REMARKS ON CUVIER'S THEORY OF THE EARTH, IN EXTRACTS FROM A REVIEW OF THAT THEORY WHICH WAS CONTRIBUTED TO "THE CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTOR" IN 1814.
It is not our object to come to a full analysis of the
theory of Cuvier, 'Ihe appearance of the work has afforded matter of triumph
and satisfaction to the friends of revelation, though in these feelings, we
cannot altogether svmpathize with them. It is true that his theory approximates
to the information of the Book of Genesis more nearly than those of many of his
predecessors ; and the occasional exhibitions which appear in the course of his
pages, have the effect at least of stamping the character of a disinterested
testimony upon his opinions. This leads us to anticipate the period when there
will be a still closer coincidence between the theories of geologists and the
Mosaical history of the creation. It is well that there is now a progress to
this object ; that the chronology at least of Moses begins to be more
respected; that a date so recent is ascribed to to last great catastrophe of
the globe, as to make it fall more closely upon the deluge of the book of
Genesis and when we recollect the eloquence, and the plausibility, and the
imposing confidence with which a theorist of the day has magnified the
antiquity of the present system, we shall henceforth be less alarmed at any
thing in the speculations, either of Cuvier or of others, which may appear to
bear hard upon the credit of the sacred historian.
He assigns no
distinct cause for the earths revolutions, and leaves us utterly at a
loss about the nature of that impelling principle, which gives rise to the
sweeping and terrible movements that are thought to take place in the waters of
the ocean. We expected something from him upon this subject under the article
of Astronomical Causes of the Revolutions on the Earths Surface: nor has
he chosen to advert to the theory of Laplace, though, in our apprehension, it
would have imparted a great addition of plausibility to the whole speculation.
It is to the diurnal revolution of the earth round its axis, that we
owe the deviation of its figure from a perfect sphere. The earth is so much
flattened at the poles, and so much elevated at the equator, that, by the mean
calculations upon this subject, the former are nearer to the centre of the
earth than the latter by thirty-five English miles. What would be the effect
then, if the axis of revolution were suddenly shifted? If the polar and
equinoctial regions were to change places, there would be a tendency towards an
elevation of so many miles in the one, and of a great a depression in the
other, and the more transferable parts of the earths surface would be the
first to obey this tendency.
But it is not necessary to assume so entire
a change in the position of the earths axis, as to produce a difference
of thirtyfive miles in any of the existing levels, nor would any single
impetus, indeed, suffice to accomplish such a change. The transference of the
poles from their present situation by a few degrees, wonld give rise to a
revolution sudden enough, and mighty enough for all the purposes of a
geological theory; and a change of level by a single quarter of a mile, would
destroy the vast majority of living animals, and create such a harvest of
fossil remains, as would give abundant employment to a whole host of future
speculators.
Now, we have two observations to offer on the said theory; one
in the way of a humble addition, and the other in the way of an apology for it.
-
First, from the planets moving all nearly in circular orbits, it is
more likely that they have done so from the very commencement of their
revolutiops, than that they started at first with very unequal eccentricities,
and have been reduced to orbits of almost similar form by the shocks which each
of them individually sustained from comets. Assuming then, that originally the
orbits were nearly circular, how comes it that they remain so, in spite of
those numerous impulses, which the theory of Laplace, combined with the
allegation of Cuvier that the catastrophes on the earth have been frequent,
necessarily implies? Whether the impulse be in the line of the earths
rnotion, which it may very nearly be with a few of the comets, or whether it
cross that line at a considerable angle, which would be the direction of the
impulse with the great majority of them, still we cannot conceive from the
great velocity of the impelling body, how the planet can avoid.receiving from
the shock, and far more -from the repetition of it, such a change in its
eccentricity, as would have given us at this moment a planetary system made up
of bodies moving in very variously elongated ellipses. The way of evading this
objection, is to reduce the momentum of the comet, by assigning to it as small
a density as will suit the purpose; but small as it maybe, there is momentum
enough, according to the hypothesis of Laplace, to change the position of the
earths axis. A repetition of such impulses upon the different planets in
every conceivable variety of direction, would, in time, give rise to a very
wide dissimilarity in their orbits; and the fact, that such a dissimilarity
does not exist, militates against that indefinite antiquity, which the deifiers
of matter ascribe to the present system.
But again, it does not appear
to us, that the theory of Laplace is insufficient to account for the highly
inclined position of strata, which may have been deposited horizontally. By the
conceived impulse of a comet, the earth receives a tendency to a change of
figure. This can only be produced by the motion of its parts, and a force
acting on these parts is put into operation. Who will compute the strength of
the impediment which this force may not overcome, or say in how far the
cohesion of the solid materials on the surface of the globe will be an
effectual resistance to it? May not this force act in the very way in which
Cuvier expresses the operation of his catastrophe? May it not break and
overturn the strata? And will it not help our conceptions to suppose, that
masses of water, struggling in the bowels of the earth for a more elevated
position, may have force enough to burst their way through the solid exterior,
and tainting and mingling with, the old ocean, may annihilate all the marine
animals of the former era? Of the flood of the Book of Genesis, we read that
the fountains of the great deep were broken up, as well as that the windows of
heaven were opened.
We feel vastly little either of confidence or
satisfaction, in any of these theories. - It is a mere contest of
probabilities; and an actual and well established testimony should be paramount
to them all. - We hold the testimony of Moses to supersede all this work of
conjecture; and we shall presently take up the subject of that testimony, and
inquire just how far it goes to confirm, or to falsify the speculations of this
volume.
The qualifications of M. Cuvier as a comparative anatomist,
give a high authority to his opinion on the nature of the fossil remains, and
the kind of animals of which they form a part. His inquiries in this volume are
confined to the remains of quadrupeds; and the most amusing, and perhaps the
soundest argument in the whole book, is that by which he unfolds his method of
constructing the entire animal from some small and solitary fragment of its
skeleton. We were highly gratified with his discussion upon this subject, nor
can we resist the desire of imparting the same gratification to our readers, by
the following extract:
"Fortunately, comparative anatomy, when
thoroughly understood, enables us to surmount all these difficulties, as a
careful application of its principles instructs us in the correspondence and
dissimilarity of the forms of organized bodies of different kinds, by which
each may be rigorously ascertained from almost every fragment of its various
parts and organs.
"Every organized individual forms an entire system of
its own, all the parts of which mutually correspond, and concur to produce a
certain definite purpose, by reciprocal reaction, or by combining towards the
same end. Hence none of these separate parts can change their forms without a
corresponding change on the other parts of the same animal, and consequently
each of these parts taken separately, indicates all the other parts to which it
has belonged. Thus, as I have elsewhere shown, if the viscera of an animal are
so organized as only to be fittedfor the digestion of recent flesh, it is also
requisite that the jaws should be so constructed as to fit them for devouring
prey; the claws must be contructed for seizing and tearing it to pieces; the
teeth for cutting and dividing its flesh; The entire system of the limbs, or
organs of motion, for pursuing and overtaking it; and the organs of sense, for
discovering it at a distanee. Nature also must have endowed the brain of the
animal with instincts sufficient for concealing itself, and for laying plans to
catch its necessary victims.
"Such are the universal conditions that
are indispensable in the structure of carnivorous animals; every individual of
that description must necessarily possess them combined together, as the
species could not otherwise subsist. Under this general rule, however there are
several particular modifications, depending upon the size, the manners, and the
haunts of the prey for which each species of carnivorous animal is destined or
fitted by nature; and, from each of these particular modifications, there
result certain differences in the more minute conformations of particular
parts; all, however, conformable to the general principles of structure already
mentioned. Hence it follows, that in every one of their parts we discover
distinct indications, not only of the classes and orders of animals, but also
of their genera, and even of their species.
"In fact, in order that the
jaw may be well adapted for laying hold of objects, it is necessary that its
condyle should have a certain form; that the resistance, the moving power, and
the fulcrum, should have a certain relative position with respect to each
other; and shut the temporal muscles should be of a certain size: The hollow or
depression, too, in which these muscles are lodged, must have a certain depth;
and the zygomatic arch under which they pass, must not only have a certain
degree of convexity, but it must he sufficiently strong to support the action
of the masseter.
"To enable the animal to carry off its prey when seized, a
correspondent force is requisite in the muscles which elevate the head; and
this neeessurily gives rise to a determinate form of the vertebrae to which
these muscles are attached, and of the occiput into which they are inserted.
"In order that the teeth of carnivorous animals may be able to cut the
flesh, they require tu be sharp, more or less so in proportion to the greater
or less quantity of flesh that they have to eat. It is requisite that their
roots should be solid and strong, in prqportion to the quantity and the size of
the bones which they have to break in pieces. The whole of these circumstances
must necessarily influence the development and form of all the parts which
contribute to move the jaws.
"To enable the claws of a carnivorous
animal to seize its prey, a considerable degree of mobility is necessary in
their paws and toes, and a considerable strength in the claws themselves. From
these circumstances, there necessarily result certain determinate forms in all
the bones of their paws, and in the distribution of the muscles and tendons by
which they are moved. The fore-arm must possess a certain facility of moving in
various directions, and consequently requires certain determinate forms in the
bones of which it is composed. As the bones of the fore-arm are articulated
with the arm bone or humerus, no change can take place in the form and
structure of the former, without occasioning correspondent changes in the form
of the latter. The shoulder-blade also, or scapula, requires a correspondent
degree of strength in all animals destined for catching prey, by which it
likewise must necessarily have an appropriate form. The play and action of all
these parts require certain proportions in the muscles which set them in
motion, and the impressions formed by these muscles must still farther
determine the forms of all these bones.
"After these observations, it
will be easily seen that similar conclusions may be drawn with respect to the
hinder limbs of carnivorous animals, which require particular conformations to
fit them for rapidity of motion in general; and that similar considerations
must influence the forms and connexions of the vertebrae and other bones
constituting the trunk of the body, to fit them for flexibility and readiness
of motion in all directions. The bones also of the nose, of the orbit, and of
the ears, require certain forms and structures to fit them for giving
perfection to the senses of smell, sight, and hearing, so necessary to animals
of prey. In short, the shape and structure of the teeth regulate the forms of
the condyle, of the shoulder-blade, and of the claws, in the same manner as the
equation of a curve regulates all its other properties; and, as in regard to
any particular curve, all its properties may be ascertained by assuming each
separate property as the foundation of a particular equation; in the same
manner a claw, a shoulder-blade, a condyle, a leg or arm bone, or any other
bone, separately considered, enables us to discover the description of teeth to
which they have belonged; and so also reciprocally we may determine the forms
of the other bones from the teeth. Thus, commencing our investigation by a
careful survey of anyone bone by itself, a person who is sufficiently master of
the laws of organic structure, may, as it were, reconstruct the whole animal to
which that bone had belonged.
"This principle is sufficiently evident,
in its general acceptation, not to require any more minute demonstration; but,
when it comes to be applied in practice, there is a great number of cases in
which our theoretical knowledge of these relations of forms is not sufficient
to guide us, unless assisted by observation and experience.
"For
example, we are well aware that all hoofed animals must necessarily be
herbivorous, because they are possessed of no means of seizing upon prey. It is
also evident, having no other use for their fore-legs than to support their
bodies, that they have no occasion for a shoulder so vigorously organized as
that of carnivorous animals; owing to which they have no clavicles or acromion
processes, and their shoulder-blades are proportionally narrow. Having also no
occasion to turn their fore-arms, their radius is joined by ossification to the
ulna, or is at least articulated by the gynglymus with the humerus. Their food
being entirely herbaceous, requires teeth with flat surfaces, on purpose to
bruise the seeds and plants on which they feed. For this purpose also, these
surfaces require to be unequal, and are consequently composed of alternate
perpendicular layers of hard enamel and softer bone. Teeth of this structure
necessarily require horizontal motions, to enable them to triturate or grind
down the herbaceous food; and, accordingly, the condyles of the jaw could not
be formed into such confined joints as in the carnivorous animals, but must
have a flattened form, correspondent to sockets in the temporal bones, which
also are more or less flat for their reception. The hollows likewise of the
temporal bones, having smaller muscles to contain, are narrower, and not so
deep etc. All these circumstances are deducible from each other, according to
their greater or less generality, and in such manner that some are essentially
and exclusively appropriated to hoofed quadrupeds, while other circumstances,
though equally necessary to that description of animals are not exclusively so,
but may be found in animals of other descriptions, where other conditions
permit or require their existence.
"When we proceed to consider the
different orders or subdivisions of the class of hoofed animals, and examine
the modifications to which the general conditions are liable, or rather the
particular conditions which are conjoined, according to the respective
characters of the several subdivisions, the reasons upon which these particular
conditions or rules of conformation are founded become less evident. We can
easily conceive, in general, the necessity of a more complicated systela of
digestive organs in those species which have less perfect masticatory systems;
and hence we may presume that these latter animals require especially to be
ruminant, which are in want of such or such kinds of teeth; and may also
deduce, from the same considerations, the necessity of a certain conformation
of the oesophagus, and of corresponding forms in the vertebra of the neck,
&c. But I doubt whether it would have been discovered, independently of
actual observation, that ruminant animals should all have cloven hoofs, and
that they should be the only animals having that particular conformation; that
the ruminant animals only should be provided with horns on their foreheads;
that those among them which have sharp tusks, or canine teeth, should want
horns, &c.;
"As all these relative conformations are constant and
regular, we may be assured that they depend upon some sufficient cause; and,
since we are not acquainted with that cause, we must here supply the defect of
theory by observation, and in this way lay down empirical rules on the subject,
which are almost as certain as those deduced from rational principles,
especially if established upon careful and repeated observation. Hence, any one
who observes merely the print of a cloven hoof, may conclude that it bas been
left by a ruminant animal, and regard the conclusion us equally certain with
any other in physics or in morals. Consequently, this single foot-mark clearly
indicates to the observer the forms of the teeth, of the jaws, of the
vertebrae, of all the leg-bones, thighs, shoulders, and of the trunk of the
body of the animal which left the mark. It is much surer than all the marks of
Zadig. Observation alone, independent entirely of general principles of
philosophy, is sufficient to show that there certainly are secret reasons for
all these relations of which I have been speaking.
"When we have
established a general system of these relative conformations of animals, we not
only discover specific constancy, if the expression may be allowed, between
certain forms of certain organs, and certain other forms of different organs;
we can also perceive the classified constancy of conformation, and a
correspondent gradation between these two sets of organs, which demonstrate
their mutual influence upon each other, almost as certainly as the most perfect
deduction of reason. For example, the masticatory system is generally more
perfect in the non-ruminant hoofed quadrupeds than it is in the cloven-hoofed
or ruminant quadrupeds; as the former possess incisive teeth, or tusks, or
almost always both of these, in both jaws. The structure also of their feet is
in general more complicated, having a greater number of toes, or their
phalanges less enveloped in the hoof, or a greater number of distinct
metacarpal and metatarsal bones, or more numerous tarsal bones, or the fibula
more completely distinct from the tibia; or, finally, that all these enumerated
circumstances are often united in the same species of animal.
"It is
quite impossible to assign reasons for these relations; but we are certain that
they are not produced by mere chance, because, whenever a cloven- hoofed animal
has any resemblance in the arrangement of its teeth to the animals we now speak
of; it has the resemblance to them also in the arrangement of its feet. Thus
camels, which have tusks, and also two or four incisive teeth in the upper-jaw,
have one additional bone in the tarsus, their scaphoid and eüboid bones
not being united into one; and have also very small hoofs with corresponding
phalanges, or toe-bones. The musk animals, whose tusks are remarkably
conspicuous have a distinct fibula as long as the tibia; while the other
cloven-footed animals have only a small bone articulated at the lower end of
the tibia in place of a fibula. We have thus a constant mutual relation between
the organs of conformations, which appear to have no kind of connexion with
each other; and the gradations of their forms invariably correspond, even in
those cases in which we cannot give the rationale of their relations.
"By thus employing the method of observation, where theory is no longer
able to direct our views, we procure astonishing results. The smallest fragment
of bone, even the most apparently insignificant apophysis, possesses a fixed
and determinate character, relative to the class, order, genus and species of
the animal to which it belonged; insomuch, that when we find merely the
extremity of a well-preserved bone, we are able, by careful examination,
assisted by analogy and exact comparison, to determine the species to which it
once belonged, as certainly as if we had the entire animal before us. Before
venturing to put entire confidence in this method of investigation, in regard
to fossil bones, I have very frequently tried it with portions of bones
belonging to well-known animals, and always with such complete success, that I
now entertain no doubt with regard to the results which it affords. I must
acknowledge that I enjoy every kind of advantage for such investigations that
could possibly be of use, by my fortunate situation in the Museum of Natural
History; and, by assiduous researches for nearly fifteen years, I have
collected skeletons of all the genera and sub- genera of quadrupeds, with those
of many species in some of the genera, and even of several varieties of some
species. With these aids, I have found it easy to multiply comparisons, and to
verify, in every point of view, the application of the foregoing rules.
-pp. 90 - 102.
"Now, this is a most interesting specimen of M. Cuvier.
It bespeaks the tone and the habit of a philosopher, and is well calculated to
gain a favourable hearing, if not an authority, to all his other speculations.
But it is quite true that a man may excel in one department of investigation,
and fall short in another; and none more readily than the antemosaical
philosophers, who oppose him, to exclaim, that, though M. Cuvier be a
good anatomist, it does not follow that he is a geologist. Now we profess to be
neither the one nor the other. The science of our professional department is
different from both, and all that we ask of the geological infidels of the day
is, that they will do us the same justice in reference to their speculations,
that they take to themselves in reference to M. Cuvier. A man may be a good
geologist, and be able to construct as good a system as the mineralogical
appearances around him enable him to do. But this system is neither more nor
less than the announcement of past facts, and geology forms only one of the
channels by which we may reach them. But there are other channels, and the most
direct and obvious of them all to the knowledge of the past is the channel of
history. The recorded testimony of those who were present or nearer than
ourselves to the facts in question, we hold to be a likelier path to the
information we are in quest of, than the inferences of a distant posterity upon
the geological phenomena around them, just as an actual history of the
legislation of old governments, is a trustier document than an ingenious
speculation on the progress and the principles of human society. You protest
against the knife and demonstrations of the anatomist as instruments of no
authority in your department. We protest against the hammer of the mineralogist
and the reveries of the geologian, as instruments of no authority in ours. You
think that Cuvier is very slender in geology, and that he has been most
Un-philosophically rash in leaving his own province, and carrying his confident
imaginations into a totally different field of inquiry. We cannot say, that you
are very slender in the philosophy of history and historical evidence, for it
is a ground you scarcely ever deign to touch upon. But surely it is a distinct
subject of inquiry. It has its own principles, and its own probabilities. You
must pronounce upon the testimony of Moses on appropriate evidence. It is the
testimony of a witness nearer than yourselves to the events in question; and if
it be a sound testimony, it carries along with it the testimony of a Being who
was something more than an actual spectator of the creation. He.was both
spectator and agent. And yet all that mighty train of evidence which goes to
sustain the revealed history of Gods administrations in the world, is by
you overlooked and forgotten; and while you so readily lift the cry against the
unphilosophical encroachment of foreign principles into your department, you
make no conscience of elbowing your own principles into a field which does not
belong to them.
But it is high time to confront the theory of our geologist
with the sacred history with a view both to lay down the points of accordancy,
and to show in how far we are compelled to modify the speculation, or to disown
it altogether.
First, then it is so far well that Cuvier admits the
very last catastrophe to have been so recent, and accomplished too like all his
former catastrophes, by the agency of water. The only modification we have to
offer here is, that whereas Cuvier represents it to be an operation of so
violent a nature as to agitate and displace every thing that was moveable - we
guess, from the history that an olive tree was still standing, and not lying
loosely on the ground, with part of its foliage. If we are correct in our
assumption as to the specific gravity of the olive tree, it would, if separated
from the soil, have been borne up on the surface of the water - and in that
case the circumstance of a leaf being recently plucked or torn from the tree,
would have been no indication whatever of the waters being abated from off the
earth.
Again, the researches of M. Cuvier present us with no fact
militating against the recent creation of the human species. It has been said
to be the subject of a recent discovery - but at the time of writing this
volume, M. Cuvier could assert that no human remains had been hitherto
discovered among the extraneous fossils. This be holds to be a decisive proof,
that man did not exist in those countries where the fossil bones of other
animals are to be found. This is no proof, however, that he did not exist in
some other quarters of the globe antecedent to the last or any given number of
catastrophes. He may have been confined to some narrow regions which escaped
the operation of the catastrophe, from which he issued out to repeople the new
formed land; or, the fossil remains of the human species, may exist in the
bottom of the present ocean, and remain concealed from observation till some
new catastrophe lay them open to the inquirers of a future era - But this is
all gratuitous, and must give way to the positive information of authentic
history.
There is one very precious fruit to be gathered out of those
investigations, an argument for the exercise of a creative power, more
convincing perhaps than any that can be drawn from the slender resources of
natural theism. If it be true, that in the oldest of the strata, no animal
remains are to be met with, marking out an epoch anterior to the existence of
living beings in the field of observation - if it be true that all the genera
which are found in the first of the peopled strata are destroyed. If it be true
that no traces of our present genera are to be met with in the early epochs of
the globe, how came the present races of animated nature into being? It is not
enough to say, that like man they may have been confined to narrower regions,
and escaped the operation of the former catastrophes, or that their remains may
be buried under the present ocean. Enough for our purpose, that they could not
have existed from all eternity. Enough for us the fact, that each catastrophe
has the chance of destroying, or does in fact destroy; a certain number of
genera. If this annihilating process went on from eternity, the work of
annihilation would long ago have been accomplished, and there is not a single
species of living creatures that could have survived the multiplicity of
chances for its extinction afforded by an indefinite number of catastrophes. If
then there were no replacement of new genera, the face of the world would at
this moment have been one dreary and unpeopled solitude; and the question
recurs, how did this replacement come to be effected? The doctrine of
spontaneous generation we believe to be generally exploded; and there is not a
known instance of an animal being brought into existence, but by means of a
previous animal of the same species. The transition of the genera into one
another is most ably and conclusively contended against by the author before
us, who proves them to be separated by permanent and invincible barriers.
Between the one principle and the other the commencement of new genera is
totally inexplicable on any of the known powers and combinations of matter, and
we are carried upwards to the primary link which connects the existence of a
created being with the fiat of the Creator.
But, generally speaking,
geologists are not guilty of disowning the act of creation. It is in theorizing
on the manner of the act, (and that too in the face of testimony which they do
not attempt to dispose of,) that they make the most glaring deviation from the
spirit and principles of the inductive philosophy. We have no experience in the
formation of worlds. Set aside revelation, and we cannot say whether the act of
creation is an instantaneous act, or a succession of acts; and no man can tell
whether God made this earth and these heavens in a moment of time, or in a
week, or in a thousand years, more than he can tell whether the men of Jupiter,
if there be any such, live ten years or ten centuries. Both questions lie out
of the field of observation; and it is delightful to think, that the very
principle which constitutes the main strength of the atheistical argument, goes
to demolish all those presumptuous speculations, in which the enemies of the
Bible attempt to do away the authority of the sacred historian. 'The
universe, says Hume, 'is a singular effect; and we, therefore, can
never know if it proceeded from the hand of an intelligent Creator. But if the
Creator takes another method of making us know, the very singularity of the
effect is the reason why we should be silent when he speaks to us; and why we,
in all the humility of conscious ignorance, should yield our entire submission
to the information he lays before us. Surely, if without a revelation, the
singularity of the effect leaves us ignorant of the nature of the cause, it
leaves us equally ignorant of the modus operandi of this cause. If experience
furnish nothing to enlighten us upon this question, 'Did the universe come from
the hand of an intelligent God? it furnishes as little to enlighten us
upon the question, 'Did God create the universe in an instant, or did he do it
in seven days, or did he do it in any other number of days that may be
specified? These are points which natural reason, exercising itself upon
natural appearances, does not qualify us to know; and it were well if a maxim,
equally applicable to philosophers and to children, were to come in here for
our future direction, 'that what we do not know we should be content to
learn; and if a revelation, bearing every evidence of authenticity,
undertakes the office of informing us, it is our part cheerfully to acquiesce,
and obediently to go along with it. On this principle we refuse to concede the
literal history of Moses, or to abandon it to the fanciful and ever-varying
interpretations of philosophers.
We have to thank the respectable
editor of this work, Mr Jameson, for his becoming deference to the authority of
the Jewish legislator, and his no less becoming and manly expression of it. But
we cannot consent to the stretching out of the days, spoken of in the first
chapter of Genesis, into indefinite periods of time. We fear that the slower
revolution of the earth round her axis, is too gratuitous to make the admission
of it at all consistent with the just rules of philosophizing; and there is,
therefore, no other alternative left to us, but to take the history just as it
stands. We leave it to geologists to judge, whether our concluding observations
allow them room enough for bringing about a consistency between the first
chapter of Genesis and their theories. In the mean time, we assert that the
history in this chapter, maintains throughout an entire consistency with
itself; a consistency which would be utterly violated, if we offered to
allegorize the days, or to take them up in any other sense than that in which
they obviously and literally present themselves. What shall we make of the
institution of the Sabbath, if we surrender the Mosaic history of the creation?
Is it to be conceived, that the Jews would understand the description of Moses
in any other sense than in the plain and obvious one? Is it to be admitted,
that God would incorporate a falsehood in one of His commandments, or at least
prefer a reason for the observance of it which was calculated to deceive, and
had all the effect of a falsehood? We cannot but resist this laxity of
interpretation, which, if suffered in one chapter of the Bible, may be carried
to all of them, may unsettle the dearest articles of our faith, and throw a
baleful uncertainty over the condition and the prospects of the species.
We have heard it preferred as an impeachment against the consistency of
the Mosaic account that the day and night were made to succeed each other
antecedently to the formation of the sun. This is very true; but it was not
antecedent to the formation of light; it was not antecedent to the division of
the light from the darkness; it may not have been antecedent to the formation
of luminous matter; and though all this matter was not assembled into one body
till the fourth day, it may have been separated and made to reside in so much
greater abundance in one quarter of the heavens than in the other, as to have
given rise to a region of light and a region of darkness. Such an arrangement
would, with the revolution of the earths axis, give rise to a day and a
night. Enough for the purpose of making out this succession, if the light
formed on the first day was unequally dispersed over the surrounding expanse,
though it was not till this light was fixed and concentrated in one mass, that
the sun could be said to rule the day.
And here let it be observed,
that it does not fall upon the defenders of Moses to bring forward positive or
specific proofs for the truth of any system reconcileable with his history,
beyond the historical evidence of the history itself. A thousand systems may be
devised, one of which only can be true, but each of which may be consistent
with all the details of the book of Genesis. We cannot, and we do not offer any
one of these systems as that which is to be positively received, but we offer
them all as so many ways of disposing of the objections; and while upon us lies
the bare task of proposing them, upon our antagonists lies the heavy work
of overthrowing them all before they can set aside the direct testimony
of the sacred historian, or assert that his account of the creation is
contradicted by known appearances.
We crave the attention of our readers
to the above remark; and, satisfied that the more they think of it, the more
will they be impressed with its justness, we spare ourselves the task of
bestowing upon it any further elucidation. -
We conclude with adverting
to the unanimity of geologists in one point, the far superior antiquity of this
globe to the commonly received date of it, as taken from the writings of Moses.
What shall we make of this? We may feel a security as to the points in which
they differ, and, confronting them with one another, may remain safe and
untouched between them. But when they agree, this security fails. There is no
neutralization of authority among them as to the age of the world; and Cuvier,
with his catastrophes and his epochs, leaves the popular opinion nearly as far
behind him, as they who trace our present continent upward through an
indefinite series of ancestors, and assign many millions of years to the
existence of each generation.
Should the phenomena compel us to assign a
greater antiquity to the globe than to that work of days detailed in the book
of Genesis, there is still one way of saving the credit of the literal history.
The first creation of the earth and the heavens may have formed no part of that
work. This took place at the beginning, and is described in the first verse of
Genesis. It is not said when this beginning was. We know the general impression
to be, that it was on the earlier part of the first day, and that the first act
of creation formed part of the same days work with the formation of
light. We ask our readers to turn to that chapter, and to read the first five
verses of it. Is there any forcing in the supposition, that the first verse
describes the primary act of creation, and leaves us at liberty to place it as
far back as we may; that the first half of the second verse describes the state
of the earth (which may already have existed for ages, and been the theatre of
geological revolutions) at the point of time anterior to the detailed
operations of this chapter; and that the motion of the spirit of God, described
in the second clause of the second verse, was the commencement of these
operations? In this case the creation of the light may have been the great and
leading event of the first day; and Moses may be supposed to give us not a
history of the first formation of things, but of the formation of the present
system; and as we have already proved the necessity of direct exercises of
creative power to keep up the generations of living creatures; so Moses may,
for any thing we know, be giving us the full history of the last great
interposition, and be describing the successive steps by which the mischiefs of
the last catastrophe were repaired.
I take a friend to see a field which
belongs to me, and I give him a history of the way in which I managed it. In
the beginning I enclosed that field. It was then in a completely wild and
unbroken state. I pared it. This took up one week. I removed the great stones
out of it. This took up another week. On the third, week, I entered the plough
into it: and thus, by describing the operations of each week, I may lay before
him the successive steps by which I brought my field into cultivation. It does
not strike me that there is any violence done to the above narrative, by the
supposition that the enclosure of the field was a distinct and anterior thing
to the first weeks operation. The very description of its state after it
was enclosed, is an interruption to the narrative of the operations, and leaves
me at liberty to consider the work done after this description of the state of
the field as the whole work of the first week. The enclosure of the field may
have taken place one year, or even twenty years before the more detailed
improvements were entered upon.
The first clause of the second verse is
just such another interruption; and it is remarkable, that there is no similar
example of it in describing the work of any of the following days, so as to
divide one part of the days work from the other. It is true, that, in
some cases, it is said that God saw it to be good; but there is no imperfection
ascribed to any thing, as it resulted immediately from the creating power. It
is always said to be good in that state in which it came directly out of his
hand; and if in the second verse, it is said of the earth, not that it was
good, but that it was without form and void; this may look not like a
description of its state immediately after it came out of the hand of God, but
of its state after one of those catastrophes which geologists assign to it.
It is further remarkable, that there is a unity in the work of, each of
the five days. The work of the second day relates only to the firmament; of the
third day, to the separation of sea and land; of the fourth day, the formation
of the celestial bodies; of the fifth, to the creation of the sea; and of the
sixth, to that of land animals. This unity of work would be violated on the
first day, if the primary act of creation were to form part of it; and the
uniformity is better kept up by separating the primary act from all the
succeeding operations, and making the formation and division of light, the
great and only work of the first day.
The same observation may apply to
all the celestial bodies that are visible to this world. The creation of the
heavens may have taken place as far antecedently to the details of the first
chapter of Genesis, as the creation of the earth. It is evident, however, that
if the earth had been at some former period the fair residence of life, she had
now become void and formless; and if the sun and moon and stars at some former
period had given light, that light had been extinguished. It is not our part to
assign the cause of a catastrophe which carried so extensive a destruction
along with it; but he were a bold theorist indeed, who could assert, that, in
the wide chambers of immensity, no such cause is to be found. A thousand
possibilities may be devised, each of which is consistent with the literal
history of Moses; and though it is not incumbent on the one party to bring
forward any one of these possibilities in the shape of a positive announcement,
each of them must be overthrown by the other before that history can be
abandoned; and it will be found, that while the friends of the Bible are under
no necessity to depart from the sober humility of the inductive spirit, the
charge of unphilosophical temerity lies upon its opponents.
Home | Biography | Literature | Letters | Interests | Links | Quotes | Photo-Wallet