ancient ones, "universal terms are often used to signify only a very large
amount in number or quantity."--Dr. Smith, _Scrip. and Geol._ p. 212, 4th
ed.--The Hebrew [Hebrew], (_kol_,) the [Greek: pas], and the English
_all_, are alike employed in this manner, to signify _many_. There are
some very striking cases of this sort in the Bible. Thus in Genesis it is
said that _all countries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy corn, because
the famine was sore in all lands_. This certainly could apply only to the
well-known countries around Egypt; for transportation would have been
impossible to the remotest parts of the habitable globe. In the account of
the plagues that came upon Egypt, it is said that _the hail smote every
herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field_; but, in a few days
afterwards, it is said of the locusts that _they did eat every herb of the
land and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left_. _This day_,
said God to the Israelites, while yet in their journeyings, _will I begin
to put the fear of thee and the dread of thee upon the face of the nations
under all the heavens_. But it is obvious that only the nations contiguous
to the Israelites, chiefly the Canaanites, are here meant. In the New
Testament, it is said that, at the time of the pentecost, there were
dwelling at Jerusalem _Jews, devout men, out of every nation under
heaven_. Yet, in the enumeration, which follows this passage, of the
different places from which those Jews had come, we find only a region
extending from Italy to Persia, and from Egypt to the Black Sea. It could
have been a district of only about that size which Paul meant, when he
said to the Colossians that the _gospel was preached to every creature
which is under heaven_. In the First Book of Kings, it is said that _all
the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom_;--a passage
which requires as much limitation as the others above quoted. A similar
mode of expression is employed by Christ, when he says of the queen of
Sheba that she came from _the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the
wisdom of Solomon_; for her residence, being probably on the Arabian Gulf,
could not have been more than twelve or fourteen hundred miles from
Jerusalem. A like figurative mode of speech is employed in the description
of Peter's vision, in which he saw a great sheet let down to the earth,
_wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild
beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air_. Who will suppose,
since it is wholly unnecessary for the object, which was to convince Peter
that the Mosaic distinction into clean and unclean beasts was abolished,
that he here had a vision of all the species of terrestrial vertebral
animals on the globe?
It would be easy to multiply similar passages. In many of them we should
find that the phrase _all the earth_ signifies the land of Palestine; in a
few, the Chaldean empire; and in one, that of Alexander of Macedon.
Now, so similar is the phraseology of the passages just quoted to that
descriptive of the deluge, so universal are the terms, while we are sure
that their meaning must be limited, that we are abundantly justified in
considering the deluge as limited, if other parts of the Bible, or the
facts of natural history, require such a limitation. Indeed, so obviously
analogous are the passages quoted to the Mosaic account of the deluge,
that distinguished writers have regarded the deluge as limited, long
before geology existed, or natural history had learned the manner in which
organic life is distributed on the globe; nay, at a period when
naturalists, with Linnaeus at their head, supposed animals and plants to
have proceeded from one centre:--an opinion that seemed to sustain the
notion of the universality of the flood. The inference, then, that it was
limited, must have been made chiefly on exegetical grounds.
"I cannot see," says Bishop Stillingfleet, more than a century ago, "any
urgent necessity from the Scripture to assert that the flood did spread
over all the surface of the earth. That all mankind, those in the ark
excepted, were destroyed by it, is most certain, according to the
Scriptures. The flood was universal as to mankind; but from thence follows
no necessity at all of asserting the universality of it as to the globe of
the earth, unless it be sufficiently proved that the whole earth was
peopled before the flood, which I despair of ever seeing
proved."--_Origines Sacrae_, B. III. chap. 4, p. 337, ed. 1709.
Matthew Poole, well known for his valuable and extensive commentaries on
the Bible, thus expresses himself: "It is not to be supposed that the
entire globe of the earth was covered with water. Where was the need of
overwhelming those regions in which there were no human beings? It would
be highly unreasonable to suppose that mankind had so increased before the
deluge as to have penetrated to all the corners of the earth. It is,
indeed, not probable that they had extended themselves beyond the limits
of Syria and Mesopotamia. Absurd it would be to affirm that the effects of
the punishment inflicted upon men alone applied to places in which there
were no men. If, then, we should entertain the belief that not so much as
the hundredth part of the globe was overspread with water, still the
deluge would be universal, because the extirpation took effect upon all
the part of the globe which was inhabited. If we take this ground, the
difficulties which some have raised about the deluge fall away as
inapplicable, and mere cavils; and irreligious persons have no reason left
them for doubting the truth of the Holy Scriptures."--_Synopsis on Gen._
vii. 19.
Poole wrote nearly two centuries ago. In more recent times, we find
authorities equally eminent for learning and candor adopting the same
views. "Interpreters," says Dathe, "do not agree whether the deluge
inundated the whole earth, or only those regions then inhabited. I adopt
the latter opinion. The phrase _all_ does not prove the inundation to have
been universal. It appears that in many places [Hebrew] (_kol_) is to be
understood as limited to the thing or place spoken of. Hence all the
animals said to have been introduced into the ark were only those of the
region inundated. So, also, only those mountains are to be understood,
which were surmounted by the waters."--_Pentateuchus a Dathio_, p. 63.
But no modern writer has treated this subject with so much candor and
ability--and the same may be said of his whole work on the "Relation of
the Holy Scriptures to some Parts of Geological Science"--as Dr. John Pye
Smith. We can say of him, what we can say of very few men, that he is
accurately acquainted with all the branches of the subject. Eminent as a
theologian and a philologist, and fully possessed of all the facts in
geology and natural history, he gives us his opinion, not as a young man,
fond of novelties, but in the full maturity of judgment and of years.
"From these instances," says he, "of the scriptural idiom in the
application of phraseology similar to that in the narrative concerning the
flood, I humbly think that those terms do not oblige us to understand a
literal universality; so that we are exonerated from some otherwise
insuperable difficulties in natural history and geology. If so much of the
earth was overflowed as was occupied by the human race, both the physical
and the moral ends of that awful visitation were answered."--_Scrip. and
Geol._ p. 214, 4th ed.
"Let us now take the seat of the antediluvian population," continues Dr.
Smith, "to have been in Western Asia, in which a large district, even at
the present day, lies considerably below the level of the sea. It must not
be forgotten that six weeks of continued rain would not give an amount of
water forty times that which fell on the first, or a subsequent day, for
evaporation would be continually carrying up the water to be condensed,
and to fall again; so that the same mass of water would return many times.
If, then, in addition to the tremendous rain, we suppose an elevation of
the bed of the Persian and Indian Seas, or a subsidence of the inhabited
land towards the south, we shall have sufficient cause in the hands of
almighty justice for submerging the district, covering its hills, and
destroying all living beings within its limits, except those whom divine
mercy preserved in the ark. The drawing off of the waters would be
effected by a return of the bed of the sea to a lower level, or by the
elevation of some tracts of land, which would leave channels and slopes
for the larger part of the water to flow back into the Indian Ocean, while
the lower part remained a great lake, or an inland sea, the Caspian."--p.
217.
It is a circumstance favoring the above suggestions of Dr. Smith, that
there is a tract of country ten degrees of latitude in breadth, embracing
most of Asia Minor, ancient Armenia and Georgia, and part of Persia,
extending at least as far east as the Caspian Sea, and probably much
farther, in which volcanic agency has been in operation at a comparatively
recent period. I am not aware that we have evidence of any eruption of
lava in those regions, within historic times, except, perhaps, some mud
volcanoes in the Caucasian range. The Katekekaumene, or Burnt District, of
Asia Minor, and Mount Ararat, probably experienced eruptions at a date
somewhat earlier, though at a comparatively recent date. Yet important
changes of level may have been the result of volcanic agency in Central
Asia, as recently as the Noachian deluge, without leaving any traces which
would be obvious, without more careful observation than has yet been made
in those regions. Especially might a subsidence of the surface have taken
place, and not have left any striking evidence of its occurrence. Still
more difficult would it now be to discover the marks of vertical movements
in the bed of the Indian Ocean at the time of the deluge.
I will venture to add another suggestion. If the bed of the Indian Ocean
was uplifted by volcanic matter, struggling to get vent, vapor enough
might have been liberated to account, on natural principles, for the forty
days' rain of the deluge. For it is well known that in volcanic eruptions
drenching rains are often the result of the sudden condensation of the
aqueous vapor.
We are here met, however, by a serious objection to the hypothesis, which
gives only a limited extent to the deluge. If the present Mount Ararat, in
Armenia, is the mountain on which the ark first rested, a deluge which
covered its top must, by its flux and reflux, have overspread nearly all
other portions of the globe, for that mountain rises seventeen thousand
seven hundred feet above the ocean. But we are informed by Jerome, that
the name Ararat was given generally to the mountains of Armenia; (indeed,
that is the meaning of the name;) and long before geology existed,
Shuckford suggested that some spot farther east corresponds better with
the scriptural account of the place where the ark rested. For it is said
of the families of the sons of Noah, that, as they journeyed from the
east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar. Now, Shinar, or Babylonia,
lies nearly south of the Armenian Ararat, and the probability, therefore,
is, that the true Ararat, from whose vicinity the descendants of Noah
probably emigrated, lay much farther to the south. Again, if the ark
rested upon the present Ararat, it is impossible, except by a miracle,
that those who came out of it could have reached the plain below; for so
exceedingly difficult of access is it, that it is doubtful whether, since
the deluge, any one ever succeeded in reaching its summit, till the year
1829. Indeed, it is an article in the creed of the Armenian church that
its ascent is impossible. That the almost universal tradition of Eastern
nations should have fixed upon that mountain as the resting-place of the
ark is not strange, considering that there is no mountain in all Asia so
striking to behold.
But upon the whole, the probability is strong that some other elevation,
less lofty and steep, was the radiating point of the postdiluvian races of
man and other animals. The fact of Noah's sending forth a dove from the
ark, which came back in the evening with an olive leaf in her mouth,
strengthens the preceding view. For neither upon the present Ararat, nor
around it, does the olive grow, because it is too cold. Indeed, all its
upper part is covered with perpetual ice. But if the Ararat of Scripture
lay nearer the tropics, the olive might find upon it a congenial spot. A
distinguished botanist adduced the fact about the olive as evidence
against the Bible. But how easily refuted, if the theory now under
examination be true!
In favor of this supposition, I might have urged another consideration,
which, in my mind, has no little weight. It is impossible that the waters
of the deluge should have covered the earth for a year, without destroying
nearly all the existing vegetation. Yet nothing is said of the
preservation of seeds in the ark; and if they had been preserved,
certainly nothing but miraculous power, and that of the most remarkable
kind, could have scattered them through the remotest continents and
islands, so as to form distinct botanical districts, such as have been
described. The olive, from which a leaf was plucked by the dove sent out
of the ark, was probably situated upon elevated ground, and where it
remained but a short time beneath the waters, and therefore did not lose
its vitality.
It is probable that the theory which makes the deluge limited in extent
will meet with more favor than any other, with candid and intelligent men,
to meet the suggested difficulties of the case. But some, who are
unwilling to abandon the idea of the universality of the deluge, avoid
these difficulties by supposing a new creation to have taken place at that
epoch. That such a new creation occurred at the commencement of several
geological periods can hardly admit a doubt. And a presumption is hence
derived in favor of a similar act at the beginning of the postdiluvian
period, preceded as it was, like the other geological periods, by an
almost entire destruction of organic life.
The principal objection to this view is, that no notice is taken of such a
new creation in the Bible. And it would seem that an event of so much
importance would hardly be passed in silence; and yet the bringing into
existence new races of the inferior animals and plants could have but
little bearing upon the object of revelation, which respects almost
exclusively the spiritual condition of man. One, however, can hardly see
why pairs and septuples of the animals, even in a limited district, need
to have been preserved in the ark, if a new creation were to follow the
coming catastrophe; nor why the creation of the antediluvian animals, so
soon to perish, should have been so particularly described, while no
notice was taken of the postdiluvian races, which were to occupy the earth
so much longer time.
A third theory has been suggested by some, embracing both those which have
been described. They admit the deluge to have been of limited extent, but
suppose this limitation not to be sufficient to explain all the facts of
revelation and of science, without a new creation also, at the
commencement of the postdiluvian period. They suppose, indeed, that
geology and natural history teach the occasional extinction of species,
and the creation of others, even in our own times. And in regard to this
latter view, it may at least be said that it is not contradicted by the
Bible. Nay, one would almost suppose that the Psalmist were describing
such a state of things when he says, _Thou hidest thy face; they_
[animals] _are troubled. Thou takest away their breath; they die and
return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit; they are created; and
thou renewest the face of the earth._ The resemblance between this
language and that employed to describe the original creation is striking.
Indeed, the same word (_bawraw_) is used.
Without attempting to decide which of these theories has the highest claim
upon our belief, it is sufficient to remark, that either of them
reconciles the facts of geology and natural history with the inspired
record; nor does the adoption of either of them require us to put a forced
and unnatural construction upon the language of the Bible. Even then, if
we should admit that a construction agreeing with these theories is not
the most natural meaning, yet if the facts of natural history
unequivocally require such an interpretation to harmonize the Bible with
nature, it is assuredly one of those cases where science must be allowed
to modify our exegesis of Scripture. In the view of sound philosophy, such
modification at once disarms scepticism of its cavils.
With two remarks of a practical character, I close the discussion of this
subject.
First. The history of opinions respecting the Noachian deluge furnishes a
salutary lesson to those employed in the examination of analogous
subjects. We have seen these opinions assume almost every possible shape;
yet, until recently they have all been maintained with the most positive
and dogmatic assurance; and each particular theory has been regarded as
involving the essence of the Bible, as being the _articulus stantis vel
cadentis ecclesiae_, and whoever denied it virtually denied the Bible. But
all reasonable and truly scientific men are fast coming to the conclusion,
that the deluge has had very little to do with the present configuration
of the globe, and that it is doubtful whether any trace of its occurrence
will ever be found in nature; so that, on the one hand, all the alarms and
denunciations of misguided Christians on this subject might have been
spared; and, on the other hand, if the hasty exultation of the infidel, in
his supposed discovery of discrepancy between nature and Moses, had been
suppressed until the subject was understood, he would not have experienced
the mortification of entire defeat.
It is, indeed, very humiliating to human nature to find so many of the
wise, the talented, and the religious so confident and zealous, yet so
erroneous. But it is a salutary lesson. It shows us the vast importance of
being thoroughly acquainted with a subject before we dogmatize upon it. It
should not, indeed, discourage us, and produce a universal scepticism on
all subjects not admitting a mathematical demonstration; but it should
make us cautious in examining the grounds of our conclusions, and modest
in maintaining them.
Secondly. It is interesting to observe how, amid all the diversities and
fluctuations of opinion on this subject, the Bible has remained
unaffected.
The infidel felt confident that the arrows which he drew from this quiver
would certainly pierce Christianity to the heart. But they rebounded from
her adamantine breastplate, blunted and broken; and no one will have the
courage to pick them up and hurl them again. The physico-theological
school at one time felt certain, that no other theory but an entire
dissolution of the crust of the globe at the deluge, could possibly be
made consistent with the Bible. More recently, it has been supposed
equally necessary, to reconcile geology and revelation, that we should
admit the antediluvian continents to have sunk beneath the ocean at that
time. Still later, it has been thought quite certain that the surface of
the earth bore the most striking marks of a universal deluge, probably
identical with that of Scripture. At length, the extreme opinion is now
generally reached, that no trace of the deluge of Noah remains. And
equally wide and well established is the belief that, amid all these
fluctuations of theory, the Bible has stood as an immovable rock amid the
conflicting waves. The final result is, that we have only slightly to
modify the interpretation of the Mosaic account, in conformity with the
laws of language, to make it entirely consistent with the notion that all
traces of the deluge have disappeared. Thus, in the midst of human
opinions, veering to every point of the compass, the Bible has ever
remained fixed to one point. Not so with false systems of religion. The
Hindoo religion contains a false astronomy, as well as anatomy and
physiology; and the Mohammedan Koran distinctly advances the Ptolemaic
hypothesis of the universe; so that you have only to prove these religions
false in science in order to destroy their claim to infallibility. But the
Bible, stating only facts, does not interfere with, neither is affected
by, the hypotheses of philosophy. Often, indeed, in past ages, have men
set up their hypotheses as oracles in the temple of nature, to be
consulted rather than the Bible. But, like Dagon before the ark, they have
fallen to the earth, and been broken in pieces before the Word of God;
while this has ever stood and ever shall stand, in sublime simplicity and
undecaying strength, amid the wrecks of every false system of philosophy
and religion.
LECTURE V.
THE WORLD'S SUPPOSED ETERNITY.
In our attempts thus far to elucidate the religion of geology, our
attention has been directed to those points where this science has been
supposed to conflict with revelation; and I trust it has been made
manifest that the collision was rather with the interpretation than with
the meaning of Scripture; and that, in fact, geology, instead of coming
into collision with the Bible, affords us important aid in understanding
it aright. We now advance to a part of the subject which has a more direct
bearing upon natural religion. And here, if I mistake not, we shall find
the illustration of religious truth from this science, as we might expect,
more direct and palpable.
The subject to which I wish first to call your attention is the world's
eternity, or the eternal existence of matter. This was the universal
belief of the philosophers of antiquity, and, indeed, of most reasoning
minds where the Bible has not been known. The grand argument by which this
opinion was sustained is the well-known _ex nihilo nihil fit_, (nothing
produces nothing.) Hence men inferred that not even the Deity could create
matter out of nothing; and, therefore, it must be eternal. Most of the
ancient philosophers, however, did not hence infer the non-existence of
the Deity. But they endeavored to reconcile the existence of eternal
matter with an eternal Spirit. They supposed both to be self-existent and
coexistent. From this rational thinking principle they supposed all good
to be derived; while from the material irrational principle all evil
sprung. Plato taught that God, of his own will, united himself with
matter, although he did not create it, and out of it produced the present
world; so that it was proper to speak of the world as created, although
the matter was from eternity. Aristotle and Zeno taught that God's union
with matter was necessary; and hence they considered the world eternal. In
the opinion of Epicurus, God was entirely separated from matter, which
consisted of innumerable atoms, floating about from eternity, like dust in
the air, until at last they assumed the present form of the world.
In modern times, the belief in the eternity of matter has usually been
connected with, or made the basis of, a refined and popular system of
atheism. I refer to the pantheism of Spinoza. He maintains that there
exists in the universe but one substance, variously modified, whose two
principal attributes are infinite extension and infinite intelligence.
This substance, the [Greek: to pan] of Spinoza, he regarded as God; and
hence his system is called _Pantheism_. Under various modifications, it
has been adopted by many sceptical minds, and is, undoubtedly, the most
common and plausible system of atheism extant. Other modern writers, among
whom may be mentioned that anomalous philosopher Bayle, have advocated the
views of the ancients respecting the eternity of matter.
It may seem strange, but it is true, that some Christian philosophers and
divines have been, in ancient and modern times, the advocates of the
eternity of matter. The ancient Christians adopted it from Plato. Thus we
find Justin Martyr maintaining that God formed the world from an eternal,
unorganized material. And the schoolmen, who followed Aristotle, taught
that "God had created the world from eternity." On this ground, even some
Protestant theologians have asserted that it was absurd to speak of an
eternal God who is not an eternal Creator.
A principle which has thus been adopted by so many acute minds
unenlightened by revelation, and by some who possessed that divine
testimony, must be sustained by some plausible arguments. The principal
one relied on is, that the changes which are going on in the material
world are proved to be only transmutations, which follow one another in
series that return into themselves, and which may, therefore, have been
going on from eternity; and if this be admitted, it is as easy to suppose
matter to be self-sustained, and to have fallen into its present order of
itself, as to suppose the interference of an infinite Spirit. "How do we
know," says Dr. Chalmers, in stating the atheistic argument, "that the
world is a consequent at all? Is there any greater absurdity in supposing
it to have existed, as it now is, at any specified point of time,
throughout the millions of ages that are past, than that it should so
exist at this moment? Does what we suppose might have been then, imply any
greater absurdity, than what we actually see to be at present? Now, might
not the same question be carried back to any point or period of duration,
however remote? or, in other words, might we not dispense with a beginning
for the world altogether?" "For aught we can know _a priori_," says Hume,
"matter may contain the source or spring of order originally within itself
as well as mind does; and there is no more difficulty in conceiving that
the several elements, from an internal, unknown cause, may fall into the
most exquisite arrangement, than to conceive that their ideas, in the
great universal mind, from a like internal cause, fall into that
arrangement. If this material world rests upon a similar ideal world,
this ideal world must rest upon some other, and so on without end. It
were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world.
By supposing it to contain the principle of its order within itself, we
really assert it to be God; and the sooner we arrive at that divine Being,
so much the better."