OBJECTS AND NATURE OF A REVELATION OF ORIGINS.
"There are two books from which I collect my divinity;
besides that written one of God, another of his servant
nature--that universal and public manuscript that lies
expansed unto the eyes of all."--SIR T. BROWNE.
There are some questions, simple enough in themselves, respecting the
general character and object of the references to nature and creation
in the Scriptures, which yet are so variously and vaguely answered
that they deserve some consideration before entering on the detailed
study of the subject. These are: (1) The object of the introduction of
such subjects into the Hebrew sacred books--the _why_ of the
revelation of origins. (2) The origin, character, and structure of the
narrative of creation and other cosmological statements in those
books--the _how_ of the revelation. (3) The character of the Biblical
cosmogony, and general views of nature to which it leads--the _what_
of the revelation.
(1) _The Object of the Introduction of a Cosmogony in the
Bible._--Man, even in his rudest and most uncivilized state, does not
limit his mental vision to his daily wants. He desires to live not
merely in the present, but in the future also and the past. This is a
psychological peculiarity which, as much as any other, marks his
separation from the lower animals, and which in his utmost degradation
he never wholly loses. Whatever may be fancied as to imagined
prehistoric nations, it is certain that no people now existing, or
historically known to us, is so rude as to be destitute of some hopes
or fears in reference to the future, some traditions as to the distant
past. Every religious system that has had any influence over the human
mind has included such ideas. Nor are we to regard this as an
accident. It depends on fixed principles in our constitution, which
crave as their proper aliment such information; and if it can not be
obtained, the mind, rather than want it, invents for itself. We might
infer from this very circumstance that a true religion, emanating from
the Creator, would supply this craving; and might content ourselves
with affirming that, on this ground alone, it behooved revelation to
have a cosmogony.
But the religion of the Hebrews especially required to be explicit as
to the origin of the earth and all things therein. Its peculiar dogma
is that of one only God, the Creator, requiring the sole homage of his
creatures. The heathen for the most part acknowledged in some form a
supreme god, but they also gave divine honors to subordinate gods, to
deceased ancestors and heroes, and to natural phenomena, in such a
manner as practically to obscure their ideas of the Creator, or
altogether to set aside his worship. The influence of such idolatry
was the chief antagonism which the Hebrew monotheism had to encounter;
and we learn from the history of the nation how often the worshippers
of Jehovah were led astray by its allurements. To guard against this
danger, it was absolutely necessary that no place should be left for
the introduction of polytheism, by placing the whole work of creation
and providence under the sole jurisdiction of the One God. Moses
consequently takes strong ground on these points. He first insists on
the creation of all things by the fiat of the Supreme. Next he
specifies the elaboration and arrangement of all the powers of
inanimate nature, and the introduction of every form of organic
existence, as the work of the same First Cause. Lastly, he insists on
the creation of a primal human pair, and on the descent from them of
all the branches of the human race, including of course those
ancestors and magnates who up to his time had been honored with
apotheosis; and on the same principle he explains the golden age of
Eden, the fall, the cherubic emblems, the deluge, and other facts in
human history interwoven by the heathen with their idolatries. He thus
grasps the whole material of ancient idolatry, reduces it within the
compass of monotheism, and shows its relation to the one true
primitive religion, which was that not only of the Hebrews, but of
right that of the whole world, whose prevailing polytheism consisted
in perversions of its truth or unity. For such reasons the early
chapters of Genesis are so far from being of the character of
digressions from the scope and intention of the book, that they form a
substratum of doctrine absolutely essential to the Hebrew faith, and
equally so to its development in Christianity.
The references to nature in the Bible, however, and especially in its
poetical books, far exceed the absolute requirements of the reasons
above stated; and this leads to another and very interesting view,
namely, the tendency of monotheism to the development of truthful and
exalted ideas of nature. The Hebrew theology allowed no attempt at
visible representations of the Creator or of his works for purposes of
worship. It thus to a great extent prevented that connection of
imitative art with religion which flourished in heathen antiquity, and
has been introduced into certain forms of Christianity. But it
cultivated the higher arts of poetry and song, and taught them to draw
their inspiration from nature as the only visible revelation of Deity.
Hence the growth of a healthy "physico-theology," excluding all
idolatry of natural phenomena, and all superstitious dread of them as
independent powers, but inviting to their examination as
manifestations of God, and leading to conceptions of the unity of plan
in the cosmos, of which polytheism, even in its highest literary
efforts, was quite incapable. In the same manner the Bible has always
proved itself an active stimulant of natural science, connecting such
studies, as it does, with our higher religious sentiments; while
polytheism and materialism have acted as repressive influences, the
one because it obscures the unity of nature, the other because, in
robbing it of its presiding Divinity, it gives a cold and repulsive,
corpse-like aspect, chilling to the imagination, and incapable of
attracting the general mind.
Naturalists should not forget their obligations to the Bible in this
respect, and should on this very ground prefer its teachings to those
of modern pantheism and positivism, and still more to those of mere
priestly authority. Very few minds are content with simple
materialism, and those who must have a God, if they do not recognize
the Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures as the Creator and Supreme Ruler
of the universe, are too likely to seek for him in the dimness of
human authority and tradition, or of pantheistic philosophy; both of
them more akin to ancient heathenism than to modern civilization, and
in their ultimate tendencies, if not in their immediate consequences,
quite as hostile to progress in science as to evangelical
Christianity.
Every student of human nature is aware of the influence in favor of
the appreciation of natural beauty and sublimity which the Bible
impresses on those who are deeply imbued with its teaching; even where
that same teaching has induced what may be regarded as a puritanical
dislike of imitative art, at least in its religious aspects. On the
other hand, naturalists can not refuse to acknowledge the surpassing
majesty of the views of nature presented in the Bible. No one has
expressed this better than Humboldt: "It is characteristic of the
poetry of the Hebrews that, as a reflex of monotheism, it always
embraces the universe in its unity, comprising both terrestrial life
and the luminous realms of space; it dwells but rarely on the
individuality of phenomena, preferring the contemplation of great
masses. The Hebrew poet does not depict nature as a self-dependent
object, glorious in its individual beauty, but always as in relation
or subjection to a higher spiritual power. Nature is to him a work of
creation and order--the living expression of the omnipresence of the
Divinity in the visible world." In reference to the 104th Psalm, which
may be viewed as a poetical version of the narrative of creation in
Genesis, the same great writer remarks: "We are astonished to find in
a lyrical poem of such a limited compass, the whole universe--the
heavens and the earth--sketched with a few bold touches. The calm and
toilsome life of man, from the rising of the sun to the setting of the
same, when his daily work is done, is here contrasted with the moving
life of the elements of nature. This contrast and generalization in
the conception of the mutual action of natural phenomena, and the
retrospection of an omnipresent invisible Power, which can renew the
earth or crumble it to dust, constitute a solemn and exalted rather
than a gentle form of poetic creation."[8]
If we admit the source of inspiration claimed by the Hebrew poets, we
shall not be surprised that they should thus write of nature. We shall
only lament that so many pious and learned interpreters of Scripture
have been too little acquainted with nature to appreciate the natural
history of the Book of God, or adequately to illustrate it to those
who depend on their teaching; and that so many naturalists have
contented themselves with wondering at the large general views of the
Hebrew poets, without considering that they are based on a revelation
of the nature and order of the creative work which supplied to the
Hebrew mind the place of those geological wonders which have
astonished and enlarged the minds of modern nations. A modern divine,
himself well read in nature, truly says: "If men of piety were also
men of science, and if men of science were to read the Scriptures,
there would be more faith on the earth and also more philosophy."[9]
In a similar strain the patient botanist of the marine algae thus
pleads for the joint claims of the Bible and nature: "Unfortunately it
happens that in the educational course prescribed to our divines
natural history has no place, for which reason many are ignorant of
the important bearings which the book of nature has on the book of
revelation. They do not consider, apparently, that both are from
God--both are his faithful witnesses to mankind. And if this be so, is
it reasonable to suppose that either, without the other, can be fully
understood? It is only necessary to glance at the absurd commentaries
in reference to natural objects which are to be found in too many
annotations of the Holy Scriptures to be convinced of the benefit
which the clergy would themselves derive from a more extended study of
the works of creation. And to missionaries especially, a minute
familiarity with natural objects must be a powerful assistance in
awakening the attention of the savage, who, after his manner, is a
close observer, and likely to detect a fallacy in his teacher, should
the latter attempt a practical illustration of his discourse without
sufficient knowledge. These are not days in which persons who ought to
be our guides in matters of doctrine can afford to be behind the rest
of the world in knowledge; nor can they safely sneer at the knowledge
which puffeth up, until, like the apostle, they have sounded its
depths and proved its shallowness."[10] It is truly much to be desired
that divines and commentators, instead of trying to distort the
representations of nature in the Bible into the supposed requirements
of a barbarous age, or of setting aside modern discoveries as if they
could have no connection with Scripture truth, would study natural
objects and laws sufficiently to bring themselves in this respect to
the level of the Hebrew writers. Such knowledge would be cheaply
purchased even by the sacrifice of a part of their verbal and literary
training. It is well that this point is now attracting the attention
of the Christian world, and it is but just to admit that some of our
more eminent religious writers have produced noble examples of
accurate illustrations of Scripture derived from nature. In any case,
the Bible itself can not be charged with any neglect of the claims of
nature or with any narrow tendency to place material and spiritual
things in antagonism to one another.
Another reason why a revelation from God must deal with the origins of
things, is that such revelation is, like creation, in its own nature
progressive. It is given little by little to successive generations of
men, and must proceed from the first rudiments of religious truth
onward to its higher developments with the growth of humanity from age
to age. Hence the teachings in the early chapters of Genesis are of
the simplest and most child-like character, and the first of these
early teachings is necessarily that of God the Creator, just as our
elementary catechisms for children have been wont to begin with the
question, "Who made you?" In this way man is led in the most direct
and simple way to the feet of the Universal Father, and a foundation
is laid whereon further religious teaching adapted to the growth of
the individual mind and to the growing complications of human society
can be built. But again, alike in the earliest and simplest as in the
more advanced states of the human mind, if spiritual things are to be
taught, it must be through the medium of material things. We have no
language to express in any direct way spiritual truths; they must be
given to us in terms of the natural. We have not yet learned the
tongue of the immortals, and probably can not learn it in this world.
The word "spirit" itself, which we borrow from the Latin, the Greek
_Pneuma_, the Hebrew _Ruah_, primarily all agree in signifying breath
or wind. We have to speak of our own breath when we mean our spiritual
nature, of God's breath when we mean his spiritual nature, and so of
all other things not obvious to our senses. There is constant danger
in this that the material shall be taken for the spiritual of which it
is the symbol, the figure for the reality, the creature for the
Creator, and this danger is best counteracted by a decided testimony
in relation to the origin of all material things in the will of the
spiritual and eternal God. Thus the Bible writers are enabled to use a
free and bold manner of speech respecting divine things. Their
expressions at one time appear pantheistic and at another
anthropomorphic; they see God in every thing, and use with the utmost
freedom natural emblems to indicate his perfections and procedure, and
our relations to him. In this way there is life and action in their
teaching, and it is removed as far as possible from a dry, abstract
theology, while equally remote from any tinge of idolatry or
superstition.
It may, however, be objected that by the introduction of a cosmogony
the Bible exposes itself to a conflict with science, and that thereby
injury results both to science and to religion. This is a grave
charge, and one that has evidently had much weight with many minds,
since it has been the subject of entire treatises designed to
illustrate the history of the conflict or to explain its nature. The
revelation of God's will to man for his moral guidance, if necessary
at all, was necessary before the rise of natural science. Men could
not do without the knowledge of the unity of nature and of the unity
of God, until these great truths could be worked out by scientific
induction. Perhaps they might never have been so worked out. Therefore
a revealed book of origins has a right to precedence in this matter.
Nor need it in any way come into conflict with the science
subsequently to grow up. Science does not deal so much with the origin
of nature as with its method and laws, and all that is necessary on
the part of a revelation, to avoid conflict with it, is to confine
itself to statements of phenomena and to avoid hypotheses. This is
eminently the course of the Bible. In its cosmogony it shuns all
embellishments and details, and contents itself with the fact of
creation and a slight sketch of its order; and in their subsequent
references to nature the sacred writers are strictly phenomenal in
their statements, and refer every thing directly to the will of God,
without any theory as to secondary causes and relations. They are thus
decided and positive on the points with reference to which it behooves
revelation to testify, and absolutely non-committal on the points
which belong to the exclusive domain of science.
What, then, are we to say of the imaginary "conflict of science with
religion," of which so much has been made? Simply that it results
largely from misapprehension and from misuse of terms. True religion,
which consists in practical love to God and to our fellow-men, can
have no conflict with science. True science is its fast ally. The
Bible, considered as a revelation of spiritual truth to man for his
salvation and enlightenment, can have no conflict with science. It
promotes the study of nature, rendering it honorable by giving it the
dignity of an inquiry into the ways of God, and rendering it safe by
separating it from all ideas of magic and necromancy. It gives a
theological basis to the ideas of the unity of nature and of natural
law. The conflict of science, when historically analyzed, is found to
have been fourfold--with the Church, with theology, with superstition,
and with false or imperfect science and philosophy. Religious men may
have identified themselves from time to time with these opponents, but
that is all; and much more frequently the opposition has been by bad
men more or less professing religious objects. Organizations calling
themselves "the Church," and whose warrant from the Bible is often of
the slenderest, have denounced and opposed and persecuted new
scientific truths; but they have just as often denounced the Bible
itself, and religious doctrines founded on it. Theology claims to be
itself one of the sciences, and as such it is necessarily imperfect
and progressive, and may at any time be more or less in conflict with
other sciences; but theology is not religion, and may often have very
little in common either with true religion or the Bible. When
discussions arise between theology and other sciences, it is only a
pity that either side should indulge in what has been called the
_odium theologicum_, but which is unfortunately not confined to
divines. Superstition, considered as the unreasonable fear of natural
agencies, is a passive rather than an active opponent of science. But
revelation, which affirms unity, law, and a Father's hand in nature,
is the deadly foe of superstition, and no people who have been readers
of the Bible and imbued with its spirit have ever been found ready to
molest or persecute science. Work of this sort has been done only by
the ignorant, superstitious, and priest-ridden votaries of systems
which withhold the Bible from the people, and detest it as much as
they dislike science. Perhaps the most troublesome opposition to
science, or rather to the progress of science, has sprung from the
tenacity with which men hold to old ideas. These, which may have been
at one time the best science attainable, root themselves in popular
literature, and even in learned bodies and in educational books and
institutions. They become identified with men's conceptions both of
nature and religion, and modify their interpretations of the Bible
itself. It thus becomes a most difficult matter to wrench them from
men's minds, and their advocates are too apt to invoke in their
defense political, social, and ecclesiastical powers, and to seek to
support them by the authority of revelation, when this may perhaps be
quite as favorable to the newer views opposed to them. All these
conflicts are, however, necessary incidents in human progress, which
comes only by conflict; and there is reason to believe that they would
be as severe in the absence of revealed religion as in its presence,
were it not that the absence of revelation seems often to produce a
fixity and stagnation of thought unfavorable to any new views, and
consequently to some extent to any intellectual conflict. It has been,
indeed, to the disinterment of the Bible in the Reformation of the
fifteenth century that the world owes, more than to any other cause,
the immense growth of modern science, and the freedom of discussion
which now prevails. The Protestant idea of individual judgment in
matters of religion is thoroughly Biblical, for the Bible everywhere
appeals to men in this way; and this idea is the strongest guarantee
that the world possesses for intellectual liberty in other matters.
We conclude, therefore, on all these grounds, that it was necessary
that a revelation from God should take strong and positive ground on
the question of the origin of the universe.
* * * * *
(2) _The Origin, Method, and Structure of the Scriptural
Cosmogony._--A respectable physicist, but somewhat shallow naturalist
and theologian, whose works at one time attracted much attention, has
said of the first chapter of Genesis: "It can not be history--it may
be poetry." Its claims to be history we shall investigate under
another head, but it is pertinent to our present inquiry to ask
whether it can be poetry. That its substance or matter is poetical no
one who has read it once can believe; but it can not be denied that in
its form it approaches somewhat to that kind of thought-rhythm or
parallelism which gives so peculiar a character to Hebrew poetry. We
learn from many Scripture passages, especially in the Proverbs, that
this poetical parallelism need not necessarily be connected with
poetical thought; that in truth it might be used, as rhyme is
sometimes with us, to aid the memory. The oldest acknowledged verse in
Scripture is a case in point. Lamech, who lived before the flood,
appears to have slain a man in self-defense, or at least in an
encounter in which he himself was wounded; and he attempts to define
the nature of the crime in the following words:
"Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Ye wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech:--
I have slain a man to my wounding,
And a young man to my hurt;
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Truly Lamech seventy and seven fold."
All this is prosaic enough in matter, but the form into which it is
thrown gives it a certain dignity, and impresses it on the memory;
which last object was probably what the author of this sole fragment
of antediluvian literature had in view. He succeeded too--for the
sentiment was handed down, probably orally; and Moses incorporates it
in his narration, perhaps on account of its interest as the first
record of the distinction between willful murder like that of Cain,
and justifiable homicide. It is interesting also to observe the same
parallelism of style, no doubt with the same objects, in many old
Egyptian monumental inscriptions, which, however grandiloquent, are
scarcely poetical.[11] It also appears in that ancient record of
creation and the deluge recently rescued from the clay tablets of
Nineveh.
Now in the first chapter of Genesis, and the first three verses of
chapter second, being the formal general narrative of creation, on
which, as we shall see, every other statement on the subject in the
Bible is based, we have this peculiar parallelism of style. If we ask
why, the answer must, I think, be--to give dignity and symmetry to
what would otherwise be a dry abstract, and still more to aid memory.
This last consideration, perhaps indicating that this chapter, like
the apology of Lamech, had been handed down orally for a long period,
connects itself with the theory of the pre-Abrahamic origin of these
documents to which reference has already been made.
The form of the narrative, however, in no way impairs its precision
or accuracy of statement. On this Eichhorn well says: "There lies at
the foundation of the first chapter a carefully designed plan, all
whose parts are carried out with much art, whereby its appropriate
place is assigned to every idea;" and we may add, whereby every idea
is expressed in the simplest and fewest words, yet with marvellous
accuracy, amounting to an almost scientific precision of diction, for
which both the form into which it is thrown and the homogeneous and
simple character of the Hebrew language are very well adapted. Much of
this indeed remains in the English version, though our language is
less perfectly suited than the Hebrew for the concise announcement of
general truths of this description. Our translators have, however,
deviated greatly from the true sense of many important words,
especially where they have taken the Septuagint translation for their
guide, as in the words "firmament," "whales," "creeping things," etc.
These errors will be noticed in subsequent pages. In the mean time I
may merely add that the labors of the ablest Biblical critics give us
every reason to conclude that the received text of Genesis preserves,
almost without an iota of change, the beautiful simplicity of its
first chapter; and that we now have it in a more perfect state than
that in which it was presented to the translators of most of the early
versions. It must also be admitted that the object in view was best
served by that direct reference to the creative fiat, and ignoring of
all secondary causes, which are conspicuous in this narrative. This is
indeed the general tone of the Bible in speaking of natural phenomena;
and this mode of proceeding is in perfect harmony with its claims to
divine authority. Had not this course been chosen, no other could have
been adopted, in strict consistency with truth, short of a full
revelation of the whole system of nature, in the details of all its
laws and processes. This we now know would have been impossible, and,
if possible, useless or even mischievous.
Regarded from this point of view--the plenary inspiration of the
book--the Scriptural references to creation profess to furnish a very
general outline, for theological purposes, of the principal features
of a vast region unexplored when they were written, and into which
human research has yet penetrated along only a few lines. Natural
science, in following out these lines of observation, has reached some
of the objects delineated in the Scriptural sketch; of others it has
obtained distant glimpses; many are probably unknown, and we can
appreciate the true value and dimensions relatively to the whole of
very few. So vast indeed are the subjects of the bold sketch of the
Hebrew prophet, that natural science can not pretend as yet so to fill
in the outline as quite to measure the accuracy of its proportions.
Yet the lines, though few, are so boldly drawn, and with so much
apparent unity and symmetry, that we almost involuntarily admit that
they are accurate and complete. This may appear to be underrating the
actual progress of science relatively to this great foreshadowing
outline; but I know that those most deeply versed in the knowledge of
nature will be the least disposed to quarrel with it, whatever
skepticism they may entertain as to the greater general completeness
of the inspired record.
Another point which deserves a passing notice here is the theory of
Dr. Kurtz and others, that the Mosaic narrative represents a vision of
creation, analogous to those prophetic visions which appear in the
later books of Scripture. This is beyond all question the most simple
and probable solution of the origin of the document, when viewed as
inspired, but we shall have to recur to it on a future page.
But with respect to the precise origin of this cosmogony, the question
now arises, Is it really in substance a revelation from God to man? We
must not disguise from ourselves that this deliberate statement of an
order of creation in so far challenges comparison with the results of
science, and this in a very different way from that which applies to
the incidental references to nature in the Bible. Further, inasmuch as
it relates to events which transpired before the creation of man, it
is of the nature of prophecy rather than of history. It is, in short,
either an inspired revelation of the divine procedure in creation, or
it is a product of human imagination or research, or a deliberate
fraud.
To no part of the Bible do these alternatives more strictly apply than
to its first chapter. This "can not be history" in the strict
acceptation of the term. It relates to events which no human eye
witnessed, respecting which no human testimony could give any
information. It represents the creation of man as the last of a long
series of events, of which it professes to inform us. The knowledge of
these events can not have been a matter of human experience. If at all
entitled to confidence, the narrative must, therefore, be received as
an inspired document, not handed down by any doubtful tradition, but
existing as originally transfused into human language from the mind of
the Author of nature himself. This view is in no way affected by the
hypothesis, already mentioned, that the first chapters of Genesis were
compiled by Moses from more ancient documents. This merely throws back
the revelation to a higher antiquity, and requires us to suppose the
agency of two inspired men instead of one.
It would be out of place here to enter into any argument for the
inspiration of Scripture, or to attempt to define the nature of that
inspiration. I merely wish to impress on the mind of the reader that
without the admission of its reality, or at least its possibility, our
present inquiry becomes merely a matter of curious antiquarian
research. We must also on this ground distinguish between the claims
of the Scriptures and those of tradition or secular history, when they
refer to the same facts. The traditions and cosmogonies of some
ancient nations have many features in common with the Bible narrative;
and, on the supposition that Moses compiled from older documents, they
may be portions of this more ancient sacred truth, but clothed in the
varied garments of the fanciful mythological creeds which have sprung
up in later and more degenerate times. Such fragments may safely be
received as secondary aids to the understanding of the authentic
record, but it would be folly to seek in them for the whole truth.
They are but the scattered masses of ore, by tracing which we may
sometimes open up new and rich portions of the vein of primitive lore
from which they have been derived. It is, however, quite necessary
here formally to inquire if there are any hypotheses short of that of
plenary inspiration which may allow us to attach any value whatever to
this most ancient document. I know but two views of this kind that are
worthy of any attention.
1. The Mosaic account of creation may be a result of ancient
scientific inquiries, analogous to those of modern geology.
2. It may be an allegorical or poetical mythus, not intended to be
historical, but either devised for some extraneous purpose, or
consisting of the conjectures of some gifted intellect.
These alternatives we may shortly consider, though the materials for
their full discussion can be furnished only by facts to be
subsequently stated. I am not aware that the first of these views has
been maintained by any modern writer. Some eminent scientific men are,
however, disposed to adopt such an explanation of the ancient Hindoo
hymns, as well as of the cosmogony of Pythagoras, which bears evidence
of this origin; and it may be an easy step to infer that the Hebrew
cosmogony was derived from some similar source. Not many years ago
such a supposition would have been regarded as almost insane. Then the
science of antiquity was only another name for the philosophy of
Greece and Rome. But in recent times we have seen Egypt disclose the
ruins of a mighty civilization, more grand and massive though less
elegant than that of Greece, and which had reached its acme ere Greece
had received its alphabet--a civilization which, according to the
Scripture history, is derived from that of the primeval Cushite
empire, which extended from the plains of Shinar over all Southeastern
Asia, but was crushed at its centre before the dawn of secular
history. We have now little reason to doubt that Moses, when he
studied the learning of Egypt, held converse with men who saw more
clearly and deeply into nature's mysteries than did Thales or
Pythagoras, or even Aristotle.[12] Still later the remnants of old
Nineveh have been exhumed from their long sepulture, and antiquaries
have been astonished by the discovery that knowledge and arts,
supposed to belong exclusively to far more recent times, were in the
days of the early Hebrew kings, and probably very long previously,
firmly established on the banks of the Tigris. Such discoveries, when
compared with hints furnished by the Scriptures, tend greatly to exalt
our ideas of the state of civilization at the time when they were
written; and we shall perceive, in the course of our inquiry, many
additional reasons for believing that the ancient Israelites were much
farther advanced in natural science than is commonly supposed.
We have, however, no positive proof of such a theory, and it is
subject to many grave objections. The narrative itself makes no
pretension to a scientific origin, it quotes no authority, and it is
connected with no philosophical speculations or deductions. It bears
no internal evidence of having been the result of inductive inquiry,
but appeals at once to faith in the truth of the great ultimate
doctrine of absolute creation, and then proceeds to detail the steps
of the process, in the manner of history as recorded by a witness, and
not in the manner of science tracing back effects to their causes.
Farther, it refers to conditions of our planet respecting which
science has even now attained to no conclusions supported by evidence,
and is not in a position to make dogmatic assertions. The tone of all
the ancient cosmogonies has in these respects a resemblance to that
of the Scriptures, and bears testimony to a general impression
pervading the mind of antiquity that there was a divine and
authoritative testimony to the facts of creation, distinct from
history, philosophical speculation, or induction.
One of the boldest and simplest methods of this kind is that followed
by the authors of the "Types of Mankind," in the attempt to assign a
purely human origin to Genesis 1st. These writers admit the greater
antiquity of the first chapter, though assigning the whole of the book
to a comparatively modern date. They say:
"The 'document Jehovah'[13] does not especially concern our present
subject; and it is incomparable with the grander conception of the
more ancient and unknown writer of Genesis 1st. With extreme felicity
of diction and conciseness of plan, the latter has defined the most
philosophical views of antiquity upon _cosmogony_; in fact so well
that it has required the palaeontological discoveries of the nineteenth
century--at least 2500 years after his death--to overthrow his
_septenary_ arrangement of 'Creation;' which, after all, would still
be correct enough in great principles, were it not for one individual
oversight and one unlucky blunder; not exposed, however, until long
after his era, by post-Copernican astronomy. The oversight is where he
wrote (Gen. i. 6-8), 'Let there be _raquie_,' _i. e._, a _firmament_;
which proves that his notions of 'sky' (solid like the concavity of a
copper basin, with _stars_ set as brilliants in the metal) were the
same as those of adjacent people of his time--indeed, of all men
before the publication of Newton's 'Principia' and of Laplace's
'Mecanique Celeste.' The blunder is where he conceives that _aur_,
'light,' and _iom_, 'day' (Gen. i. 14-18), could have been physically
possible _three whole days_ before the 'two great luminaries,' _Sun_
and _Moon_, were created. These venial errors deducted, his majestic
song beautifully illustrates the simple process of ratiocination
through which--often without the slightest historical proof of
intercourse--different 'Types of Mankind,' at distinct epochas, and in
countries widely apart, had arrived, naturally, at cosmogonic
conclusions similar to the doctrines of that Hebraical school of which
his harmonic and melodious numbers remain a magnificent memento.
"That process seems to have been the following: The ancients knew, as
we do, that man _is_ upon the earth; and they were persuaded, as we
are, that his appearance was preceded by unfathomable depths of time.
Unable (as we are still) to measure periods antecedent to man by any
_chronological_ standard, the ancients rationally reached the
tabulation of some events anterior to man through _induction_--a
method not original with Lord Bacon, because known to St. Paul; 'for
his unseen things from the creation of the world, his power and
Godhead, are clearly seen, _being understood by the things that are
made_' (Rom. i., 20). Man, they felt, could not have lived upon earth
without _animal_ food; ergo, 'cattle' preceded him, together with
birds, reptiles, fishes, etc. Nothing living, they knew, could have
existed without light and heat; ergo, the _solar system_ antedated
animal life, no less than the _vegetation_ indispensable for animal
support. But terrestrial plants can not grow without _earth_; ergo,
that dry land had to be separated from pre-existent 'waters.' Their
geological speculations inclining rather to the _Neptunian_ than to
the _Plutonian_ theory--for Werner ever preceded Hutton--the ancients
found it difficult to 'divide the waters from the waters' without
interposing a metallic substance that 'divided the waters which were
_under_ the firmament from the waters that were _above_ the
firmament;' so they inferred, logically, that a _firmament_ must have
been actually created for this object. [_E.g._, 'The _windows_ of the
skies' (Gen. vii., 11); 'the waters _above_ the skies' (Psa. cxlviii.,
4).] Before the 'waters' (and here is the peculiar error of the
genesiacal bard) some of the ancients claimed the pre-existence of
_light_ (a view adopted by the writer of Genesis 1st); while others
asserted that 'chaos' prevailed. Both schools united, however, in the
conviction that DARKNESS--_Erebus_--anteceded all other _created
things_. What, said these ancients, can have existed before the
'darkness?' _Ens entium_, the CREATOR, was the humbled reply. _Elohim_
is the Hebrew vocal expression of that climax; to define whose
attributes, save through the phenomena of creation, is an attempt we
leave to others more presumptuous than ourselves."
The problem here set to the "unknown" author of Genesis is a hard
one--given the one fact that "man is" to find in detail how the world
was formed in a series of preceding ages of vast duration. Is it
possible that such a problem could have been so worked out as to have
endured the test of three thousand years, and the scrutiny of modern
science? But there is an "oversight" in one detail, and a "blunder" in
another. By reference farther on, the reader will find under the
chapters on "Light" and the "Atmosphere" that the oversight and
blunder are those not of the writer of Genesis, but of the learned
American ethnologists in the nineteenth century; a circumstance which
cuts in two ways in defense of the ancient author so unhappily unknown
to his modern critics.
The second of the alternatives above referred to, the mythical
hypothesis, has been advanced and ably supported, especially on the
continent of Europe, and by such English writers as are disposed to
apply the methods of modern rationalistic criticism to the Bible. In
one of its least objectionable forms it is thus stated by Professor
Powell:
"The narrative, then, of six periods of creation, followed by a
seventh similar period of rest and blessing, was clearly designed by
adaptation to their conceptions to enforce upon the Israelites the
institution of the Sabbath; and in whatever way its details may be
interpreted, it can not be regarded as an _historical_ statement of
the _primeval_ institution of a Sabbath; a supposition which is indeed
on other grounds sufficiently improbable, though often adopted. * * *
If, then, we would avoid the alternative of being compelled to admit
what must amount to impugning the truth of those portions at least of
the Old Testament, we surely are bound to give fair consideration to
the only suggestion which can set us entirely free from all the
difficulties arising from the geological contradiction which does and
must exist against any conceivable interpretation which retains the
assertion of the historical character of the details of the narrative,
as referring to the distinct transactions of each of the seven
periods. * * * The one great fact couched in the general assertion
that all things were created by the sole power of one Supreme Being is
the whole of the representation to which an historical character can
be assigned. As to the particular form in which the descriptive
narrative is conveyed, we merely affirm that it can not be history--it
may be poetry."[14]
The general ground on which this view is entertained is the supposed
irreconcilable contradiction between the literal interpretation of the
Mosaic record and the facts of geology. The real amount of this
difficulty we are not, in the present stage of our inquiry, prepared
to estimate. We can, however, readily understand that the hypothesis
depends on the supposition that the narrative of creation is posterior
in date to the Mosaic ritual, and that this plain and circumstantial
series of statements is a fable designed to support the Sabbatical
institution, instead of the rite being, as represented in the Bible
itself, a commemoration of the previously recorded fact. This is,
fortunately, a gratuitous assumption, contrary to the probable date of
the documents, as deduced from internal evidence and from comparison
with the Assyrian and other cosmogonies; and it also completely
ignores the other manifest uses mentioned under our first head. If
proved, it would give to the whole the character of a pious fraud, and
would obviously render any comparison with the geological history of
the earth altogether unnecessary. While, therefore, it must be freely
admitted that the Mosaic narrative can not be history, in so far at
least as history is a product of human experience, we can not admit
that it is a poetical mythus, or, in other words, that it is destitute
of substantial truth, unless proved by good evidence to be so; and,
when this is proved, we must also admit that it is quite undeserving
of the credit which it claims as a revelation from God.
Since, therefore, the events recorded in the first chapter of Genesis
were not witnessed by man; since there is no reason to believe that
they were discovered by scientific inquiry; and since, if true, they
can not be a poetical myth, we must, in the mean time, return to our
former supposition that the Mosaic cosmogony is a direct revelation
from the Creator. In this respect, the position of this part of the
earth's Biblical history resembles that of prophecy. Writers _may_
accurately relate contemporary events, or those which belong to the
human period, without inspiration; but the moment that they profess
accurately to foretell the history of the future, or to inform us of
events which preceded the human period, we must either believe them to
be inspired, or reject them as impostors or fanatics. Many attempts
have been made to find intermediate standing-ground, but it is so
precarious that the nicest of our modern critical balancers have been
unable to maintain themselves upon it.
Having thus determined that the Mosaic cosmogony, in its grand general
features, must either be inspired or worthless, we have further to
inquire to what extent it is necessary to suppose that the particular
details and mode of expression of the narrative, and the subsequent
allusions to nature in the Bible, must be regarded as entitled to this
position. We may conceive them to have been left to the discretion of
the writers; and, in that case, they will merely represent the
knowledge of nature actually existing at the time. On the other hand,
their accuracy may have been secured by the divine afflatus. Few
modern writers have been disposed to insist on the latter alternative,
and have rather assumed that these references and details are
accommodated to the state of knowledge at the time. I must observe
here, however, that a careful consideration of the facts gives to a
naturalist a much higher estimate of the real value of the
observations of nature embodied in the Scriptures than that which
divines have ordinarily entertained; and, consequently, that if we
suppose them of human origin, we must be prepared to modify the views
generally entertained of early Oriental simplicity and ignorance. The
truth is, that a large proportion of the difficulties in Scriptural
natural history appear to have arisen from want of such accommodation
to the low state of the knowledge of nature among translators and
expositors; and this is precisely what we should expect in a
veritable revelation. Its moral and religious doctrines were slowly
developed, each new light illuminating previous obscurities. Its human
history comes out as evidence of its truth, when compared with
monumental inscriptions; and why should not the All-wise have
constructed as skilfully its teachings respecting his own works? There
can be no doubt whatever that the Scripture writers intended to
address themselves to the common mind, which now as then requires
simple and popular teaching, but they were under obligation to give
truthful statements; and we need not hesitate to say, with Dr.
Chalmers, in reference to a book making such claims as those of the
Bible: "There is no argument, saving that grounded on the usages of
popular language, which would tempt us to meddle with the literalities
of that ancient and, as appears to us, authoritative document, any
farther than may be required by those conventionalities of speech
which spring from 'optical' impressions of nature."[15]
Attempt as we may to disguise it, any other view is totally unworthy
of the great Ruler of the universe, especially in a document
characterized as emphatically _the truth_, and in a moral revelation,
in which statements respecting natural objects need not be inserted,
unless they could be rendered at once truthful and illustrative of the
higher objects of the revelation. The statement often so flippantly
made that the Bible was not intended to teach natural history has no
application here. _Spiritual_ truths are no doubt shadowed forth in
the Bible by material emblems, often but rudely resembling them,
because the nature of human thought and language render this
necessary, not only to the unlearned, but in some degree to all; but
this principle of adaptation can not be applied to plain material
facts. Yet a confusion of these two very distinct cases appears to
prevail almost unaccountably in the minds of many expositors. They
tell us that the Scriptures ascribe bodily members to the immaterial
God, and typify his spiritual procedure by outward emblems; and this
they think analogous to such doctrines as a solid firmament, a plane
earth, and others of a like nature, which they ascribe to the sacred
writers. We shall find that the writers of the Scriptures had
themselves much clearer views, and that, even in poetical language,
they take no such liberties with truth.
As an illustration of the extent to which this doctrine of
"accommodation" carries us beyond the limits of fair interpretation, I
cite the following passage from one of the ablest and most judicious
writers on the subject:[16] "It was the opinion of the ancients that
the earth, at a certain height, was surrounded by a transparent hollow
sphere of solid matter, which they called the firmament. When rain
descended, they supposed that it was through windows or holes made in
the crystalline curtain suspended in mid-heavens. To these notions
the language of the Bible is frequently conformed. * * * But the most
decisive example I have to give on this subject is derived from
astronomy. Until the time of Copernicus no opinion respecting natural
phenomena was thought better established than that the earth is fixed
immovably in the centre of the universe, and that the heavenly bodies
move diurnally round it. To sustain this view the most decisive
language of Scripture might be quoted. God is there said to have
'_established the foundations of the earth, so that they could not be
removed forever_;' and the sacred writers expressly declare that the
heavenly bodies _arise and set_, and nowhere allude to any proper
motion of the earth."
Will it be believed that, with the exception of the poetical
expression, "windows of heaven," and the common forms of speech
relating to sunrise and sunset, the above "decisive" instances of
accommodation have no foundation whatever in the language of
Scripture. The doctrine of the rotation of solid celestial spheres
around the earth belongs to a Greek philosophy which arose after the
Hebrew cosmogony was complete; and though it occurs in the Septuagint
and other ancient versions, it is not based on the Hebrew original. In
truth, we know that those Grecian philosophers--of the Ionic and
Pythagorean schools--who lived nearest the times of the Hebrew
writers, and who derived the elements of their science from Egypt and
Western Asia, taught very different doctrines. How absurd, then, is it
thus to fasten upon the sacred writers, contrary to their own words,
the views of a school of astronomy which probably arose long after
their time, when we know that more accurate ideas prevailed nearer
their epoch. Secondly, though there is some reason for stating that
the "ancients," though certainly not those of Israel, believed in
celestial spheres supporting the heavenly bodies, I suspect that the
doctrine of a solid vault _supporting the clouds_, except as a mere
poetical or mythological fancy, is a product of the imagination of the
theologians and closet philosophers of a more modern time. The
testimony of men's senses appears to be in favor of the whole universe
revolving around a plane earth, though the oldest astronomical school
with which we are acquainted suspected that this is an illusion; but
the every-day observation of the most unlettered man who treads the
fields and is wet with the mists and rains must convince him that
there is no _sub-nubilar_ solid sphere. If, therefore, the Bible had
taught such a doctrine, it would have shocked the common-sense even of
the plain husbandmen to whom it was addressed, and could have found no
fit audience except among a portion of the literati of comparatively
modern times. Thirdly, with respect to the foundations of the earth, I
may remark that in the tenth verse of Genesis there occurs a
definition as precise as that of any lexicon--"and God called the _dry
land_ earth;" consequently it is but fair to assume that the earth
afterwards spoken of as supported above the waters is the dry land or
continental masses of the earth, and no geologist can object to the
statement that the dry land is supported above the waters by
foundations or pillars.
We shall find in our examination of the document itself that all the
instances of such accommodation which have been cited by writers on
this subject are as baseless as those above referred to. It is much to
be regretted that so many otherwise useful expositors have either
wanted that familiarity with the aspects of external nature by which
all the Hebrew writers are characterized, or have taken too little
pains to ascertain the actual meaning of the references to creation
which they find in the Bible. I may further remark that if such
instances of accommodation could be found in the later poetical books,
it would be extremely unfair to apply them as aids in the
interpretation of the plain, precise, and unadorned statements of the
first chapters of Genesis. There is, however, throughout even the
higher poetry of the Bible, a truthful representation and high
appreciation of nature for which we seek in vain in any other poetry,
and we may fairly trace this in part to the influence of the cosmogony
which appears in its first chapter. The Hebrew was thus taught to
recognize the unity of nature as the work of an Almighty Intelligence,
to regard all its operations as regulated by his unchanging law or
"decree," and to venerate it as a revelation of his supreme wisdom and
goodness. On this account he was likely to regard careful observation
and representation with as scrupulous attention as the modern
naturalist. Nor must we forget that the Old Testament literature has
descended to us through two dark ages--that of Greek and Roman
polytheism and of Middle Age barbarism--and that we must not confound
its tenets with those of either. The religious ideas of both these
ages were favorable to certain forms of literature and art, but
eminently unfavorable to the successful prosecution of the study of
nature. Hence we have a right to expect in the literature of the
golden age of primeval monotheism more affinity with the ideas of
modern science than in any intermediate time; and the truthful
delineation which the claims of the Bible to inspiration require might
have been, as already hinted, to a certain extent secured merely by
the reflex influence of its earlier statements, without the necessity
of our supposing that illustrations of this kind in the later books
came directly from the Spirit of God.
Our discussion of this part of the subject has necessarily been rather
desultory, and the arguments adduced must depend for their full
confirmation on the results of our future inquiries. The conclusions
arrived at may be summed up as follows: 1. That the Mosaic cosmogony
must be considered, like the prophecies of the Bible, to claim the
rank of inspired teaching, and must depend for its authority on the
maintenance of that claim. 2. That the incidental references to nature
in other parts of Scripture indicate, at least, the influence of these
earlier teachings, and of a pure monotheistic faith, in creating a
high and just appreciation of nature among the Hebrew people.
It is now necessary to inquire in what precise form this remarkable
revelation of the origin of the world has been given. I have already
referred to the hypothesis that it represents a vision of creation
presented to the mind of a seer, as if in a series of pictures which
he represents to us in words. This is perhaps the most intelligible
conception of the manner of communication of a revelation from God;
and inasmuch as it is that referred to in other parts of the Bible as
the mode of presentation of the future to inspired prophets, there can
be no impropriety in supposing it to have been the means of
communicating the knowledge of the unknown past. We may imagine the
seer--perhaps some aboriginal patriarch, long before the time of
Moses--perhaps the first man himself--wrapt in ecstatic vision, having
his senses closed to all the impressions of the present time, and
looking as at a moving procession of the events of the earth's past
history, presented to him in a series of apparent days and nights. In
the first chapter of Genesis he rehearses this divine vision to us,
not in poetry, but in a series of regularly arranged parts or
strophes, thrown into a sort of rhythmical order fitted to impress
them on the memory, and to allow them to be handed down from mouth to
mouth, perhaps through successive generations of men, before they
could be fixed in a written form of words. Though the style can
scarcely be called poetical, since its expressions are obviously
literal and unadorned by figures of speech, the production may not
unfairly be called the Song or Ballad of Creation, and it presents an
Archaic simplicity reminding us of the compositions of the oldest and
rudest times, while it has also an artificial and orderly arrangement,
much obscured by its division into verses and chapters in our Bibles.
It is undoubtedly also characterized by a clearness and grandeur of
expression very striking and majestic, and which shows that it was
written by and intended for men of no mean and contracted minds, but
who could grasp the great problems of the origin of things, and
comprehend and express them in a bold and vigorous manner. It may be
well, before proceeding farther, to present to the reader this ancient
document in a form more literal and intelligible, and probably nearer
to its original dress, than that in which we are most familiar with it
in our English Bibles:
THE ABORIGINAL SONG OF CREATION.
_Beginning._
In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth,
And the Earth was formless and empty,
And darkness on the surface of the deep,
And the Breath of God moved on the Surface of the Waters.
_Day One._
_And God said_--"Let Light be,"
And Light was.
And God saw the Light that it was good.
And God called the Light Day,
And the darkness he called Night.
And Evening was and Morning was--Day one.
_Day Second._
_And God said_--"Let there be an Expanse
in the midst of the waters,
And let it divide the waters from the waters."
And God made the Expanse,
And divided the waters below the Expanse
from the waters above the Expanse.
And it was so.
And God called the Expanse Heavens.
And Evening was and Morning was, a Second Day.
_Day Third._
_And God said_--"Let the waters under the
Heavens be gathered into one place,
And let the Dry Land appear."
And it was so,
And God called the Dry Land Earth,
And the gathering of waters called he Seas.
And God saw that it was good.
_And God said_--"Let the earth shoot forth herbage,
The Herb yielding seed and the fruit-tree yielding fruit
containing seed after its kind, on the earth."
And it was so.
And the earth brought forth herbage,
The Herb yielding seed and the Tree yielding fruit whose
seed is in it after its kind,
And God saw that it was good.
And Evening was and Morning was, a Third Day.
_Day Fourth._
_And God said_--"Let there be Luminaries
in the Expanse of Heaven,
To divide the day from the night,
And let them be for Signs and for Seasons,
And for Days and for Years.
And let them be Luminaries in the Expanse of Heaven
To give light on the earth."
And it was so.
And God made two great Luminaries,
The greater Luminary to rule the day,
The lesser Luminary to rule the night,
The Stars also.
And God placed them in the Expanse of Heaven
To give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night,
And to divide the light from the darkness.
And God saw that it was good.
And Evening was and Morning was, a Fourth Day.
_Day Fifth._
_And God said_--"Let the waters swarm
with swarmers, having life,
And let winged animals fly over the earth on the
surface of the expanse of heaven."
And God created great Reptiles,
And every living thing that moveth,
With which the waters swarmed after their kind,
And every winged bird after its kind.
And God saw that it was good.
And God blessed them, saying--
"Be fruitful and multiply,
And fill the waters of the sea;
And let birds multiply in the land."
And Evening was and Morning was, a Fifth Day.
_Day Sixth._
_And God said_--"Let the Land bring forth
living things after their kind,
Herbivores and smaller mammals and Carnivores after their kind."
And it was so.
And God made all Carnivores after their kind,
And all Herbivores after their kind,
And all minor mammals after their kind.
And God saw that it was good.
_And God said_--"Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness,
And let him have dominion over the fish in the sea
And over the birds of the heavens,
And over the Herbivora,
And over the Earth,
And over all the minor animals that creep upon the earth."
And God created man in his own image,
In the image of God created he him,
Male and female created he them.
And God blessed them.
And God said unto them--
"Be fruitful and multiply,
And replenish the earth and subdue it,
And have dominion over the fishes of the sea
And over the birds of the air,
And over all the animals that move upon the earth."
_And God said_--"Behold, I have given you all herbs
yielding seed,
Which are on the surface of the whole earth,
And every tree with fruit having seed,
They shall be unto you for food.
And to all the animals of the land
And to all the birds of the heavens,
And to all things moving on the land having the breath of life,
I have given every green herb for food."
And it was so.
And God saw every thing that he had made,
and behold it was very good.
And Evening was and Morning was, a Sixth Day.
_Day Seventh._
Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finished,
And all the hosts of them.
And on the seventh day God ended the work which he had made,
And he rested on the seventh day from all his work
which he had made.
And God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it,
Because that in it he rested from all his work that he had
created and made.