SECTION THIRD.
The subject stated—change of opinion in regard to time of creation—difficult to reason with some men—argument from Astronomy—geology—the Deluge—Theory of internal heat.
Another reason for believing that the last judgment takes place in the spiritual world, is the want of any evidence that the natural world will ever be destroyed. It is true we can see no necessary connection between the destruction of this earth and the common doctrine of a last judgment. We cannot see what tendency the burning up of our globe would have to collect the scattered particles of the bodies of its former inhabitants, or to assemble those bodies in one congregated mass, to meet their final doom. But the advocates of these doctrines connect them inseparably together as parts of the same system, and permit them to rest on the same sort of evidence. If, therefore, we are enabled to show that neither reason nor the word of the Lord affords any evidence that the natural world will ever be destroyed, we are justly entitled to infer that it will never be the theatre of a last, or general judgment. That judgment must take place in the world where spirits dwell.
But before presenting our reasons for believing in the permanent durability of our earth, it may be well to invite the readers attention for a moment, to that great change of opinion which has recently taken place in regard to the time when this earth was created. A few years since, it would have been regarded as a very great heresy to have intimated that our globe was created more than six thousand years since. And yet the time has already arrived when this has almost ceased to be a debatable question. It would be a poor compliment to any man's intelligence to suppose him to entertain a doubt of our earth having been in existence several hundred thousands of years. The man who would attempt to revive the old doctrine that the earth, with the material universe around it, was made about six thousand years since, and in six literal and consecutive days, would find it difficult, by any ingenuity, to obtain a reconsideration of a question so thoroughly and fully settled. That doctrine has slowly and reluctantly retired before the accumulating and finally overwhelming force of astronomical and geological science. It held on to life with long and desperate struggles, but its days are at length numbered. The following passage from the Ninth Bridgwater Treatise, by Charles Babbage, Esq., expresses what may now very justly be regarded as the common belief of intelligent minds:
"The mass of evidence which combines to prove the great antiquity of the earth itself, is so irresistible and so unshaken by any opposing facts, that none but those who are alike incapable of observing the facts and appreciating the reasoning, can for a moment conceive the present state of its surface to have been the result of only six thousand years of existence. Those observers and philosophers, who have spent their lives in the study of geology, have arrived at the conclusion, that there exists irresistible evidence that the date of the earth's first formation is far anterior to the epoch supposed to be ascribed to it by Moses; and it is now admitted by all competent persons, that the formation even of those strata which are near the surface, must have occupied vast periods, probably millions of years in arriving at their present state."—p. p. 6768.
This question as it now stands before the religious world, may be fairly stated in the following form:—The science of Geology has demonstrated the great antiquity of our earth. But the works of the Lord cannot contradict the true meaning of his word; hence the true meaning of the Mosaic account of the creation must harmonize with the truths which Geology has demonstrated. I am aware, however, that there are some persons who will dispose of the above reasoning in a very summary way. They will coolly and gravely tell you that there are the most palpable and direct contradictions between the word and the works of the Lord, and that these contradictions are permitted for the purpose of testing our faith in his word. On this accommodating principle, they find no difficulty in admitting the truth of every geological fact, and at the same time maintaining that the first chapter of Genesis ought to be understood simply in its literal sense. But it is in vain to attempt to reason with men who thus virtually charge their Creator with trifling with his creatures, rather than admit their own ignorance of the true meaning of his word. Wherever there is any sincere love for the truth there must be a thankful acknowledgment that both the word and the works of the Lord are true and faithful, and where any apparent disagreement is found, it must be charged to its true cause—to the darkness of our own understanding. Such, we are happy to believe, is the present position of a large portion of the religious world in regard to the Mosaic account of the creation and the known facts of geological science. They cannot deny the truth of the latter, and they will not deny or doubt the truth of the former. They are thus becoming prepared for a light from heaven to flow into their minds and reveal the true spiritual meaning of the word of the Lord. Such a heavenly light is already flowing into the minds of multitudes, through the medium of the divinely illuminated writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, revealing a most beautiful and perfect harmony and consistency between the word and the works of the Lord. And we have no doubt there are vast multitudes more, who will thankfully receive light and instruction through the same heavenly medium after a few more ineffectual attempts to solve those mysteries by their own self derived wisdom.
But while we behold with gratitude the progress of rational truth in regard to the past history of our earth, we recognize with equal delight the beginning of a similar change of opinion in regard to its future destiny. In these changes we behold the religious world rapidly preparing to receive a system of doctrines which will at once most beautifully harmonize spiritual and natural truth—will demonstrate that the word and the works of the Lord are from the same divine author. We already behold the dawning of that day when a pure and spiritual theology will be united to a rational and consistent philosophy; both of which will unite in leading the human race upward towards the per fection and happiness of heaven.
With the hope, therefore, of contributing in some slight degree, to the diffusion of more rational views in regard to the future destiny of our earth, I will briefly present the reader with a few of those reasons on which we rest our belief in its final and permanent stability. It is a generally observed fact, that the works of nature are ordinarily so constructed as to give some distinct indications of their ultimate destiny. All vegetable and animal productions, even the bodies of men, are formed by the gradual accumulation and accretion of various particles of matter, in accordance with certain unchangeable laws and in obedience to a certain dynamic spiritual principle, called life. But all those forms of matter which owe their existence to the power of life, have a short or at the most a temporary duration. Death and reproduction appears to be their only mode of existence; for that living force on which they depend is constantly opposed by other forces, which operate in the kingdom of dead matter. But the earth itself consists of a vast aggregation of material particles, held together by one uniform law, to which, so far as we know, there is no successful opposition. The changes which are constantly taking place in the various forms of matter which lie on the surface of the earth, are all subordinate to the law of gravitation, or at least, they leave the uniform operation of that law undisturbed. Amidst all the various operations which are going on in the natural world, the earth continually retains every particle of matter which is used in those operations, holds that matter together in a uniform shape, and pursues with unerring certainty its long travelled path in the heavens. In regard to our own earth, this is an observed and well known fact, and the same general fact is known to be true of all the discovered planets which belong to our system. Of these there are not less than thirty, including the secondary planets, and yet not one of them has ever undergone any important physical change since its first discovery. Much less has any one of them been dissolved, or ceased to exist. This is an important fact, and one which very strongly confirms the position that our earth, in common with the other planets, was made, not to be torn to pieces after a few thousand years, but for permanent use.
And it is worthy of remark, that from all the observations of astronomy, there is reason to believe that the same general principle of permanent durability, is applicable to all those stars which lie scattered through the immensity of space, and of which there can be no reasonable doubt that they are suns to other planetary systems. It is true, the records of astronomy show several instances of stars having disappeared. These cases are, however, comparatively very few in number, and the most reasonable conjecture in regard to them, appears to be that they belong to that class of periodic stars, which, from some cause not yet fully ascertained, appear and disappear at stated intervals; but that in the case of those which seem to have disappeared entirely, their "periods are too long to have occurred more than once within the limits of recorded observation." The remark contained in the quotation, is the suggestion of Sir John Herschel, in whose work on astronomy, (Chapt. 12.) the reader may find some interesting facts and observations in regard to the occasional disappearance of certain stars. But the extinction, or annihilation of any of those suns or worlds, which the Creator has formed, is an idea quite unknown to astronomers.
It is true, there have been a great number of popular theories of destruction, which have taken a strong hold upon the marvelous curiosity of uneducated minds; but those whose lives have been devoted to the study of "the mechanism of the heavens," have generally disposed of such theories in very few words. Not more than fifteen years since a great popular excitement was occasioned by the supposed probable destruction of our planet by Biela's comet, and I remember hearing of at least one poor fellow who committed suicide to escape the calamity. But the comet passed quietly by; and not one in a thousand even saw it. In the language of Sir J. Hershel, "it is a small insignificant comet, without a tail or any appearance of a solid nucleus whatever. "The reason of this little comet having been regarded with peculiar apprehension, is, that it is the only one whose path is known to lie near the orbit of the earth. But to remove from the popular mind all apprehension of danger from this source, Prof. Arago, the distinguished French astronomer, has shown by a thorough mathematical demonstration, that the probability of a collision from this or any other comet that may visit our system, is, at the utmost, only one in two hundred and eighty millions. The remarks of Prof. Arago on this subject, may be seen in "Dick's Siderial Heavens," page 252.
But to diminish this danger still more, and in fact to reduce it to nothing, it will be remembered that two large comets, those almost immaterial forms, have come in direct collision with the satellites of Jupiter, and yet, the satellites sustained no injury. Not the slightest change was perceived in their orbits. The tables for finding longitude which are based upon the times of the eclipses of those satellites, were as accurate after the collision as before. But as the fact here stated may seem extraordinary to some persons, I will confirm it by a quotation from an author whose knowledge of such matters will not be questioned. The following passage occurs in Herschel's Astronomy, page 292:—"Comets, in passing among and near the planets, are materially drawn aside from their courses, and in some cases have their orbits entirely changed. This is remarkably the case with Jupiter, which seems by some fatality, to be constantly in their way, and to serve us a perpetual stumbling block to them. In the case of the remarkable comet of 1770, which was found by Lexell to revolve in a moderate ellipse, in a period of about five years, and whose return was predicted by him accordingly; the prediction was disappointed by the comet actually getting entangled among the satellites of Jupiter, and being completely thrown out of its orbit by the attraction of that planet, and forced into a much larger ellipse. By this extraordinary rencounter, the motion of the satellites suffered not the least perceptible derangement—a sufficient proof of the smallness of the comets mass. The reader will undoubtedly remember the large comet of 1843, which went careering across the heavens like a broad stream of light, some thirty degrees long. A remarkable fact in regard to that comet was stated by Prof. S. C. Walker, of the Philadelphia High School Observatory, who obtained the credit of having calculated its elements with more accuracy than any other observer. According to Prof. W.'s. calculations, the comet approached the sun in a very excentric parabolic orbit, and when at its perihelian distance, actually came in collision with the sun and suffered a rebound by which its orbit was changed from a parabola to a hyperbola, on which latter track it went off, in all probability, to return no more forever. It had ventured too far and suffered a repulse from which it will never recover. We may however learn a lesson of wisdom from its fate, and not rush hastily to an elevated position, for which we are unprepared, and unable to sustain. But the point to which I wish to direct attention, is that during this collision, the sun remained unaffected. It shone with as much beauty and splendor as if no such event had been transpiring. We may add, that from what we know of the extreme tenuity of these random visitors, as well as from their recorded exploits, we are certainly justified in believing that even our atmosphere would sustain and repel their shocks without any assistance, from the earth, except a "reasonable support." The most devoted misanthropist, may as well abandon all hope of our world being destroyed in this way.
But if the reader requires it, I will beg his pardon for having detained him so long with an imaginary danger, to which very few persons at present attach the slighest importance. But there has been so much zeal and ingenuity shown in trying to find some way for destroying our globe, that a little indulgence will probably be granted to our efforts to show the fallacy of such theories, and thereby to aid in removing that morbid misanthropy which such "destructive" speculations always produce.
That supposed source of danger to which most importance has been attached, remains to be noticed. The opinion has extensively prevailed that the geological formation of the earth is such as to indicate its approaching dissolution. The awful convulsions which it has sustained during its formation, and before the creation of man, are supposed to afford ground for believing that similar overturnings are in reserve for it; which will at least entirely destroy the present race of its inhabitants. It would be worth something to know what connection such a catastrophe could have with the literal resurrection of the dead; or with a general judgment in this natural world. But I will probably be told that these events will have no logical or natural connection—they will simply be contemporaneous—that the resurrection of the dead will depend solely on the supreme and arbitrary power of the Almighty, and that it will be simultaneous with the destruction of the earth, only because that will be the most suitable time to bring the affairs of this world to a close. I have a very high esteem for the piety and sincerity of some persons who reason in this way, but I cannot avoid the belief that they have very erroneous ideas in regard to the way in which the divine power is manifested. Can any man rationally believe that in carrying forward the operations of the universe, the Almighty will ever find it necessary to act in direct opposition to those natural laws which his own wisdom has established? In the preceding section, I have, however, endeavored to show, that the doctrine of a literal resurrection, not only involves the idea of a direct violation of the laws of nature, but that it is absurd and contradictory, and directly opposed to that view of the resurrection which is taught in the word of our Lord. But the point on which my eye is now fixed, is the idea which is somewhat extensively entertained, that this earth is to be again over turned, convulsed and destroyed, because we learn from geology that it was subject to such transformations before the creation of man. This is about as reasonable as to suppose that because a piece of gold has been several times melted, while being refined, it will therefore need to be treated in the same way again, at some future time. No truth could be more evident than that this earth was made for the very use which it now subserves, to be a habitation for man. It was subjected to a succession of important transformations and changes, which occupied periods of immense duration. But in all these changes, so far as they have been examined, there was a manifest, reference to the ultimate use for which the earth was forming. Dr. Buckland, (Geology vol. 1 page 409,) speaking of the wisdom displayed in forming the earth, and adapting it to the use and comfort of man, makes the following remark:—"It is impossible to contemplate a disposition of things so well adapted to afford the materials essential to supply the wants, and to keep alive the industry of the inhabitants of our earth. * * * We may surely, therefore, feel ourselves authorized to view, in the geological arrangements above developed, a system of wise and benevolent contrivances, prospectively subsidiary to the wants and comforts of the future inhabitants of the globe." This important principle is very distinctly recognized and insisted upon by geologists. Those great revolutions and changes, to which the earth was subjected through a series of many ages, were precisely those changes which were necessary in order to prepare the earth for the use of man. Every new discovery in geology reveals some hitherto unknown storehouse of wealth, which was laid up by the slow process of ages, and which is still held in reserve to supply the wants of future generations of men. Prof. Hitchcock, in his Geology of Massachusetts, has the following remarks on this subject: "The globe was evidently preparing" (during the long period of its formation,) "for the residence of man and animals that now inhabit it. Before their creation, its temperature was too high, and its surface too liable to be broken up by volcanoes, and drenched by deluges, to be a secure and happy abode for the more perfect races of animals that now inhabit it. But it was adapted to the nature of such animals as we now find entombed in the rocks. The overflowing benevolence of the Deity, therefore, led him to place such beings upon it, and thus to create a vast amount of happiness, which seems to be a grand object in all his plans and operations. The vegetables that existed in those early periods, have been converted, in the course of time, into the various species of coal now dug from the bowels of the earth; while the remains of the animals of those times have become changed into lime stone. Even those violent volcanoes and earthquakes, by which the successive races of animals and plants have been suddenly destroyed, have probably introduced into the upper part of the earth's crust, various metalic veins, very important to human happiness. And in all this, we see indications of that same benevolent foresight and care for supplying the wants of his creatures, to which our daily experience of God's goodness testifies." These are important facts, which no serious mind can pass lightly over. Long ages, millions of years rolled round while the earth was being formed, matured, and fitted for the use of man. The materials for our houses, our clothing and our food, had to be prepared in the great laboratory which was kept at work for millions of years. Myriads of animals lived and died long ages before thé creation of man, and their remains were treasured up in the earth to afford the materials for our daily bread. Why, even the wheat of which our bread is made, contains a very large proportion of phosphate of lime, which is of animal origin. Sir Humphrey Davy, on analyzing the ashes of wheat, found this substance in the proportion of 0,445, or nearly one half. For the proof of this statement, the reader is referred to Dr. Jackson's Geology of Rhode Island, page 233.
Now it is an important fact, that those immense preparations were made, and the earth was reduced to order before the creation of man. Since that important event, the earth has been comparatively at rest. No great geological transformations have taken place. Dr. Buckland, (Geology vol. 1, page 86.) says: "No conclusion is more fully established, than the important fact of the total absence of any vestiges of the human species throughout the entire series of geological formation." In support of this statement, Dr. B. refers to Lyell's Geology, vol. 1, page 59, where that distinguished and accurate geologist says that this point "is not controverted by any experienced geologist." This fact that the earth was finished and reduced to its present form and order before man was made, is known to be the uniform testimony of geologists. Every apparent exception to this fact, has hitherto been disposed of in some way consistent with the rigid demands of science. We think it just and reasonable, therefore, to infer that the earth was finished before man was made, and was designed for permanent use. We can find no reason for believing that it is destined to be again overturned and destroyed,—or perhaps reorganized. We know of nothing in its present organization that can justify such a belief. There are not any satisfactory geological reasons for believing that the earth has ever been subjected to a general deluge since the creation of man. A very ably written article on this subject may be found in the appendix to Bakewell's Geology, from the pen of Prof. Silliman, of Yale College. The entire article as may be seen on examination, manifests an exceedingly cautious and respectful manner towards that religious sentiment which looks to geology for some confirmation of the commonly received doctrine of a general deluge—a doctrine which has been supposed to rest upon the testimony of scripture. Prof. S. seems unwilling to announce the fact that geology gives no support to this doctrine, lest in doing so he might arm the infidel with a weapon which the theologian has not sufficient strength to wrest from his hands. Had theologians manifested one half that persevering love for the truth, in dependent of the creeds or doctrines of men, which has been manifested by inquirers into the laws and operations of nature, such caution would never have been necessary. But his article shows a full and decided conviction that the doctrine of a general deluge, however plainly it may seem to be taught in the bible, can derive no positive support or confirmation from geology. He says that "the facts revealed by geology indicate many partial deluges"—that "a general deluge will not account for them;" that "amidst the vast exuberance of diluvial remains, it is impossible to appropriate to the general deluge those that belong to it." But the article is long, and it is impossible to do justice to its full meaning without transcribing more than we have space for. The bearing of it is simply and plainly that there are no distinct geological indications of any great or general flood corresponding to the one supposed to be described by Moses. The writer does not intimate a doubt that the flood there described literally occurred, but inclines to the opinion expressed by Dr. Buckland, in his Bridgwater Treatise, that "the flood described in the inspired narative, was comparatively a tranquil inundation;" one which has left no distinct traces of its occurrence, or at least none which have yet been distinguished from ordinary cases of diluvial action. A very able and candid examination of this question may be found in a work entitled "Scripture and Geology," by J. P. Smith, D. D., and member of the Geological Society of London. That the author of this work sustains a high reputation as a geologist and a general scholar, may be seen from the following notice which is part of an editorial article found in Silliman's Journal, vol. 41, page 9. After speaking of the "high character of Dr. S. as a religious man, a learned theologian, and a distinguished lecturer," of his "great anxiety to reconcile the facts of geology with the Mosaic history," and of the writer's sympathy with his views—the article adds, that "he has not, like some theologians, neglected, avoided, or slurred over the facts. He has met them in their full force. * * He has rendered a signal service to science and religion, by meeting this subject in the fullness and richness of its evidence, in the splendor and deep researches of its discoveries. With admirable candor and perfect comprehension of his materials, he has disposed of them with masterly skill. This work, if we mistake not, will do more than any other has done to disabuse the religious world of their unreasonable fears of geology—to place it side by side with astronomy—the only physical science which excels it in grandeur; and to prove that only dark and limited views can make us fear the developemnt of truth in every department of the works of the infinite Creator." Such is the high character which this work receives from one well qualified to judge of its merits. I shall therefore present the views of Dr. S. upon this subject with peculiar satisfaction, believing them to be the views which are now generally entertained by all intelligent geologists. The discussion of this subject begins on about the eightieth page of the book referred to, and extends over some forty or fifty pages. After giving "some account of the mistaken views which have been extensively entertained, concerning the effects of the deluge, as supposed to have left their impressions upon the surface of our globe," the writer adds, that "the lapse of not more than ten years has brought a vast collection of observations to bear upon this interesting subject: and I conceive it may, with the strictest truth, be said that the annals of science, of literature, or of theology, do not present a nobler instance of fairness and mental integrity, than was shown by the most perfect geologists that our country, or any other, can boast, in yielding up a favorite and long cherished opinion, to which they had committed themselves in the most public manner, and for which they had been hailed with flattering applause; knowing also, by a very sure anticipation, that the concession to the power of evidence, the avowal of honest conviction, would expose them to the censures of some, who 'understand neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm, though they speak and write with a confidence in the direct proportion of their incompetency to say or affirm upon good grounds."
"The observations which, in their legitimate deductions, have produced this remarkable result, have been made by many persons, and those the best qualified, from their high attainments in all science, and the skill for making observations which long practice alone can give. They have been made in many countries, near and far distant; and they have been made with a circumspection, an exactitude, and an anxious watchfulness against the causes of mistake, which ought to command our admiration and gratitude."
The writer then presents a great number of reasons for this change of opinion among geologists, and afterwards gives the testimony of the more distinguished geologists, such as Dr. Buckland, Greenough, and others, in their own language. These authors unite in declaring that the various indications of diluvial action must be referred to several partial inundations, which have taken place at different times, among which the indications of the deluge described in scripture, cannot be identified or distinguished; that this opinion may now be advanced "with the authority of established truth;" that the former opinion may be regarded as "a philosophic heresy," and that "we have not found the certain traces of any great diluvial catastrophe which we can affirm to be within the human period." The following passages are taken from a report read before the Geological Society of London, in the year 1834, by Mr. Greenough, at that time President of that Society. It is an honorable and noble minded acknowledgment of the removal of a former error by the superior force of truth. Mr. G. says:
"Some fourteen years ago, I advanced an opinion, founded altogether upon physical and geological considerations that the entire earth had, at an unknown period, (as far as that word implies any determinate portion of time.) been covered by one general but temporary deluge. The opinion was not hastily formed. My reasoning rested on the facts which had then come before me. My acquaintance with physical and geological nature is now extended: and that more extended acquaintance would be entirely wasted upon me, if the opinions which it will no longer allow me to retain, it did not also induce me to rectify. New data have flowed in, and with the frankness of one of my predecessors, I do also now read my recantation."
"To Mr. Lyell is eminently due the merit of having awakened us to a sense of our error in this respect. The vast mass of evidence which he has brought together, in illustration of what may be called Diurnal Geology, convinces me that, if, five thousand years ago, a deluge did sweep over the entire globe, its traces can no longer be distinguished from more modern and local disturbances."
Such is the reluctant, but final and firm conviction of the best informed geologists upon this interesting question. The geological argument for the general deluge supposed to be described by Moses, may, therefore, be regarded as given up. Partial inundations have taken place at different times since the creation of man; but of the great deluge, which, if the words of Moses are to be taken in a literal sense, "prevailed exceedingly upon the whole earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven, were covered;" of this there are no distinguishable geological indications.
But there are other difficulties in the way of a universal deluge, even more formidable than those which geology presents. These difficulties are so ably set forth by Dr. S., in the work before me, that I am disposed to avail myself of some further quotations from his article on that subject. I attach a peculiar value to these arguments, because I regard them as forced convictions of truth, breaking forth from a great and independent mind, even though they place the author in the painful position of direct opposition to the commonly received opinions of his church.
The eloquent and interesting manner in which this subject is treated by our author, together with the strong and apparently unanswerable objections which he presents to the commonly received doctrine of the universality of the deluge, will be a sufficient apology for the length of the extracts:
"The mass of water necessary to cover the whole globe to the depth supposed, would be in thickness about five miles above the previous sea level. This quantity of water might be fairly calculated as amounting to eight times that of the seas and oceans of the globe, in addition to the quantity already existing. The question then arises, whence was this water derived, and how was it disposed of after its purpose was answered?" * * "It is scarcely needful to say, that all the rain which ever descends, has been previously raised, by evaporation, from the land and water that form the surface of the earth. The capacity of the atmosphere to absorb and sustain water, is limited. Long before it reaches the point of saturation, change of temperature and electrical agency must produce copious descents of rain. From all the surface below, evaporation is still going on; and, were we to imagine the air to be first saturated to the utmost extent of its capacity, and then to discharge the whole quantity at once upon the earth, that whole quantity would bear a very inconsiderable proportion to the entire surface of the globe. A few inches of depth would be its utmost amount. It is indeed the fact that, upon a small area of the earth's surface, yet the most extensive that comes within experience or natural possibility, heavy and continued rain for a few days often produces effects fearfully destructive, by swelling the streams and rivers of that district; but, the laws of nature, as to evaporation and the capacity of atmospheric air to hold water in solution, render such a state of things over the whole globe, not merely improbable, but absolutely impossible."
| * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
"If we suppose the mass of waters to have been such as would cover all the land of the globe, we present to ourselves an increase of the equatorial diameter by some eleven or twelve miles. Two new elements would hence accrue to the actions of gravity upon our planet. The absolute weight would be greatly increased, and the causes of the mutation of the axis would be varied. I am not competent to the calculation of the changes in the motions of the earth which would thus be produced, and which would propagate their effects through the whole solar system, and indeed, to the entire extent of the material creation; but they would certainly be very great. To save the physical system from derangements, probably ruinous to the wellbeing of innumerable sentient natures, would require a series of stupendous and immensely multiplied miracles.
"Again, pursuing the supposition, the ark would not remain stationary: it 'went upon the face of the waters.' Its form was adapted to secure slowness of motion, so that it should float as little a distance as possible from the place of human habitation. But, by the action of the sun upon the atmosphere, currents would be produced, by which the ark would be borne away, in a southerly and then a western direction. To bring it back into such a situation as would correspond to its grounding in Armenia, or any part of Asia, it must first circumnavigate the globe. But this was impossible in the time, even if it had possessed the rate of going of a good sailing vessel. It might, perhaps, advance as far as the middle of Europe, or the more westerly part; and there it would ground, at the end of the three hundred days."
* * * "Another difficulty arises with respect to the preservation of animals. Ingenious calculations have been made of the eapacity of the ark, as compared with the room requisite for the pairs of some animals, and the septuples of others; and it is remarkable that the well intentioned calculators have formed their estimate upon a number of animals below the truth, to a degree that might appear incredible. They have usually satisfied themselves with a provision for three or four hundred species at most; as in general they show the most astonishing ignorance of every branch of natural history. Of the existing mammalia, (animals which nourish their young by breasts,) considerably more than one thousand are known; of birds, fully five thousand; of reptiles, very few kinds of which can live in water, two thousand; and the researches of travelers and naturalists are making frequent and most interesting additions to the number of these and all other classes. Of insects, (using the word in its popular sense,) the number of species is immense; to say one hundred thousand would be moderate. Each has its appropriate habitation and food, and these are necessary to its life; and the larger number could not live in water. Also, the innumerable millions upon millions of animalcula must be provided for; for they have all their appropriate and diversified places and circumstances of existence. But all land animals have their geographical regions, to which their constitutional natures are congenial; and many could not live in any other situation. We cannot represent to ourselves the idea of their being brought into one small spot, from the polar regions, the torrid zone, and all the other climates of Asia, Africa, Europe, America, Australia, and the thousands of islands; their preservation and provision; and the final disposal of them; without bringing up the idea of miracles more stupendous than any that are recorded in scripture, even what appear appalling in comparison."* * *
"The persons of whom we are speaking have probably never apprehended any difficulty with respect to the inhabitants of the waters, supposing that no provision was needed for their preservation. It may, therefore, be proper to notice some particulars. Such an additional quantity of water as their interpretation requires, would so dilute and alter the mass as to render it an unsuitable element for the existence of all the classes, and would kill or disperse their food; and all have their own appropriate food. Many of the marine fishes and shell animals could not live in fresh water; and the fresh water ones would be destroyed by being kept even a short time in salt water. Some species can indeed live in brackish water, having been formed by their Creator to have their dwelling in estuaries and the portions of rivers approaching the sea. But even these would be affected, fatally in all probability, by the increased volume of water, and the scattering and floating away of their nutriment."
The objections which the author urges in the following paragraph, may seem to some persons too much like a caricature. But I would most respectfully suggest, that the objection does not create the ludicrous absurdity; it only presents it as a difficulty necessarily involved in the commonly received doctrine. The author says that Mt. Ararat, on which the ark is supposed to have rested, "is nearly the height of our European Mont Blanc, and perpetual snow covers about five thousand feet from its summit. If the water rose, at its liquid temperature, so as to overflow that summit, the snows and icy masses would be melted; and, on the retiring of the flood, the exposed mountain would present its pinnacles and ridges, dreadful precipices of naked rock, adown which the four men and four women, and, with hardly any exception, the quadrupeds, would have found it utterly impossible to descend. To provide against this difficulty, to prevent them from being dashed to pieces, must we again suppose a miracle? Must we conceive of the human beings and the animals, as transported through the air to the more level regions below; or that, by a miracle equally grand, they were enabled to glide unhurt down the wet and slippery faces of the rocks?
"One fact more I have to mention in this range of argument. There are trees of the most astonishing magnificence, as to form and size, which grow, the one species in Africa, the other in the southern part of North America. There are also methods of ascertaining the age of trees of the class to which they belong, with satisfaction generally, but with full evidence after they have passed the early stages of their growth. Individuals of these species now existing, are proved, by those methods, to have begun to grow at an epoch long before the date of the deluge; if we even adopt the largest chronology that learned men have proposed. Had those trees been covered with water for three-quarters of a year, they must have been destroyed. The most certain conditions of vegetable nature, for the class (the most perfect land plants) to which they belong, put such a result out of doubt. Here, then, we are met by another independent proof that the deluge did not extend to those regions of the earth."
"Such are the objections which present themselves against the interpretation which, with grief I acknowledge, is generally admitted, in relation to the scriptural narrative of the deluge. It is a painful position in which I stand. I seem to be taking the part of an enemy, adducing materials for skepticism, and doing nothing to remove them. But this situation for me is inseparable from the plan of these lectures—the only plan that appeared practicable. The apparent discrepancies between the facts of science and the words of scripture, must be understood before we can make any attempt at their removal."
The reader who is unacquainted with the book from which these quotations are taken, would probably be gratified to know what theory the author substitutes in the place of the one which he so thoroughly demolishes. To this just and natural inquiry, I will briefly answer, that he supposes that the language of the sacred narrative should be so interpreted as to make it describe "a deluge of a limited extent, which swept away the remains of a self-destroying race, saving one family, which 'found grace in the eyes of the Lord.'" It would be foreign to the course of my argument to discuss this theory. To my own mind, it is an insuperable objection to it, to know that its inevitable tendency must be to weaken our confidence in the literal truth of the inspired narrative, while it fails to substitute its true spiritual meaning. If the reader would be gratified to find such an explanation of the Mosaic account of the deluge, as will satisfy every reasonable demand of the human understanding, I would most respectfully recommend him to examine the "Arcana Celestia," written by Emanuel Swedenborg. He will there find a full and, I hope, satisfactory explanation of this and many other subjects, which the unassisted wisdom of man has failed to explain. To give some general idea of the method of interpretation which is there applied to this portion of the word of the Lord, I will transcribe the following paragraph, which occurs in the explanation of the 6th chapter of Genesis, vol. 1, page 222:
"605. It is now treated concerning the formation of a new church, which is named Noah, and its formation is described by the ark, into which were received living things of every kind; but before the new church could exist, the man of the church, as is usual, must needs endure many temptations, which are described by the elevation, fluctuation, and delay of that ark on the waters of the flood; and at length, his becoming a true spiritual man, and being set at liberty, is described by the cessation of the waters, and other things which follow. It is impossible for any one to see these spiritual contents, who abides only in the sense of the letter, from this cause particularly, that all these things have an historical connection, and suggest an idea as of a history of events; but such was the style of writing at that time, which to them was most agreeable, namely, that all things should be involved in types, and these types be reduced to an historical arrangement; and the more perfectly they cohered in a historical series, so much the more suitable was it to their genius; for in those ancient times, they did not apply themselves so much to the sciences as at this day, but to profound and deep thoughts, from whence such things were as an offspring: this was the wisdom of the ancients.
"606. That the flood, the ark, and consequently the things described concerning the flood and the ark, signify regeneration, and also the temptations which precede it, is known in some measure to the learned at this day, by whom regeneration and temptations are likewise compared to the waters of a flood."
Having thus endeavored to show that there is no evidence that the earth has ever been subjected to a general deluge since the creation of man, I will resume my former hypothesis, and give some further reasons for believing that the earth was finished before man was made, and that it is not hereafter liable to any general overturn of transformation. Of course there may continue to be, as there have been in ages past, occasional earthquakes, tornadoes, and floods; but these are only local disturbances of a limited extent, quite insufficient for the destruction of the earth, or of the human race. But I can find no good reason for believing that the interior structure of the earth is such as to indicate the probability of a great or general overturn. It will readily be seen that no such probability exists, if the interior portions of the globe be supposed to consist of a solid mass. For in that case the several parts of the earth, in obedience to the laws of attraction and cohesion, would continue to maintain a permanent position in relation to each other, and would, also, retain the external portions of land and water very nearly in their present relative positions.
Those who suppose that the earth contains within it the elements of its own destruction, have accordingly maintained that its interior portions are in a state of igneous fluidity. That our earth was once in such a condition, seems very probable. Such a theory is confirmed by many well attested facts. It has been demonstrated by many mathematical calculations, founded upon astronomical observations and actual measurements, that "the figure of the earth is an oblate spheriod, such as would be produced by revolution on its axis, provided the constituent matter of the globe were in such a state as to be allowed freely to arrange itself in obedience to the central and tangential forces."
The above, or an equivalent proposition, has often been demonstrated. The inference is, therefore, unavoidable, that the earth was once in a fluid state. It is true, the globe would have assumed very nearly the same figure that it now maintains, if it had originally consisted of a chaotic mass of earth and water, and those elements had been permitted to arrange themselves freely in obedience to the forces of attraction and revolution. But the positions of the external portions of land and water, would have been very different from those which they now occupy. Instead of being interspersed over the globe as they now are, there would have been a broad belt of water occupying the equatorial regions, while the land would have been confined to the northern and southern portions of the globe; for the revolutions of the globe on its axis, have given it an equatorial diameter about twenty-five miles greater than its polar; and if it had been originally composed of earth and water, it is evident that the water, yielding more freely to the centrifugal force, would have flowed up to the equatorial regions in order to give the earth its spheroidal form: so that we are obliged to have recourse to the former theory of the general fluidity of the earth—a fluidity maintained by the existence of an intense heat—as the only reason able way of accounting for its present form and structure. Other facts in confirmation of this theory, are constantly accumulating, which are very clear and conclusive. It is asserted by eminent mathematicians, that "it has been ascertained, as a consequence of the theory of the moon's motion, that the interior parts of the earth are not only more dense than the exterior, but that the inner surfaces of the same density are symmetrical to the same centre and axis, as the external elliptical figure."
It will readily be seen that the fact here stated, could never have existed, unless the earth had been originally in a fluid state, in which each of its particles could move with perfect freedom, and assume a position and distance from the centre of the earth precisely suited to its specific gravity.
But while I freely admit and believe that the earth was once in a fluid and intensely heated state, I can find no good reasons for supposing that such is its present condition; but, on the contrary, I have found very satisfactory reasons for believing that, by the gradual reduction of its temperature, the earth became changed from a fluid to a solid state, many ages since. And it deserves to be incidentally noticed, that, "at the time of its consolidation, it had the same axis that it now has." This is evident from reasons previously stated, and which need not be repeated. This fact is worthy of especial notice, for it beautifully illustrates the permanent stability and uniform movements of the planetary system, and thus assures us that these earths were designed to be permanent seminaries for heaven. But the reader will very reasonably expect to be informed of my reasons for rejecting so favorite and popular a theory as that which supposes that the interior portions of the earth are still in a state of igneous fluidity. I am aware that this theory has been supported by many popular writers, who have regarded that immense storehouse of fire as a means held in reserve for the future destruction of the earth. The geological reasons which have been advanced in support of this theory, may be referred to two general divisions.
In the first place, it has been maintained, and long and persevering efforts have been made to demonstrate the fact, that the heat of the earth increases in proportion as we descend below the surface. These efforts have consisted chiefly in various series of experiments, to ascertain the temperature of mines and other excavations at different depths; but the results hitherto obtained by such experiments, appear to have been contradictory and entirely unsatisfactory. For several years past, but little attention has been given to this class of experiments, as may be seen by examining the back numbers of Silliman's Journal. A very thorough examination of this subject may be found in a treatise on geology, by Dr. Thompson, Professor of Chemistry and Geology in the University of Glasgow. In the work referred to, the author has collected and presented tables of all the most important series of experiments. The author is disposed to favor the theory of an intense central heat, and hence would be naturally solicitous to confirm that theory by the experiments in question, if it could fairly be done. But after a very full and thorough examination, he arrives at the conclusion that, "to whatever cause we are to ascribe the augmented temperature which is sometimes found in mines and other excavations, the facts are incompatible with the notion that it is owing to a central fire." (Thompson's Geology, vol. 2, page 29.)
Another argument in support of this theory, has been derived from the frequent occurrence of earthquakes, and the existence of an immense number of volcanoes, on different parts of the Globe. The reader will of course remember that many of the best geologists, among whom is Prof. Lyell, (see his Geology vol. 1. p. 452, et Seq.) have thought it most reasonable to ascribe these phenomena to electrical and chemical agencies. But even supposing them to be occasioned by immense internal fires,—a theory which, upon the whole seems more reasonable, it is by no means necessary to suppose that those fires occupy any very large portion of the whole volume of the globe. There are about two hundred volcanoes on the whole surface of the earth. Now I find by calculation that if every one of these were supported by a volume of fire as large in circumference as Lake Erie, and ten times as deep, the whole space occupied by those subterranian fires, would not be more than the one thirty-five thousandth part of the whole volume of the globe. One of the largest earthquakes in modern times, was the one which destroyed Lisbon in 1755. That earthquake is said to have been felt at a distance of 2000 miles in every direction. But it would be easy to demonstrate from the laws of mechanical forces, that such an effect might have resulted from the action of a subterranean force, confined within the space of a few cubic miles. It is by no means necessary to infer the existence of an immense volume of fire adequate to the destruction of the globe, and held in reserve for that purpose.
But I reject this theory, not simply for the want of sufficient evidence in favor of it; but from what seem to me unanswerable objections against it.
The following reason for rejecting the theory of the fluidity of the central portions of the earth, may be found in Bakewell's Geology, page 433.
"If the earth" says Bakewell, "be composed of a solid crust or shell, surrounding a fluid mass, the internal fluid would be subject to the attraction of the Sun and Moon, or in other words would have its regular tides. We are not acquainted with any counteracting influence to prevent the action of this tide upon the solid shell."
The objection here stated appears to me to be fair and unanswerable. If the interior portions of our earth were in a fluid state, we would have earthquakes about every six hours, in comparison with which ordinary earthquakes would be mere trifles. But we are prepared to press this argument still farther and to insist upon it as a fact susceptible of positive demonstration that the interior portions of the earth, whether fluid or solid are not now in an intensely heated state. For the substance of the following argument I am indebted to an article writen by Dr. Nathaniel Bowditch, by whom it is ascribed to the celebrated French Mathematician La Place. The article referred to, may be found in the 21 vol. of the N. A. Review.
If the central portion of the earth is intensely heated, it must be constantly cooling, and thus approaching towards the medium temperature of the surrounding space. But if the temperature of the earth were to be diminished, by any given quantity, its dimensions, by a known chemical law must also be diminished. The various particles of matter would thus be brought near to the axis of rotation. But by a demonstrated and well known law of motion the sum of the arcs described by each particle would remain the same; and hence the angular velocity of the earth's rotation, would be increased, and the time of its revolution on its axis would be proportionally diminished. Such diminution, if it actually occurred to any extent, could be detected by comparing the earths revolutions with the orbitual movements of the moon and other planets. For example the absolute time of the moon's periodical revolution would note altered, but being measured by days, that had decreased in length, the period of the moon's revolutions would therefore appear to be longer, and would require an additional number of our minutes or seconds for their movements. But the time of the moon's periodical revolution around the earth, has been known with great accuracy for the last two thousand years, and during that time it has maintained the same relation to the diurnal revolutions of the earth;—at least there has been no perceptible change. Therefore no important change of temperature can have taken place in the earth during that period. M, Arago, the celebrate French Mathematician and Astronomer, is said to have demonstrated that the mean temperature of the earth, cannot have diminished more than one fifth of a degree within the last two thousand years. The mean temperature of the interior portions of the earth, supposing that temperature to have been once greatly elevated, must have long since fallen very nearly to the medium temperature of the surface. It is true that this conclusion, taken in connection with the admission that the earth was once intensely heated, requires us to suppose that it has existed through a period of immense and inconceivable length. But this is precisely what all the researches and discoveries of geology demonstrate. They do not attempt to assign, or even conjecture the length of the periods which elapsed during the various formations. They simply regard them as immense cycles extending back through the broad expanse of ages. The thought may seem to overwhelm and oppress the imagination; yet, I see not how to avoid the conclusion,—geological facts, astronomical observations, and mathematical demonstrations all confirm it—that the earth has been in existence so long that though once heated to a fluid state, its interior portions have not only become consolidated, but that their mean temperature has fallen so low, that there has been no measurable decrease for the last two thousand years. Of course I do not mean to say that the decrease in the earth's temperature, has been mathematically equal to nothing, nor even less than any assignable quantity, such a supposition would require us to regard the period of its past existence, as being greater than any assignable quantity, that is practically thought not absolutely equal to infin ity. But what I do insist upon as being plainly demonstrable in the manner indicated above, is that the decrease of temperature has been so small, as to justify us in regarding the medium temperature of the interior portions of the earth as being very nearly the same with that of its surface.
We will therefore dismiss this question, and with the readers permission we will mutually dismiss our fears about this fair world which a merciful Creator has formed for our use, ever being consumed by the breaking forth of its internal fires. I have known by sad and painful experience the depressing, and withering effect of that gloomy anticipation of the approaching dissolution of our earth. And never shall I forget the joyful delight with which I looked abroad upon the fair face of nature and the works of human industry, when this unhappy delusion first passed away from my mind. I found myself in a new world! New scenes were around me, I had supposed,—for my teachers had told me so, that this earth was soon to be destroyed. And as I had long been accustomed to suppose that the Creator works by means, and in accordance with certain established laws, I had turned my thoughts downwards, towards that great volume of fire of which I had been told the central portions of the earth were composed. I looked to this as the most probable means of putting an end to the present order of things. It is true I thought the man who would venture to predict that awful catastrophe as about to take place on a certain day within twelve months, must be deranged and aught to be sent to a mad house. But on the other hand I looked upon the man who would put off the destruction of the world, for more than a few hundred years at the most, as a great heretic who ought to have his name erased from the church books, or as a hopeless infidel who means to put off the destruction of the world intirely. But since I have become rationally convinced that this earth was made for permanent use, I have been led to inquire whether those internal fires by which I had supposed it would be burned up, have any other than an imaginary existence. The result of my investigation has just now been placed before the reader, and is most respectfully commended to his candid and enlightened judgment.
But if there is no reason to believe that the earth will be burnt up, drowned or broken to pieces by a comet—if there is an entire want of any rational probability, that it was made to be destroyed almost as soon as it was fully formed, then the fair and reasonable inference is, that it will continue to be retained for the purpose for which it is now used, and for which it was evidently designed. This conclusion is of course entirely incompatible with the supposition of a literal, terrestrial resurrection and judgment. If the principles here advocated are founded in truth, the resurrection will be that of a spiritual body, for which none of the matter of this earth will be needed. And that final judgment which will determine our eternal destiny will take place in that world where spirits dwell,—far above that in which we now live;—a world whose solemn and thrilling scenes are never beheld in such light as flows from our natural sun. Thither will the spirit go when it leaves this natural world. Its entrance into that world will constitute its resurrection. There will it meet its final judgment. There will it find its eternal home.