity and proto? type of Diana, and perhaps a historic personage, in whom botii the moon and the domestic ox were rendered objects of worship. Tlus is the earliest Bible notice of idolatry.* In Egypt a mytho- logy of complex diversity existed at least as far back. We must remember^ however, that Egypt is Gush as well asMiz- raim, and its idolatry is probably to be traced, in the first instance, to the Nimrodic empire, from which, as from a com- mon centre, certain new and irreligious ideas seem to have been propagated among all the branches of the human family. It is quite probable that the correspondences between Egyptian, Greek and Hindoo myths, go back as far as to the time when the first despotism was erected on the plain of Shinar, and when able but ungodly men set themselves to erect new political and social institutions on the ruins of all that their fathers had held sacred. In addition to this, the mythology and language of the Arians, alike bear the impress of the innovating and restless spirit of the sons of Japhet. I have stated the above propositions to show that the Bible affords a rational and connected theory of the origin of the false religions of antiquity ; and to suggest as inquiries in relation to every form of mythology — how much of it is primitive mono- theism, how much cherub-worship, how much hero-worship, how much ancestor-worship, how much distorted cosmogony, how much pure idealism and superstition, since all these are usually present. I may be allowed further to remind the reader how much evidence we have, even in modern thne^, of the strong tendency of the human mind to foil into one or other of t^ese forms of idolatry ; and to ask him to reflect that really * BuepkiperbmNi, Jobzsii.17. ATnEMDlZ. 397 kle fbe oalj elBRBcttiftl <;bniierrmtlTe element b that of teTelatioti. Bow itronsr an argiilneiit is this JTor the neeeuity to man of an iuphred rnie of religiotts faith. L.— SUPPOSED TBRTIART RACES 6t kEN. It may be anticipated that almost every year will prodnoe gtipposed cases of hadan remains or works of art in uie later tertiary deposits. There are so many causes of accidental inters mixtures, and ordinary observers are so little aware of the sources of error against which it is necessary to guard, that mis- takes of this kind are inevitable. Even geologists are very likely to be misled m investigations of this nature. A remark- able instance of thij^ in the case of the delta of the Nile, hais been already noticed. Another discovery, which has lately made some noise in the scientific world, is probably referable to the same category. I refer to the supposed occurrence of im- plements of llint in the gravel at Abbeville in France. This yrM first maintained by M. Boucher de Perthes in 1849. but hlB statements appeared so improbable that little attention WMI given to them. More recently, Mr. Prestwick and Ur. Evans have brought the subject before the Royal Society and the Society of Antiquaries in England, in connection with the dis- covery of flint weapons with bones of extinct animals in a cave at Brbcham. Should the objects found in this case prove to be really pro- ducts of art, and their position be certainly in the pleistocene drift, contemporary with the extinct Elephant, Rhinoceros, Hynha, oia^n.of Ironum cmbiUai with.uofo of extinct animali of ttte 'lertliMar ppriodat Brixliam, xdeeti fi modern the so-called feisQ men of Denise in «eatcal Fraape, which had been associated .with the Abbeville disoomias. TINI8 n ■ ^MMM^MM^MMMMMyS^ Abnluuni w.^r ^,. 818 *' Aoeommodation," theoiy of 44 .Agassis on Species, , ^ . . 381 « on Prophetic Types, ........^.••. 818 4ainuJs, Lower, Oreationof 18T " Higher, Creation of *. 806 .JLasted on Hesosoio Fauna, 198 ' *' on Tertiary Fauna, 310 •AntedilnTians, ....<.... 806 Antiquity of the Earth, 825 ** of Man,... .399,308 4iretj^» 87,73,148 Astronomy of the Hebrews, *,%,, 183 Atmosphere, constitution of..... 180 " oreationof »»*,. 183 Avgnstine on creatire days, 106 Aioic rooks,.... 167,86? Bara, .•^. 61 Babel, 841 Baohman on hybridity, 360 Beginning, 839, 68 Bede on creatiye days, 106 Beaumont, De, on continents, 168 Behemoth, 309 Bhemah, 806 Bhrds, creation of. 198 Bronn on origin of species, 884 BraohykephaUo skuUs, 368 Bonsen's chronology, .» ..«••«.«. 809 mDiz. OtfniTon, creation of S08 OwpenteronTarietieiofnuui ill Central of Creation, 380 Chaoe, Tl, t9 Coimogony, Hebreif, ite objects, it " " its character, 26 « " itsanthority, 80 « of Egypt, 79,122 ** ofPhenicia, 79,80 ** ofOreece, 80 « oflndia, 81,123 (' ofPenia, > 122 Colour of races of men, 266, 277 Cranial characters in man, 269 Crektion,. 61 Cuyier on species, 249 Days of creation, 98 1st, 86 2d,.. 130 3d 143 4th, 175 6th,.. 187 6th, 206 7th, 232 Prophetic, 127 Sana on creation, 118 " on creation of plants, 172 ** on Tertiary Faxma,....- 212 Darwin on species, 262 ** on Niata cattle, 256 Derelopment in nature, 52, 370 Deep, 76 Desh6, 160 Deluge, 238 De CandoUe on species, 249 Design in nature, *.. 64 Diodorus Siculus on Egypt, 79 Dolioho-kephalio crania, 270 TKDKL. Itfth, 66, ta " its fonndAtioni, 148 BcoleiiMtei 1st, 61 Eden, oonditions of. 21T " siteof. 285 Bgyptf Barly Histoiy of. 802 Elohim, 69, 863 Exodus xzir. 10, 13T Final causes, 864 Firmament, 130 Foundations of the Earth, 4S, 148 Flniditj, original, of the Earth, 865 Genesis L 1, 60 " i.8, 86 « i.6, 98 " i.6, 130 « i.lO, 14T « i.ll, 160 « i.l6, 175 " i.20, 187 «« i.24, 206 « i.26, 214 ** U ..163,232 « iv.23 27 Geology, principles of 319 Gliddon on races of men, 264 Gosse on prochronism, 203 "Grass," in Gen. L, 160 Hair, of races of man, / 267 Hamite races, 311 Harmony of reyelation and science, 339 Heavens, 64, 140, 175 Herbirora, creation of 206 Hitchcock on oreative days, 1 14 Hopkfaison Omstofthe Globe, 804 Homer on AUayinm of Nile, 804 Hunt on chemistiy of Incandescent Globe, 866 ■oMboldt on H«bNW poet^, 11 ^^bridltj, Uwi , 811 Sherets 18T Spirit of Ood, agenoj of, in creation, Y8 Species, in Genesis 1st, 168 " natareof. 248 *' unity of origin of 280 '* creation of. 8Y0 Stereoma. 136 Spheres, Celestial, doctrine of 46 Table of Geological chronology, 823 " of Biblical cosmogony, 3S0 Tannin, 1 89, 388 Tennyson on types in nature, 201 Type in nature, i^Z Types of mankind, 25 Unity ofman, 261 Unity of nature, 345 Varieties, laws of 2S3 Veda, its cosmogony, 81 Vegetation, creation of 160 Wallace on species, 262 Whales, great, of Gen. 1, 189 Wilson on American crania, 270