unacquainted with the Bible, were to be left to obtain his notion of its
contents from "Essays and Reviews," infidel publications generally, and
(_absit invidia verbo!_) from not a few of the Sermons which have been
preached and printed in either University of late years,--the notion so
obtained would be singularly at variance with the known facts of the
case. Would not a man infallibly carry away an impression that the Bible
is a book abounding in statements concerning matters of Physical Science
which are flatly contradicted by the ascertained phenomena of Nature?
Would he not be led to expect that it contained every here and there a
theoretical Excursus on certain Astronomical or Physiological subjects?
and to anticipate, above all, an occasional chapter on Geology? Great
would be his astonishment, surely, at finding that _one single chapter_
comprises nearly the whole of the statements which modern philosophy
finds so very hateful; and _that_ chapter, the first chapter in the
Bible[101].
But the surprise would grow considerably when the conditions of the
problem came to be a little more fully stated. Has then the actual
history of the World's Creation been ascertained from some other
independent and infallible source? No! Are Geologists as yet so much as
agreed even about a theory of the Creation? No! Can it be proved that
any part of the Mosaic account is false? Certainly not! Then why all
this hostile dogmatism?--To witness the violence of the partisans of
Geological discovery, and the arrogance of their pretensions, one would
suppose that some Divine Creed of theirs had been impugned: that a
revelation had been made to _them_ from Heaven, which the profane and
unbelieving world was reluctant to accept. Whereas, these are Christian
men, impatient, as it seems, to tear the first leaf out of their Bible:
or rather, to throw discredit on the entire volume, by establishing the
untrustworthiness of the earliest page!
One single additional consideration completes the strangeness of the
picture. If our account of the Six Days of Creation were a sybilline
leaf of unknown origin, it would not be unreasonable to treat its
revelations as little worth. But since the author of it is confessedly
Moses,--the great Hebrew prophet, who lived from B.C. 1571 to 1451, who
enjoyed the vision of the Most High; nay, who conversed with GOD face to
face, was with Him in the Mount for thrice forty days, and received from
Him the whole details of the Sacred Law;--since this first chapter of
Genesis is known to have formed a part of the Church's unbroken heritage
from that time onward, and therefore must be acknowledged to be an
integral part of the volume of Scripture which, (as our LORD says,) =ou
dynatai lythênai=,--"cannot be broken, diluted, loosened, explained
away;"--since, further, this account of Creation is observed to occur in
the most conspicuous place of the most conspicuous of those books which
are designated by an Apostle by the epithet =theopneustos=, or, "given by
inspiration," "filled with the breath," or "Spirit of GOD;" and when it
is considered that our SAVIOUR and His Apostles refer to the primæval
history contained in the first two chapters about thirty
times[102]:--when, (I say,) all this is duly weighed, surely too strong
a _primâ facie_ case has been made out on behalf of the first chapter of
Genesis, that its authority should be imperilled by the random
statements of every fresh individual who sees fit to master the elements
of Geology; and on the strength of that qualification presumes to sit in
judgment on the Hebrew Scriptures,--of which, confessedly, he does not
understand so much as the alphabet!
It is even amusing to see how vain a little mind can become of a little
knowledge. Mr. Goodwin remarks,--"The school-books of the present day,
while they teach the child that the Earth moves, yet assure him that it
is a little less than six thousand years old, and that it was made in
six days." (p. 210.) (I am puzzled to reconcile this statement with the
author's declaration that "no well-instructed person now doubts the
great antiquity of the Earth any more than its motion." (_Ibid._) Would
it not have been fairer to have _named_ at least _one_ of the
school-books which perpetuate so wicked a heresy?) "On the other hand,
Geologists of all religious creeds are agreed that the Earth has existed
for an immense series of years,--to be counted by millions rather than
by thousands; and that indubitably more than six days elapsed from its
first Creation to the appearance of Man upon its surface. By this broad
discrepancy between old and new doctrine is the modern mind startled, as
were the men of the sixteenth century when told that the earth moved."
(p. 210.)
But begging pardon of our philosopher, if all he means is that more than
six days elapsed between the Creation of "Heaven and Earth," (noticed in
ver. 1,) and the Creation of Man, (spoke of from ver. 26 to 28,)--he
means to say mighty little; and need not fear to encounter contradiction
from any "well-instructed person." True, that an ignorant man could not
have suspected anything of the kind from reading the first chapter of
Genesis: but this is surely nobody's fault but his own. An ignorant man
might in like manner be of opinion that the Sun and Moon are the two
largest objects in creation; and there is not a word in this same
chapter calculated to undeceive him. Again, he might think that the Sun
rises and sets; and the common language of the Observatory would confirm
him hopelessly in his mistake. All this however is no one's fault but
his own. The ancient Fathers of the Church, behind-hand as they were in
Physical Science, yet knew enough to anticipate "the hypothesis of the
Geologist; and two of the Christian Fathers, Augustine and Theodoret,
are referred to as having actually held that a wide interval elapsed
between the first act of Creation, mentioned in the Mosaic account, and
the commencement of the Six Days' work." (p. 231.) Mr. Goodwin therefore
has got no further, so far, than Augustine and Theodoret got, 1400 years
since, without the aid of Geology.
But we must hasten on. The business of the Essayist, as we have said, is
to undermine our confidence in the Bible, by exposing the ignorance of
the author of the first chapter. "Modern theologians," (he remarks, with
unaffected displeasure,) "have directed their attention to the
possibility of reconciling the Mosaic narrative with those geological
facts which are admitted to be beyond dispute." (p. 210.)--And pray, (we
modestly ask,) is not such a proceeding obvious? A "frank recognition of
the erroneous views of Nature which the Bible contains," (p. 211,) we
shall be prepared to yield when those "erroneous views" have been
demonstrated to exist,--_but not till then_. Mr. Goodwin must really
remember that although, in _his_ opinion, the "Mosaic Cosmogony," (for
so he phrases it,) is "not an authentic utterance of Divine knowledge,
but a human utterance," (p. 253,) the World thinks differently. The
learned and wise and good of all ages, including the present, are
happily agreed that the first chapter of Genesis is _part of the Word of
GOD_.
After what is evidently intended to be a showy sketch of the past
history of our planet,--"we pass" (says Mr. Goodwin) "to the account of
the Creation contained in the Hebrew record. And it must be observed
that in reality two distinct accounts are given us in the book of
Genesis; one, being comprised in the first chapter and the first three
verses of the second; the other, commencing at the fourth verse of the
second chapter and continuing till the end. This is so philologically
certain that it were useless to ignore it." (p. 217.) Really we read
such statements with a kind of astonishment which almost swallows up
sorrow. Do they arise, (to quote Mr. Goodwin's own language,) "from our
modern habits of thought, and from the modesty of assertion which the
spirit of true science has taught us?" (p. 252.) Convinced that _my_
unsupported denial would have no more weight than Mr. Goodwin's ought to
have, I have referred the dictum just quoted to the highest Hebrew
authority available, and have been assured that it is utterly without
foundation.
After such experience of Mr. Goodwin's _philological_ "certainties,"
what amount of attention does he expect his dicta to command in a
Science which, starting from "a region of uncertainty, where Philosophy
is reduced to mere guesses and possibilities, and pronounces nothing
definite," (p. 213,) has to travel through "a prolonged period,
beginning and ending we know not when;" (p. 214;) reaches another
period, "the duration of which no one presumes to define;" (_Ibid._;)
and again another, during which "nothing can be asserted positively:"
(p. 215:) after which comes "a kind of artificial break?" (_Ibid._)
For my own part, I freely confess that Mr. Goodwin's final admission
that "the advent of Man may be considered as inaugurating a new and
distinct epoch, _that_ in which we now are, and during the whole of
which the physical conditions of existence cannot have been very
materially different from what they are now;" (p. 216;) and that "thus
much is clear, that Man's existence on Earth is brief, compared with the
ages during which unreasoning creatures were the sole possessors of the
globe:" (p. 217:)--these statements, I say, contain as much as one
desires to see admitted. For really, since the fossil Flora, and the
various races of animated creatures which Geologists have classified
with so much industry and skill, confessedly belong to a period of
immemorial antiquity; and, _with very rare exceptions indeed_, represent
_extinct species_,--I, as an interpreter of Scripture, am not at all
concerned with them. Moses asserts nothing at all about them, one way or
the other. What Revelation says, is, that nearly 6000 years ago, after a
mighty catastrophe,--unexplained alike in its cause, its nature, and its
duration,--the Creator of the Universe instituted upon the surface of
this Earth of ours that order of things which has continued ever since;
and which is observed at this instant to prevail: that He was pleased to
parcel out His transcendent operations, and to spread them over Six
Days; and that He ceased from the work of Creation on the Seventh Day.
All extant species, whether of the vegetable or the animal Kingdom,
including Man himself, belong to the week in question. And this
statement, as it has never yet been found untrue, so am I unable to
anticipate by what possible evidence it can ever be set aside as false.
In my IInd Sermon, I have ventured to review the Mosaic record
sufficiently in detail, to render it superfluous that I should retrace
any portion of it here. The reader is requested to read at least so much
of what has been offered as is contained from p. 28 to p. 32. My
business at present is with Mr. Goodwin.
And _in limine_ I have to remind him that he has really no right first
to give, in his own words, his own notion of the history of Creation;
and then to insist on making _the Revelation_ of the same transaction
ridiculous by giving _it_ also in words of his own, which become in
effect a weak parody of the original. What is there in Genesis about
"_the air or wind_ fluttering over the waters of the deep?" (p. 219.) Is
this meant for the august announcement that "the SPIRIT of GOD moved
upon the face of the waters?"--"On the third day, ... we wish to call
attention to the fact that trees and plants destined for food are those
which are particularly singled out as the earliest productions of the
earth." (p. 220.) The reverse is the fact; as a glance at Gen. i. 11.
will shew.--"The formation of the stars" on the fourth day, "is
mentioned in the most cursory manner." (p. 221.) But _who_ is not aware
that "the formation of the stars" is _nowhere mentioned in this chapter
at all_?
"Light and the measurement of time," (proceeds Mr. Goodwin,) "are
represented as existing before the manifestation of the Sun." (p. 219.)
Half of this statement is true; the other half is false. The former
idea, he adds, is "repugnant to our modern knowledge." (p. 219.) Is then
Mr. Goodwin really so weak as to imagine that our Sun is the sole source
of Light in Creation? Whence then the light of the so-called fixed
Stars? But I shall be told that Mr. Goodwin speaks of _our_ system only,
and of our Earth in particular. Then pray, whence that glory[103] which
on a certain night on a mountain in Galilee, caused the face of our
REDEEMER to shine as the Sun[104] and His raiment to emit a dazzling
lustre[105]? "We may boldly affirm," (he says,) "that those for whom
[Gen. i. 3-5] was penned could have taken it in no other sense than that
light existed before and independently of the sun." (p. 219.) We may
indeed. And I as boldly affirm that I take the passage in that sense
_myself_: moreover that I hold the statement which Mr. Goodwin treats so
scornfully, to be the very truth which, in the deep counsels of GOD,
this passage _was designed_ to convey to mankind; even that "the King of
Kings, and LORD of Lords, who only hath immortality, _dwelleth in the
Light which no man can approach unto[106]_."
"The work of the second day of Creation is to erect the vault of Heaven
(Heb. _Rakia_; Gr. =stereôma= _Lat. Firmamentum_,) which is represented
as supporting an ocean of water above it. The waters are said to be
divided, so that some are below, and some above the vault.... No
quibbling about the derivation of the word _Rakia_, which is literally
'something beaten out,' can affect the explicit description of the
Mosaic writer contained in the words 'the waters that are above the
firmament,' or avail to shew that he was aware that the sky is but
transparent space." (pp. 219, 220.) "The allotted receptacle [of Sun and
Moon] was not made until the Second Day, nor were they set in it until
the fourth." (p. 221.) Surely I cannot be the only reader to whom the
impertinence of this is as offensive, as its shallowness is ridiculous!
In spite of Mr. Goodwin's uplifted finger, and menacing cry,--"No
quibbling!" I proceed with my inquiry.
For first; Why does Mr. Goodwin parody the words of Inspiration? The
account as given by Moses is,--"And GOD said, Let there be a firmament
in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the
waters[108]." But surely, to make the "open firmament of Heaven" in
which every winged fowl may fly[109], is not _"to erect the vault of
Heaven,"--"a permanent solid vault,"--"supporting an ocean of water!"_
The Hebrew word here used to denote "firmament," on which Mr. Goodwin's
indictment turns, ("_rakia_,") is derived from a verb which means to
"beat." Now, what is beaten, or hammered out, while (if it be a metal)
it acquires _extension_, acquires also _solidity_. The Septuagint
translators seem to have fastened upon the latter notion, and
accordingly represented it by =stereôma=; for which, the earliest Latin
translators of the Old Testament coined an equivalent,--_firmamentum_.
But that Moses by the word "_rakia_" intended rather to denote the
_expanse_ overhead, than to predicate _solidity_ for the sky, I suspect
will be readily admitted by all. True that in the poetical book of Job,
we read that the sky is "strong, as a molten looking-glass[110]:" but
then we meet more frequently with passages of a different tendency. God
is said to "_stretch out_ the heavens _like a curtain[111]_," "and
_spread them out as a tent_ to dwell in[112]:" to "bind up the waters in
His thick clouds[113]," and "_in a garment[114]_," &c., &c.[115] It is
only needful to look out the word in the dictionary of Gesenius to see
that _spreading out_, (as of thin plates of metal by a hammer,) is the
_only_ notion which properly belongs to the word. Accordingly, the
earliest modern Latin translation from the Hebrew, (that of Pagninus,)
renders the word _expansio_. And so the word has stood for centuries in
the margin of our English Bible.
The actual _fact_ of the case,--the _truth_ concerning the physical
phenomenon alluded to,--comes in, and surely may be allowed to have some
little weight. Since expansion _is_ a real attribute of the atmosphere
which divides the waters above from the waters below,--and solidity is
_not_,--it seems to me only fair, seeing that the force of the
expression is thought doubtful, to assign to it the meaning which is
open to fewest objections.
But "the Hebrews," (says Mr. Goodwin,) "understood the sky, firmament,
or heaven to be a permanent solid vault, as it appears to the ordinary
observer." This, he adds, is "evident enough from various expressions
made use of concerning it. It is said to have pillars[116],
foundations[117], doors[118], and windows[119],"--(p. 220.) Now, I
really do not think Mr. Goodwin's inference by any means so "evident" as
he asserts. If Heaven has "pillars" in the poetical book of Job, so has
the Earth[120]. The "foundations" spoken of in 2 Sam. xxii. 8, seem
rather to belong to _Earth_ than to Heaven,--as a reference to the
parallel place in Ps. xviii. 7 will shew[121]. Is Mr. Goodwin so little
of a poet, as to be staggered by the phrase "windows of Heaven," when it
occurs in the figurative language of an ancient people, and in a
poetical book[122]?
For the foregoing reasons, I distrust Mr. Goodwin's inference that "the
Hebrews understood the sky to be a solid vault, furnished with pillars,
foundations, doors, and windows." But whether they did, or did not, it
is to be hoped that he is enough of a logician to perceive that the
popular notions of God's ancient people on this subject, are not the
thing in question. The only FACT we have to do with is clearly
_this_,--that _Moses has in this place employed the word "rakia_:" and
the only QUESTION which can be moved about it, is (as evidently) the
following,--whether he was, or was not, to blame _in employing that
word_; for as to _the meaning which he, individually, attached to the
phenomenon_ of which "_rakia_" is the name, it cannot be pretended that
any one living knows anything at all about the matter. A Greek, Latin,
or French astronomer who should speak of Heaven, would not therefore be
assumed to mean that it is _hollow_; although =koilon=, '_coelum_,'
'_ciel_,' etymologically imply no less.
Now I contend that Moses employed the word "_rakia_" with exactly the
same propriety, neither more nor less, as when a Divine now-a-days
employs the English word "firmament." It does not follow that the man
who speaks of "the spacious firmament on high," is under so considerable
a delusion as to suspect that the firmament is _a firm thing_; nor does
it follow that Moses thought that "_rakia_" was _a solid_ substance
either,--even if _solidity_ was the prevailing etymological notion in
the word, and even if the Hebrews were no better philosophers than Mr.
Goodwin would have us believe. The Essayist's objection is therefore
worthless. GOD was content that Moses should employ the ordinary
language of his day,--accommodate himself to the forms of speech then
prevalent,--coin no new words. What is there unreasonable in the
circumstance? What possible ground does it furnish for a supposition
that the _etymological_ force of the word,--or even that the popular
physical theory of which that word may, or may not, have once been the
connotation,--denoted _the sense in which Moses employed it_? Is it to
be supposed that when a physician speaks of a "_jovial_ temperament," he
insinuates his approval of an exploded system of medicine? Do
astronomers maintain that the Sun has a _disk_, or the Earth _an axis_?
that the former _leaves its place_ in the heavens when it suffers
'eclipse[123]?' or that the latter has a superior _latitude_, from East
to West? To give the most familiar instance of all,--Do scientific men
believe that the sun _rises_, and _sets_?--And yet all _say_ that it
does, until this hour!... Why is Moses to be judged by a less favourable
standard than anybody else,--than Shakspeare, than Hooker, even than Mr.
Goodwin? The first, in an exquisite passage, bids Jessica,--
"Look how the floor of heav'n
Is thick inlayed with patens of bright gold."
Did Shakspeare expect his beautiful language would be tortured into a
shape which would convict him of talking nonsense?--But this is poetry.
Then take Hooker's prose:--
"If the frame of that heavenly arch erected over our heads should
loosen and dissolve itself; ... if the Moon should wander from her
beaten way[124]," &c.
Did Hooker suppose that heaven is "an arch," which could be "loosened
and dissolved?" or that "the way" of the moon is "beaten?"--But this is
a highly poetical passage, written three centuries ago.--Let an
unexceptionable witness then be called; and so, let the question be
brought to definite issue. _I_, for my part, am quite content that it
shall be _the philosopher in person_. The present Essayist shall be
heard discoursing about Creation, and shall be convicted out of his own
mouth. Mr. Goodwin begins his paper by a kind of cosmogony of his own,
which he prefaces with the following apology:--"It will be necessary for
our purpose to go over the oft-trodden ground, which must be done with
rapid steps. Nor let the reader object to be reminded of some of the
most elementary facts of his knowledge. The human race has been ages in
arriving at conclusions now familiar to every child." (p. 212.) After
this preamble, he begins his "elementary facts," as follows:--
"This Earth, apparently so still and stedfast, lying in majestic repose
beneath the ætherial vault,"--(p. 212.)
But we remonstrate immediately. "The ætherial _vault_!" Do you then
understand the sky, firmament, or heaven to be "a permanent solid vault,
as it appears to the ordinary observer?" (p. 220.)
"The Sun which seems to leap up each morning from the east, and
traversing the skyey bridge,"--(p. 212.)
"The _skyey bridge_!" And pray in what part of the universe do you
discover a "skyey bridge?" Is not _this_ calculated "to convey to
ordinary apprehensions an impression at variance with facts?" (p. 231.)
"The Moon which occupies a position in the visible heavens only second
to the Sun, and far beyond that of every other celestial body in
conspicuousness,"--(p. 212.)
Nay, but really Mr. Philosopher, while you remind us "of some of the
most elementary facts of our knowledge," (p. 212,) you write (except in
the matter of the "leaping Sun" and the "skyey bridge,")--_exactly as
Moses does_ in the first chapter of Genesis! What else does that great
Prophet say but that "the Moon occupies a position in the visible
heavens only second to the Sun, and far beyond that of every other
celestial body in conspicuousness?" (p. 212.)
Enough, it is presumed, has been offered in reply to Mr. Goodwin, and
his notions of "Mosaic Cosmogony." He writes with the flippancy of a
youth in his teens, who having just mastered the elements of natural
science, is impatient to acquaint the world with his achievement. His
powers of dogmatism are unbounded; but he betrays his ignorance at every
step. The Divine decree, "Let us make Man in Our image, after Our
likeness[125]," he explains by remarking that "the Pentateuch abounds in
passages shewing that the Hebrews contemplated the Divine being in the
visible form of a man." (!!!) (p. 221.) A foot-note contains the
following oracular dictum,--"See particularly the narrative in Genesis
xviii." What _can_ be said to such an ignoramus as this? Hear him
dogmatizing in another subject-matter:--"The common arrangement of the
Bible in chapters is of comparatively modern origin, and is admitted on
all hands to have no authority or philological worth whatever. In many
cases the division is most preposterous." (p. 222.) That the division of
chapters is occasionally infelicitous, is true: but is Mr. Goodwin weak
enough to think that he could divide them better? The division into
chapters and verses again is _not_ so modern as Mr. Goodwin fancies. Dr.
M'Caul, (in a pamphlet on the Translation of the Bible,) shews reason
for suspecting that some of the divisions of the Old Testament
Scriptures are as old as the time of Ezra.