Produced by Mark C. Orton, Jana Srna, Josephine Paolucci
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net.
OMPHALOS:
AN ATTEMPT TO UNTIE THE GEOLOGICAL KNOT.
BY
PHILIP HENRY GOSSE, F.R.S.
WITH FIFTY-SIX ILLUSTRATIONS ON WOOD.
[Greek: Auxanetai de ta zoa panta, osa echei omphalon, dia tou
omphalou.]
ARIST.; _Hist. Anim._ vii. 8.
LONDON:
JOHN VAN VOORST; PATERNOSTER ROW.
1857.
LONDON:
R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL.
PREFACE.
"You have not allowed for the wind, Hubert," said Locksley, in
"Ivanhoe;" "or that had been a better shot."
I remember, when I was in Newfoundland, some five-and-twenty years ago,
the disastrous wreck of the brig _Elizabeth_, which belonged to the firm
in which I was a clerk. The master had made a good observation the day
before, which had determined his latitude some miles north of Cape St.
Francis. A thick fog coming on, he sailed boldly by compass, knowing
that, according to his latitude, he could well weather that promontory.
But lo! about midnight the ship plunged right against the cliffs of
Ferryland, thirty miles to the south, crushing in her bows to the
windlass; and presently went down, the crew barely saving their lives.
The captain _had not allowed for the polar current_, which was setting,
like a sluice, to the southward, between the Grand Bank and the land.
When it was satisfactorily ascertained that the heavenly body, now known
as Uranus, was a planet, its normal path was soon laid down according to
the recognised law of gravitation. But it would not take this path.
There were deviations and anomalies in its observed course, which could
in nowise be referred to the operation of any known principle.
Astronomers were sorely puzzled to explain the irregularities, and to
reconcile facts with laws. Various hypotheses were proposed: some denied
the facts; that is, the observed places of the planet, boldly assuming
that the observers had been in error: others suggested that perhaps the
physical laws, which had been supposed to govern the whole celestial
machinery, did not reach so far as Uranus's orbit. The secret is now
known: _they had not allowed for the disturbances produced by Neptune_.
In each of these cases the conclusions were legitimately deduced from
the recognised premises. Hubert's skilled eye had calculated the
distance; his experience had taught him the requisite angle at which to
shoot, the exact amount of force necessary, and every other element
proper to insure the desired result, _except one_. There was an element
which he had overlooked; and it spoiled his calculations. _He had
forgotten the wind._
The master of the ill-fated brig had calculated his latitude correctly;
he knew the rate of his vessel's speed; the compass had showed him the
parallel on which to steer. These premises ought to have secured a safe
conclusion; and so they would, but for an unrecognised power that
vitiated all; he was not aware of the silent and secret current, that
was every hour setting him to the south of his supposed latitude.
The path of Uranus had been calculated by the astronomers with
scrupulous care, and every known element of disturbance had been
considered; not by one, but by many. But for the fact that the planet
had been previously seen in positions quite inconsistent with such a
path, it would have been set down as beyond controversy correct.
Stubborn fact, however, would not give way; and hence the dilemma, till
Le Verrier suggested the unseen antagonist.
I venture to suggest in the following pages an element, hitherto
overlooked, which disturbs the conclusions of geologists respecting the
antiquity of the earth. Their calculations are sound on the recognised
premises; _but they have not allowed for the Law of Prochronism in
Creation_.
The enunciation of this principle will lie in a nut-shell; the reader
will find it at p.124; or p.347. All the rest of the book is
illustration.
I do not claim originality for the thought which I have here endeavoured
to work out. It was suggested to me by a Tract, which I met with some
dozen years ago, or more; the title of which I have forgotten: I am
pretty sure it was anonymous, but it was published by Campbell, of 1,
Warwick Square. Whether it is still in print I do not know; I never saw
another copy. If the author is alive, and if he should happen to cast
his eye on this volume, he will doubtless recognise his own bantling,
and accept this my acknowledgment.
The germ of the argument, however, I have found, since these pages were
written, in "The Mineral and Mosaical Geologies," of Granville Penn
(1822). The state of physical science when he wrote did not enable him
to press the argument to a demonstration, as I have endeavoured to do;
for he could not refer to structural peculiarities as sensible records
of past processes, _inseparable from newly created organisms_.
I would not be considered as an opponent of geologists; but rather as a
co-searcher with them after that which they value as highly as I do,
TRUTH. The path which I have pursued has led me to a conclusion at
variance with theirs. I have a right to expect that it be weighed; let
it not be imputed to vanity if I hope that it may be accepted.
But what I much more ardently desire is, that the thousands of thinking
persons, who are scarcely satisfied with the extant reconciliations of
Scriptural statements and Geological deductions,--who are silenced but
not convinced,--may find, in the principle set forth in this volume, a
stable resting-place. I have written it in the constant prayer that the
God of Truth will deign so to use it; and if He do, to Him be all the
glory!
P. H. G.
MARYCHURCH, TORQUAY,
_October, 1857_.
CONTENTS.
I
THE CAUSE.
Evidence of the Senses often delusive--Deductions of Reason
fallible--Essentials sometimes overlooked--Discrepancy
between Scripture and Geological Conclusions--Painful
Dilemma--Efforts to escape from it--Supremacy of
Truth--Various Attempts at Reconciliation--Denouncers--Opinions
of Brown--Blackwood--Macbrair--Ure--Penn--Young--Cockburn--
Miller--Sedgwick--Turner--Sumner--Chalmers--Harris--Gray--
Conybeare--Hitchcock--Pye Smith--"Protoplast"--Babbage--
Powell--"Vestiges"--Amplitude of Choice _Page_ 1-29
II.
THE WITNESS FOR THE MACRO-CHRONOLOGY.
A Court of Inquiry--The Witnesses--Testimony of One--Strata
of Thames Tunnel--of Hertfordshire--of Yorkshire--of the
Globe--Granite--Granitic Strata--Organic Remains--Silurian
System--Corals--Trilobites--Mollusks--Devonian System--Old
Red Sandstone--Its Formation--Fishes--Carboniferous
System--Coral Limestone--Millstone Grit--Coal--Predominance
of Carbonic Acid--Extent and Thickness of
Coal-Fields--Formation of Coal--Conjecture as to its
Age--Antediluvian Theory untenable--Sauroid Fishes--Earliest
Reptiles--Footprints of Frogs 30-53
III.
THE SAME--(_continued_.)
Disturbances of Strata--Internal Heat--Changes of Land and
Sea--New Red Sandstone--Footprints--Labyrinthodon--Lias
Formation--Crinoids--Ammonites--Belemnites--Fishes--Marine
Reptiles--Ichthyosaur--Plesiosaur--European
Archipelago--Oolitic Formation--Cycads--Megalosaur--
Bat-Lizards--Iguanodon--Hylaeosaur--Earliest
Mammal--Chalk Formation--Infusoria--Diatomaceae--Their
Minuteness and Numbers--Chambered Cephalopods--Mosasaur--End
of Secondary Formations--Convulsions--Basalt--Uprearing of
Mountain Chains--London Clay--Plants and
Animals--Fishes--Reptiles--Birds--Mammals--Anoplotherium--Condition
of Europe--Dinotherium--Mastodon--Mammoth--Trees--Crag
Formation--Tertiary Fauna--Bone Caves--Kirkdale--Erratic
Blocks--Glaciers--Sloths--Marsupials--Birds--Raised
Beaches--Human Period--Moho--Present Cosmical
Operations--River Deltas--Coral Beefs--Volcanoes--Changes of
Level--Earthy Deposits--Stalagmite--Shells--Recapitulation. 54-101
IV.
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Grandeur of the Evidence--Proposed Line of Objection--It is
but circumstantial--Example of Confusion of
Thought--Analysis of the Reasoning---Dependent on the
exhaustive Power of Observation--Relation of Precedence and
Sequence--Of Cause and Effect--Force of my Position. 102-109
V.
POSTULATES.
The Creation of Matter--The Persistence of Species. 110-112
VI.
LAWS.
The Course of Nature a Circle--Illustrations--Scarlet
Runner--Lady-fern--Hawkmoth--Plumularia--Cow--Universality
of the Law--Creation an Irruption into a Circle--False
Witness to Past Processes--Prochronism and
Diachronism--Phenomena illusory--Recapitulation 113-126
VII.
PARALLELS AND PRECEDENTS.
(_Plants._)
Ideal Tour on Creation-Day--Chronological
Investigations--Queried Age of a Tree-fern--Data for the
Inquiry--Development of the Leaves--Leaf-scars--Report--Its
manifest Error--Selaginella--Bamboo--
Couch-grass--Screw-pine--Pashiuba--Sugar
Palm--Areca--Rattan--Agave--Traveller's Tree--Butterfly
Flower--Orchis--Gladiolus--Grass-tree--White
Lily--Testudinaria--Caffer-Bread--Fig--Banyan--Euphorbia--
Tulip-tree--Bignonia--Loranthus--Prickly
Pear--Mangrove--Silk-cotton-tree--Locust-tree--Restriction
of the Inquiry--Uniform Testimony to Untruth 127-181
VIII.
PARALLELS AND PRECEDENTS.
(_Invertebrate Animals._)
Resumption of the Examination--SeaPen--Millepore--
Madrepore--Organ-pipe--Medusa--Sea-urchin--Feather-star--
Tapeworm--Serpula--Terebella--White-ant--Goliath-beetle--
Gnat--Case-fly--Melicerta--Julus--Buprestis--Shore-crab--
Barnacle--Lepralia--Botryllus--Clavagella--Prickly
Venus--Scorpion Stromb--Tiger Cowry--Thorny Murex--Pearly
Nautilus--Cuttlefish 182-239
IX.
PARALLELS AND PRECEDENTS.
(_Vertebrate Animals._)
Examination of the Vertebrata--Sword-fish--Gilt-head--
Laminae of Scales--Shark--Arrangement of Teeth--Their
Structure--Tree-frog--Metamorphosis--Rattlesnake--
Crocodile--Tortoise--Laminae of Plates--Skull of
Cassowary--Peacock--Humming-bird--Trogon--Structure and
Growth of Feathers--Whalebone of Whale--Horn of Ibex--Horn
of Stag--Teeth of Horse--Of Babiroussa--Of
Hippopotamus--Tusk of Elephant--Molars of Elephant 240-273
X.
PARALLELS AND PRECEDENTS.
(_Man._)
Examination of Primal Man--Blood--Its Formation--Its
Oxygenation--Nails--Hair--Bones--Teeth--All formed by
successive Processes--Stature--Thyroid
Cartilage--Beard--Development of Teeth--Proportion of
Bloods--Condition of Skeleton--Navel--False Conclusion 274-291
XI.
PARALLELS AND PRECEDENTS.
(_Germs._)
Assumption of adult Development at Creation--Its
Reasonableness--The Position waived--Assumption of the
Germ-Hypothesis--Double Cocoa-nut--Coral
Tree--Tulip--Earth-pea--Mangrove--Medusa--Connexion of Germs
with Parent--In Echinoderms--In Annelids--In Insects--Egg of
Butterfly--Of Nut Weevil--Of Bots--Of Ichneumon--Of Pill
Chafer--Of Gall-fly--Of Lace-fly--Of Spider--Of Gipsy
Moth--Of Coccus--Of Saw-fly--Of Cockroach--Of
Dirt-dauber--Metamorphosis of Star-fish--Eggs attached to
Brachionus--Viviparous Progeny of Rotifer--Of Asplanchna--Of
Daphnia--Egg-purse of Shark--Economy of Surinam Toad--Egg of
Fowl--Foetus of Kangaroo--Umbilicus 292-334
XII.
THE CONCLUSION.
Uniformity of Results--Prochronism of Organic
Nature--Phenomena inadequate to settle Chronology--Historic
Testimony alone oracular--Familiar Illustration--Objections
met--Analogy between an Organism and a World--Illustration
from a Tree--Analogy between the Life of a Species and that
of an Individual--History Divinely Projected--Grand Plan of
Nature--Diachronic Existence not necessary--Deceptive
Phenomena inseparable from Created Organisms--Illustrations
abundant--Hypothesis of the Life-history of the
Globe--Supposition of 1857 being the Era of Creation--What
its State?--Minuteness and Verity of Proofs of Life present
no Difficulty--Coprolites--Faecal Residua in newly-created
Animals--_Cyclical_ not _Organic_ Condition the Test of
Prochronism--Illustrations from the inorganic
World--Rivers--Ocean Currents--Celestial Bodies--Velocity of
Light--Records of Entities actually passed--"No Tree has
Leaves"--Plates of Testudinaria--Leaf-scars of Palm--Column
of Nerita--Spines of Murex--Madreporic Plate of
Cribella--Hilum of Seed--Navel of Mammal--Argument of "Great
and Small"--Old Hypothesis of _Lusus Naturae_--Demonstration
of a Law--Effect of this Principle on the Study of
Geology--Summing up 335-372
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
PAGE
Geological Section of Yorkshire 35
Calymene Blumenbachii 41
Cephalaspis 44
Labyrinthodon 57
Snake-necked Marine Lizards 59
Megalosaurus Bucklandi 61
Bat-lizards 62
Hylaeosaurus armatus 63
Mammoth 74
Moho 84
Germination of Scarlet-runner 114
Diagram of Bean 116
" Fern 117
" Hawkmoth 119
" Polype 120
" Cow 121
Leaf-scars of Tree-fern 132
Roots of Iriartea 139
Traveller's Tree 148
Corm of Gladiolus 153
Section of Lily-bulb 157
Testudinaria 159
Encephalartos 162
Twig of Tulip-tree 167
Young Plant of Loranthus 171
Silk-cotton Tree 175
Section of Exogenous Tree 179
Muricated Madrepore 185
Organ-pipe 187
Comatula and Young 194
Serpula 200
Goliath Beetle and Pupa case 206
Larva of Case-fly 209
Melicerta 210
Lepas 218
Botryllus 224
Clavagella 226
Dione Veneris 228
Murex tenuispina 233
Scale of Gilt-head 242
Plates of Tortoise 251
Growth of a Feather 254
Horns of Stag 258
Skull of Babiroussa 262
Skull of Hippopotamus 265
Skull of Elephant 267
Growth of Hair 278
Section of Human Tooth 282
Garden Tulip 298
Germination of Earth-pea 300
Seed of Mangrove 303
Lace-fly and Eggs 312
Brachionus with Eggs 322
Pregnant Asplanchna 323
Hen's Egg 329
Gyroceras 371
[Greek: HO OMPHALOS.]
I.
THE CAUSE.
"Is there not a cause?"--1 SAM. xvii. 29.
An eminent philosopher has observed that "nothing can be more common or
frequent than to appeal to the evidence of the senses as the most
unerring test of physical effects. It is by the organs of sense, and by
these alone, that we can acquire any knowledge of the qualities of
external objects, and of their mutual effects when brought to act one
upon another, whether mechanically, physically, or chemically; and it
might, therefore, not unreasonably be supposed, that what is called the
evidence of the senses must be admitted to be conclusive, as to all the
phenomena developed by such reciprocal action.
"Nevertheless, the fallacies are numberless into which those are led who
take what they consider the immediate results of sensible impressions,
without submitting them to the severe control and disciplined analysis
of the understanding."[1]
If this verdict is confessedly true with regard to many observations
which we make on things immediately present to our senses, much more
likely is it to be true with respect to conclusions which are not "the
immediate results of sensible impressions," but are merely deduced by a
process of reasoning from such impressions. And if the direct evidence
of our senses is to be received with a prudent reserve, because of this
possibility of error, even when we have no evidence of an opposing
character, still more necessary is the exercise of caution in judging of
facts assumed to have occurred at a period far removed from our own
experience, and which stand in contradiction (at least apparent, _prima
facie_, contradiction) to credible historic testimony. Nay, the caveat
acquires a greatly intensified force, when the testimony with which the
assumed facts are, or seem to be, at variance, is no less a testimony
than His who ordained the "facts," who made the objects of
investigation; the testimony of the Creator of all things; the testimony
of Him who is, from eternity to eternity, "[Greek: HO APSEUDES THEOS]"!
I hope I shall not be deemed censorious in stating my fear that those
who cultivate the physical sciences are not always sufficiently mindful
of the "_Humanum est errare_." What we have investigated with no little
labour and patience, what we have seen with our eyes many many times, in
many aspects, and under many circumstances, we naturally believe firmly;
and we are very prone to attach the same assurance of certainty to the
inferences we have, _bona fide_, and with scrupulous care to eliminate
error, deduced from our observations, as to the observations themselves;
and we are apt to forget that some element of error may have crept into
our actual investigations, and still more probably into our deductions.
Even if our observations be so simple, so patent, so numerous, as
_almost_ to preclude the possibility of mistake in them, and our process
of reasoning from them be without a flaw, still we may have overlooked a
principle, which, though perhaps not very obvious, ought to enter into
the investigation, and which, if recognised, would greatly modify our
conclusions.
In this volume I venture to suggest such a principle to the
consideration of geologists. It will not be denied that Geology is a
science that stands peculiarly in need of being cultivated with that
salutary self-distrust that I have above alluded to. Though a strong and
healthy child, it is as yet but an infant. The objects on which its
senses have been exercised, its [Greek: ta blepomena], are indeed plain
enough and numerous enough, when once discovered; but the inferences
drawn from them, its [Greek: bebaia], find their sphere in the most
venerably remote antiquity,--an antiquity mensurable not by years or
centuries, but by _secula seculorum_. And the dicta, which its votaries
rest on as certitudes, are at variance with the simple literal sense of
the words of God.
I am not assuming here that the Inspired Word has been rightly read; I
merely say that the plain straightforward meaning, the meaning that lies
manifestly on the face of the passages in question, is in opposition
with the conclusions which geologists have formed, as to the antiquity
and the genesis of the globe on which we live.
Perhaps the simple, superficial sense of the Word is not the correct
one; but it is at least that which its readers, learned and unlearned,
had been generally content with before; and which would, I suppose,
scarcely have been questioned, but for what appeared the exigencies of
geological facts.
Now while there are, unhappily, not a few infidels, professed or
concealed, who eagerly seize on any apparent discrepancy between the
works and the Word of God, in order that they may invalidate the truth
of the latter, there are, especially in this country, many names of the
highest rank in physical (and, among other branches, in geological)
science, to whom the veracity of God is as dear as life. They cannot
bear to see it impugned; they know that it cannot be overthrown; they
are assured that He who gave the Word, and He who made the worlds, is
One Jehovah, who cannot be inconsistent with Himself. But they cannot
shut their eyes to the startling fact, that the records which _seem_
legibly written on His created works do flatly contradict the statements
which _seem_ to be plainly expressed in His word.
Here is a dilemma. A most painful one to the reverent mind! And many
reverent minds have laboured hard and long to escape from it. It is
unfair and dishonest to class our men of science with the infidel and
atheist. They did not rejoice in the dilemma; they saw it at first
dimly, and hoped to avoid it.[2] At first they believed that the mighty
processes which are recorded on the "everlasting mountains" might not
only be harmonized with, but might afford beautiful and convincing
demonstrations of Holy Scripture. They thought that the deluge of Noah
would explain the stratification, and the antediluvian era account for
the organic fossils.
As the "stone book" was further read, this mode of explanation appeared
to many untenable; and they retracted their adherence to it. To a mind
rightly constituted, Truth is above every thing: there is no such thing
as a pious fraud; the very idea is an impious lie: God is light, and in
Him is no darkness at all; and that religion which can be maintained
only by dissembling or denying truth, cannot proceed from "Him that is
Holy, Him that is True," but from him who "is a liar, and the father of
it."
Many upright and ardent cultivators of the young science felt that truth
would be compromised by a persistence in those explanations which had
hitherto passed current. The discrepancy between the readings in Science
and the hitherto unchallenged readings in Scripture, became manifest.
Partisans began to array themselves on either side; some, jealous for
the honour of God, knew little of science, and rushed into the field
ill-prepared for the conflict; some, jealous for science, but little
conversant with Scripture, and caring less for it, were willing to throw
overboard its authority altogether: others, who knew that the writings
were from the same Hand, knew therefore that there must be some way of
reconciling them, and set themselves to find it out.
Have they succeeded? If I thought so, I would not publish this book.
Many, I doubt not, have been convinced by each of the schemes by which
the discrepant statements have been sought to be harmonized. Each of
them has had sufficient plausibility to convince its propounder; and,
probably, others too. And some of them have attained a large measure of
public confidence. Yet if any one of them is true, it certainly has not
commanded universal assent. Let us examine how far they agree among
themselves, who propose to reconcile Scripture and Science, "the Mosaic
and the Mineral Geologies."
And first, it is, perhaps, right to represent the opinions of those who
stand by the literal acceptation of the Divine Word. There have been
some, indeed, who refuse to entertain the question of reconciliation,
taking the high ground that, as the Word of God is and must be true, it
is impious to set any evidence in competition with it. I cannot but say,
my sympathies are far more with these than with those who, at the
opposite pole of the argument, would make scientific deduction
paramount, and make the Word go to the wall. But, then, we ought to be
quite sure that we have got the very Word of God; and, so far from being
impious, it seems highly proper and right, when conflicting evidence
appears to flow out of what is indubitably God's _work_, to examine
afresh the witnesses on both sides, that we may not make either testify
what it does not.
Those good men who merely _denounce_ Geology and geologists, I do not
quote. There are the facts, "written and engraven in stones," and that
by the finger of God. How can they be accounted for?
Some have recourse to the assumption that the natural processes by
which changes in the earth's surface are now going on, may have operated
in antediluvian times with a rapidity and power of which we can form
little conception from what we are cognisant of. The Rev. J. Mellor
Brown takes this ground, adducing the analogies of steam-power and
electricity, as effecting in a few moments or hours, what formerly would
have required several days or weeks to accomplish.
"God's most tremendous agencies may have been employed in the beginning
of his works. If, for instance, it should be conceded that the granitic
or basaltic strata were once in a state of fusion, there is no reason
why we should not call in the aid of supposition to produce a _rapid_
refrigeration. We may surround the globe with an atmosphere (not as yet
warmed by the rays of the newly kindled sun) more intensely cold than
that of Saturn. The degree of cold may have been such as to cool down
the liquid granite and basalt in a few hours, and render it congenial to
animal and vegetable life; while the gelid air around the globe may have
been mollified by the abstracted caloric."[3]
A writer in Blackwood (xli. 181; xlii. 690), in like manner, adheres to
the literal sense of Genesis and the Decalogue, and alludes to
"the great agencies--the magnetic, electrical, and ethereal
influences--probably instrumental in all the phenomena of nature," as
being far more powerful than is generally suspected.
Mr. Macbrair--who does not, however, appear, from the amount of his
acquaintance with science, competent to judge of the physical
evidence--supposes stratification to have proceeded with immense
rapidity, because limestone is now deposited in some waters at the rate
of six inches per annum. Because a mass of timber, ten miles in length,
was collected in the Mississippi, in thirty-eight years, he considers
that a "capital coal field" might be formed in a single century.
Alluvial strata are mud lavas ejected from volcanoes. The whole
difficulty of fossil remains is got rid of by ignoring the distinctions
of species, and assuming that the ancient animals and the recent ones
are identical. The Pterodactyle and the Plesiosaurus he does not allude
to.[4]
According to Dr. Ure,--"The demiurgic week ... is manifestly composed of
six working days like our own, and a day of rest, each of equal length,
and, therefore, containing an evening and a morning, measured by the
rotation of the earth round its axis.... Neither reason nor revelation
will justify us in extending the origin of the material system beyond
six thousand years from our own days. The world then received its
substance, form, and motions from the volition of the Omnipotent."
His theory of the stratification extends over the whole antediluvian
era. He supposes that successive irruptions of the central heat broke up
the primitive strata and deposited the secondary and tertiary. "The
basaltic or trap phenomena lead to the conclusion that such upheavings
and subversions were not confined to one epoch of the antediluvian
world, but that, coeval with its birth, they pervaded the whole period
of its duration.... The Deluge--that universal transflux of the
ocean--was the last and greatest of these terraqueous convulsions."[5]
Another class of this school of interpreters refers the stratification
of the earth, either to the deluge alone, or to that convulsion
conjoined with the one which is considered to have taken place on the
third day of the Mosaic narrative. Perhaps the most eminent writer of
this class is Mr. Granville Penn, whose opinions may be thus condensed.
He supposes that this globe has undergone only two revolutions. The
first was the violent rupture and depression of the surface to become
the bed of the sea, and the simultaneous elevation of the other portion
to become dry land,--the theatre of terrestrial existence. This first
revolution took place before the creation of any organized beings. The
second revolution was at the Noachic Flood, when the former bed of the
sea was elevated to become the dry land, with all its organic
accumulations of sixteen centuries, while the former land was
correspondingly depressed and overflowed. "The earth must, therefore,
necessarily exhibit manifest and universal evidences of the vast
apparent ruin occasioned by its first violent disruption and depression;
of the presence and operation of the marine fluid, during the long
interval which succeeded; and of the action and effects of that fluid in
its ultimate retreat."[6]
Mr. Fairholme[7] so nearly agrees with the above, that I need not quote
his opinions in detail.
Another class, represented by Dr. Young and the Rev. Sir W. Cockburn,
Dean of York, have maintained with considerable power, backed by no mean
geological knowledge, that the deluge is a sufficient _vera causa_ for
the stratification of the globe, and for the fossilization of the
organic remains.
Dr. Young supposes that an equable climate prevailed all over the globe
in the antediluvian period. "Were the highest mountains transferred to
the equatorial regions, the most extensive oceans removed towards the
poles, and fringed with a border of archipelago,--while lands of
moderate height occupied most of the intermediate spaces, between these
archipelagos and the equatorial mountains; then a temperature, almost
uniform, would prevail throughout the world." This "perpetual summer"
would account for the prodigious quantities of animal and vegetable
remains:--every region teemed with life.
At the Flood, "the bed of the ocean must have been elevated, and the dry
land at the same time depressed," an expansive force acting from below
to heave up the ocean's bed. To this agency are attributed the vast
masses of granite, gneiss, basalt, and other rocks of igneous origin,
which seem to have been forced upwards in a state of fusion, into their
present lofty stations. The ancient bed of the ocean may have consisted
of numerous layers of sand, clay, lime, and other substances, including
corals and marine shells,--to a certain degree consolidated into rocks.
By the progressive rising of the waters and the currents so made, fresh
materials would be conveyed to the depths of the ocean, so that the
magnesian limestone, the saliferous beds, the lias, &c., would be
deposited.[8]
The Dean of York, in like manner, considers that the convulsions
produced by the Deluge, are sufficient to account for all the
stratification and fossil remains. That the gradual rise of the waters,
and their penetration into the recesses of the rocks, would cause
successive volcanic eruptions; the earlier of which would inclose marine
fishes and reptiles; then others in turn, the pachyderms and great
reptiles of the plains; and, finally, the creatures more exclusively
terrestrial. That these repeated heavings of mighty volcanoes raised
great part of what had been the bottom of the sea, above its level, and
that hence the present land had been for sixteen centuries under water.
That the animals which entered the ark, were not selected till after
many species had already perished in the earlier convulsions, and hence
the number of extinct species now exhumed.[9]
My reader will kindly bear in mind that I am not examining these
opinions; I adduce them as examples of the diversity of judgment that
still prevails on a question which some affect to consider as settled
beyond the approach of doubt.
A totally different solution of the difficulty has been sought in the
hypothesis, that the six "days" of the Inspired Record signify six
successive periods of immense though of undefined duration. This opinion
is as old as the Fathers at least,[10] and not a few able maintainers of
it belong to our own times. It has been put forth, however, with most
power, by a late lamented geologist, whose wonderful vigour of
description and felicity of illustration, have done, perhaps, more than
the efforts of any other living man, to render his favourite science
popular.
Perhaps I can scarcely set his views in a more striking light than he
himself has done in his own peculiarly graphic report of a conversation,
which he sustained with some humble inquirers in the Paleontological
Gallery of the British Museum.
"I last passed," says Mr. Hugh Miller, "through this wonderful gallery
at the time when the attraction of the Great Exhibition had filled
London with curious visitors from all parts of the empire; and a group
of intelligent mechanics, fresh from some manufacturing town in the
midland counties, were sauntering on through its chambers immediately
before me. They stood amazed beneath the dragons of the Oolite and Lias;
and, with more than the admiration and wonder of the disciples of old,
when contemplating the huge stones of the Temple, they turned to say, in
almost the old words, 'Lo! master, what manner of great beasts are
these?' 'These are,' I replied, 'the sea-monsters and creeping things of
the second great period of organic existence.' The reply seemed
satisfactory, and we passed on together to the terminal apartments of
the range appropriated to the tertiary organisms. And there, before the
enormous mammals, the mechanics again stood in wonder, and turned to
inquire. Anticipating the query, I said, 'And these are the huge beasts
of the earth, and the cattle of the third great period of organic
existence; and yonder in the same apartment, you see, but at its farther
end, is the famous fossil Man of Guadaloupe, locked up by the
petrifactive agencies in a slab of limestone.' The mechanics again
seemed satisfied; and, of course, had I encountered them in the first
chamber of the suite, and had they questioned me respecting the
organisms with which _it_ is occupied, I would have told them that they
were the remains of the herbs and trees of the _first_ great period of
organic existence. But in the chamber of the mammals we parted, and I
saw them no more."[11]
A large and influential section of the students of Geology regard this
hypothesis as untenable. Generally they may be described as holding that
the history which is recorded in the igneous and fossiliferous strata
does not come into the sacred narrative in any shape. As, however, that
narrative commences with "the beginning," and comes down to historic
times, the facts so recorded must find their chronology within its
bounds. Their place is accordingly fixed by this school of
interpretation between the actual primordial creation (Gen. i. 1), and
the chaotic state (ver. 2).
Let us hear an able and eloquent geologist, Professor Sedgwick, on the
hypothesis just mentioned of the elongation of the six days:--
"They [certain excellent Christian writers on the subject of Geology]
have not denied the facts established by this science, nor have they
confounded the nature of physical and moral evidence; but they have
prematurely (and, therefore, without an adequate knowledge of all the
facts essential to the argument) endeavoured to bring the natural
history of the earth into a literal accordance with the Book of Genesis;
first, by greatly extending the periods of time implied by the six days
of creation; and secondly, by endeavouring to show that under this new
interpretation of its words, the narrative of Moses may be supposed to
comprehend, and to describe in order, the successive epochs of Geology.
It is to be feared that truth may, in this way, receive a double injury;
and I am certain that the argument just alluded to has been
unsuccessful."--"We must consider the old strata of the earth as
monuments of a date long anterior to the existence of man, and to the
times contemplated in the moral records of his creation."[12]
Many able theologians, who, though well acquainted with natural science,
can scarcely be considered as geologists, have been satisfied with this
solution of the problem.
Thus Sharon Turner:--
"What interval occurred between the first creation of the material
substance of our globe, and the mandate for light to descend upon it,
whether months, years, or ages, is not in the slightest degree noticed
[in the Sacred Record]. Geology may shorten or extend its duration, as
it may find proper."[13]
Thus the present Archbishop of Canterbury:--
"We are not called upon to deny the possible existence of previous
worlds, from the wreck of which our globe was organized, and the ruins
of which are now furnishing matter for our curiosity."[14]
Thus Dr. Chalmers:--
"The present economy of terrestrial things was raised about six thousand
years ago on the basis of an earth then without form and void; while,
for aught of information we have in the Bible, the earth itself may
before this time have been the theatre of many lengthened processes, the
dwelling-place of older economies that have now gone by, but whereof the
vestiges subsist even to the present day, both to the needless alarm of
those who befriend Christianity, and the unwarrantable triumph of those
who have assailed it."[15]
Thus Dr. Harris:--
"The first verse of Genesis was designed to announce the absolute
origination of the material universe by the Almighty Creator; and,
passing by an indefinite interval, the second verse describes the state
of our planet immediately prior to the Adamic creation; and the third
verse begins the account of the six days' work."[16]
Thus Mr. Gray:--
"That an antecedent state of the earth existed before the recorded
Mosaical epoch, will clearly come out to view by the consideration of
the terms used in the second verse. There was at that period, according
to the express Mosaic record, anterior to the six days' reduction into
order, _existing earth_ and _existing water_."[17]
Probably the majority of our ablest geologists, men who have devoted
their lives to the study and elucidation of geological phenomena, are to
be found among those who advocate this scheme of reconciling those
phenomena with the statements of the Holy Scriptures. Thus one of the
earliest cultivators of the science, the Rev. Dr. Conybeare:--
"I regard Gen. i. 1 as an universal proposition, intended to contradict
all the heathen systems which supposed the eternity of matter or
polytheism; and ver. 2 I regard as proceeding to take up our planet in a
state of ruin from a former condition, and describing a succession of
phenomena effected in part by the laws of nature (which are no more
than our expression of God's observed method of working), and in part by
the immediate exercise of Divine power in directing and creating."[18]
Dr. Hitchcock, President of Amherst College, U.S., gives in his adhesion
to this principle. After summing up the evidence in favour of the
earth's high antiquity, he inquires, "Who will hesitate to say that it
ought to settle the interpretation of the first verse of Genesis, in
favour of that meaning which allows an intervening period between the
creation of matter and the creation of light? This interpretation of
Genesis is entirely sufficient to remove all apparent collision between
Geology and revelation. It gives the geologist full scope for his
largest speculations concerning the age of the world. It permits him to
maintain that its first condition was as unlike to the present as
possible, and allows him time enough for all the changes of mineral
constitution and organic life which its strata reveal. It supposes that
all these are passed over in silence by the sacred writers, because
irrelevant to the object of revelation; but full of interest and
instruction to the men of science who should afterwards take pleasure
in exploring the works of God.
"It supposes the six days' work of creation to have been confined
entirely to the fitting up the world in its present condition, and
furnishing it with its present inhabitants. Thus, while it gives the
widest scope to the geologist, it does not encroach upon the
literalities of the Bible; and hence it is not strange that it should be
almost universally adopted by geologists, as well as by many eminent
divines."[19]
Dr. Pye Smith, accepting the immense undefined interval between the
event of the first verse, and the condition chronicled in the second,
held the somewhat remarkable opinion that the term "earth" in that
verse, and throughout the whole description of the six days, is
"designed to express the part of our world which God was adapting for
the dwelling of man and the animals connected with him." And that
portion he conceived to have been "a part of Asia, lying between the
Caucasian ridge, the Caspian Sea, and Tartary on the north, the Persian
and Indian Seas on the south, and the high mountain ridges which run at
considerable distances on the eastern and western flank."
The whole of the six days' creation was confined, on this hypothesis, to
the re-stocking, with plants and animals, of this limited region after
an inundation caused by its subsidence. The flood of Noah was nothing
more than a second overflowing of the same region, by "an elevation of
the bed of the Persian and Indian Seas, or a subsidence of the inhabited
land towards the south."[20]
The author of "The Protoplast" has made the very original suggestion,
that the geological periods may have occurred during the paradisaical
condition of man, which he thinks was of an indefinitely protracted
duration, human chronology commencing at the Fall.
"We have no data in Scripture from which to gather certain information,
and Adam may have lived unfallen _one day_, or _millions of years_." The
years of the first man's mortal life began to be reckoned when his
immortality ceased. He was nine hundred and thirty years _old_:[21] he
had been nine hundred and thirty years gradually decaying, slowly
dying.
"It may, indeed, be said that no man could have survived those
convulsions of nature, of which traces have been discovered in the
earth's crust. I would reply to this;--First, that we have no reason to
suppose that these changes affected the whole globe _at once_; they may
have been _partial and successive_; and the world's Eden may have been a
spot peculiarly exempted from their influence. Secondly, that Adam's
body before the fall was not constituted as ours now are; it was
incorruptible and immortal: physical phenomena could have had no
deleterious effect upon him." "Why should we find any difficulty in
supposing that the geological changes which appear to have passed upon
the globe, _after_ its creation, and _before_ its curse, were to the
first man sources of ever-renewing admiration, delight, and advantage?
"Inclining to the belief that both the animal fell and the animal curse
were considerably antecedent to the sin of Adam, I see no difficulty in
the admission, that animal death may also have prevailed prior to that
event."[22]
While all those writers whose opinions I have cited, feel it more or
less incumbent on them to seek a reconciliation between the words of
Inspiration and the phenomena of Geology, there are not a few who
decline the task altogether. Some eminent in science seem, by their
entire avoidance of the question, to allow judgment to go by default.
Others more boldly deny that the two can be accommodated.
Mr. Babbage appears to think the archaic Hebrew so insuperably obscure a
language, that no confidence can be put in our constructions of its
statements; an opinion which, if true, would make the revelation of God
to us, with all its glorious types, and promises, and prophecies, more
dubious than the readings of Egyptian papyri, or the decipherment of
Assyrian cuneiforms.
On this notion, however, Dr. Pye Smith observes:--"All competent
scholars, of whatever opinions and parties they may be in other
respects, will agree to reject any imputation of uncertainty with
respect to the means of ascertaining the sense of the language."
Others find no difficulty in understanding the Hebrew, but in believing
it.
Professor Baden Powell sees in the plain, unvarnished narrative of the
Holy Spirit, only myth and poetry: it "was not intended for an
historical narrative" at all; and he thinks (I hope incorrectly), that
there is a pretty general agreement with his views.
"Most rational persons," he says, "now acknowledge the failure of the
various attempts to reconcile the difficulty [between Geology and
Scripture] by any kind of verbal interpretation; they have learnt to see
that the 'six days of thousands of years' have, after all, no more
correspondence with anything in Geology than with any sane
interpretation of the text. And that the 'immense period at the
beginning,' followed by a recent literal great catastrophe, and final
reconstruction in a week, is, if possible, more strangely at variance
with science, Scripture, and common sense. Yet while they [viz. the
'rational persons,'] thus view the labours of the Bible-geologists as
fruitless attempts, they often do not see--," &c. &c.[23]
Of course this gives up the authority of Scripture altogether; and,
consistently enough, the author is severe upon the prevalent
"indiscriminate and unthinking Bibliolatry." "If in any instance the
letter of the narrative or form of expression may be found
_irreconcilably at variance with physical truth_,[24] we may allow, to
those who prefer it, the alternative of understanding them either as
religious truths, represented under sensible images, or as descriptions
of events according to the preconceptions of the writers, or the
traditions of the age."
The author of "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" propounds a
theory of organic origin much more worthy of God, than that "mean view,"
which supposes Him "to come in on frequent occasions with new fiats or
special interferences." Coolly bowing aside His authority, this writer
has hatched a scheme, by which the immediate ancestor of Adam was a
Chimpanzee, and his remote ancestor a Maggot!
* * * * *
In reviewing this array of opinions, is there not sufficient ground for
regarding with caution the claim to certainty which has been boldly put
forth for the conclusions of Geology? It cannot be denied that there is
here room for a very considerable amplitude of choice among discordant
hypotheses. All cannot be true, unless on the principle which was
claimed for the Church by the Council of Trent--"_Cum enim ecclesia
duarum expositionum ubertate gaudeat, non esse eam ad unius penuriam
restrigendam!_" I do not for a moment intend to put all these hypotheses
and assumptions on the same level. They vary widely as to their
tenableness, and as to their prevalence. But if we leave out of view the
fears of those who, from insufficient acquaintance with science, are not
competent to adjudicate on its positions, and those who despise or
decline Biblical authority altogether on this subject, we have still a
somewhat wide range to choose from. Shall we accept the _antediluvian_,
or the _diluvian_ stratification? the six _ages_ or the six _days_ of
creation? the irruptions of internal fire that occurred chiliads _before
Man was made_--those during his protracted _paradisaic state_, or those
at the time _of the Flood_?--the extension of the Mosaic record _to
universal nature_, or its limitation to a region of _south-western
Asia_?
I am not blaming, far less despising, the efforts that have been made
for harmonizing the teachings of Scripture and science. I heartily
sympathise with them. What else could good men do? They could not shut
their eyes to the facts which Geology reveals: to have said they were
not facts would have been simply absurd. Granting that the whole truth
was before them--the whole evidence--they could not arrive at other
conclusions than those just recorded; and, therefore, I do not blame
their discrepancy _inter se_. _The true key has not as yet been applied
to the wards._ Until it be, you may force the lock, but you cannot open
it. Whether the key offered in the following pages will open the lock,
remains to be seen.
II.
THE WITNESS FOR THE MACRO-CHRONOLOGY.
"You shall well and truly try, and a true deliverance
make,... and a true verdict give, according to the
evidence."--(_Jury Oath._)
A High Court of Inquiry has been sitting now for a good many years,
whose object is to determine a chronological question of much interest.
It is no less than the age of the globe on which we live. Counsel have
been heard on both sides, and witnesses have been called, and most of
the judges have considered that an overwhelming preponderance of
testimony is in favour of an immeasurably vast antiquity. A single
Witness on the other side, however, has deposed in a contrary sense:
and, though he has said but little, some of those who have heard the
cause attach such weight to his testimony, that they do not feel
satisfied to let it be overborne. Counsel on the former side have,
indeed, cross-examined the Witness, and dissected his testimony with
much skill, and they contend that what he said has been misunderstood by
the minority; and that, as his words may at least bear a sense which
would not contradict those of the opposing witness, the clear, copious,
and unvarying deposition previously made, ought to command the verdict
of the Court.