The Mosaic History of the Creation of the World
by Thomas Wood · English · Gutenberg #44636 · 1,303,162 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Mosaic History of the Creation of the World
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Mosaic History of the Creation of the World
Author: Thomas Wood
Editor: John P. Durbin
Release date: January 11, 2014 [eBook #44636]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44636
Credits: Produced by David Garcia, Richard Hulse and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Kentuckiana Digital Library)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MOSAIC HISTORY OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD ***
THE
MOSAIC HISTORY
OF THE
CREATION OF THE WORLD;
ILLUSTRATED BY DISCOVERIES AND EXPERIMENTS DERIVED FROM THE PRESENT
ENLIGHTENED STATE OF SCIENCE; WITH REFLECTIONS, INTENDED TO PROMOTE
VITAL AND PRACTICAL RELIGION.
BY THOMAS WOOD, A. M.
REVISED AND IMPROVED
BY THE REV. J. P. DURBIN, A. M.
PROFESSOR OF LANGUAGES, AUGUSTA COLLEGE, KENTUCKY.
“Every man has a particular train of thought into which his mind falls,
when at leisure, from the impressions and ideas which occasionally
excite it; and if one train of thinking be more desirable than another,
it is surely that which regards the phenomena of nature with a constant
reference to a supreme intelligent author.”--_Bacon._
FIRST AMERICAN, FROM THE SECOND LONDON EDITION.
NEW-YORK.--M^{C}ELRATH & BANGS.
1831.
[_Entered, according to the Act of Congress, July 27, in the year 1831,
by M^{c}Elrath & Bangs, in the Office of the Clerk of the Southern
District of New-York._]
JOHN T. WEST & CO., PRINTERS.
PREFACE
TO THE SECOND LONDON EDITION.
As God made man with a capacity susceptible of knowledge, so has he
furnished him with the means of acquiring it. The Divine Being is
incomprehensible to all but himself: for a finite capacity can never
fully grasp an infinite object. Neither can he be perceived at all,
only so far as he is pleased to reveal himself. He has given us a
revelation of his nature, perfections, and will; which could never have
been discovered by reasoning and conjecture. He has also favored us
with a revelation of his works, without which the origin, constitution,
and nature of the universe, could never have been adequately known. The
origin, duty, and interest of man, are matters in which we are greatly
concerned. How valuable then are the Sacred Scriptures!
The heathen world by wisdom knew not God. On theological subjects,
the greatest Philosophers and Poets of whom antiquity could boast,
were puerile in their opinions, and absurd and contradictory in their
literary productions. Their progress in many of the sciences, and
the polite arts, was considerable; but in religion they made none:
not because they neglected to investigate the nature of it, as one
observes; for there was not a subject they thought on, nor discoursed
about, more than the nature and existence of the gods; neither was
it for want of natural abilities, nor of learning; for persons who
formed the brightest constellation of geniuses that ever illuminated
the republic of letters, were devoted to the investigation of the
principles and causes of things. Moses, the sacred historian, had
access to the Fountain of knowledge, and has revealed the mystery
that lay hid for ages, because he was taught it by the inspiration of
the Almighty. By the Hebrew Lawgiver we are instructed concerning the
Creation of the World; an illustration of whose account is attempted in
the following pages.
The attention of the reader is called to that era when the elementary
principles of matter were first produced, and the formation of
creatures took place; when vitality was given to a vast variety of
animals, and mind was infused into Man as the peculiar offspring of
God: when motion was impressed on the universe, and the various Planets
began their orbicular revolutions: when Time commenced, and
“History, not wanted yet,
Lean’d on her elbow watching Time, whose course
Eventful should supply her with a theme.”
What a stupendous fabric is Creation! a marvellous display of
omnipotence! It is infinitely diversified, and magnificently grand. Ten
thousand objects strike the attentive eye, and afford inexpressible
delight to a contemplative mind. The blue ethereal arch is highly
illuminated, and richly adorned with sparkling globes of light--whose
number, distances, magnitudes, motions, and influences, elude the most
diligent research: these millions of suns, the glory of other worlds,
are equally the works of the Creator, and, with rays of dazzling
splendor, irradiate the peculiar systems to which they belong: and,
while they celebrate his wisdom and power, form a brilliant canopy
over our heads. That golden globe of light, which is the center of
our planetary system, shines forth in his glory, and spreads abroad
the lucid day: he does not only emit his cheering rays to surrounding
orbs, some of which revolve at immense distances, but, in running his
prescribed course, measures out our time, renders our hours joyful, and
without whose reviving beams we should dwell in perpetual darkness. The
pale silver Moon gilds the shadows of the evening, and directs the feet
of the benighted and lonely traveller in safety to his abode.
In the lower walks of Nature, we perceive numerous assemblages of
creatures, which, calling forth the exercise of our understanding,
raise our admiration. The vapors arise, unite in the aerial regions,
and descend in rain, snow, or hail, according to the different
temperature of the climates; and thus the valleys are watered, the
green carpet is spread under our feet, delightfully adorned with
fruitful trees and variegated flowers. The vast collections of water,
called seas, are stored with innumerable finny inhabitants, both small
and great, which are amply supplied with necessary food. On earth,
there are the wild beasts of the forest, the roaming cattle of the
desert, the domestic animals of the field, the feathered tribes with
their glossy plumage and delightful notes, beside an incredible number
of living creatures that escape the utmost vigilance of the unassisted
eye: which are all effects of infinite skill, omnipotent energy, Divine
munificence, and conspire to utter his praise. The sultry regions are
fanned with cooling breezes, which revive the numerous classes of
creatures, and without which they would otherwise faint. But of all
the visible effects of omnific power and uncreated goodness, Man has a
claim to the first rank, for in his composition are mysteriously joined
both matter and spirit.
How wonderfully has God displayed his wisdom, power, and goodness, in
the creation of the Universe! What are the most labored and diversified
works of Art, when compared with the majestic grandeur and sublimity
of those of Nature! The things on which the fertile imagination of man
has long been employed, when considered in a detached point of view,
gratify our curiosity, raise our admiration, and gain our applause;
but when compared with the productions of the Divine Hand, they sink
and are deprived of their lustre, like the sparkling glow-worm in the
copse, when the Sun shines forth with the refulgence of his meridian
splendor.
Religious instruction is here mixed with philosophical discoveries. The
works of Nature conduct an enlightened mind to the great Creator. The
celebrated Dr. Watts, with this point in view, says,
“Part of thy name divinely stands,
On all thy creatures writ,
They show the labor of thy hands,
Or impress of thy feet.”
Mr. Adams, in his Lectures, says, “The two kingdoms of nature and
grace, as two parallel lines, correspond to each other, follow a like
course, but can never be made to touch. An adequate understanding
of this distinction in all its branches, would be the consummation
of knowledge.” Stephens, in his Human Nature Delineated, says, “The
man who would seek after knowledge in this world, and happiness in
the world of spirits, I would advise to pursue his studies without
any other guides than the Word and the Works of God.” And Dr. A.
Clarke, on John iv, 3, affirms, that, “properly understood, earthly
_substances_ are the types, representatives, and shadows of heavenly
things.” St. Paul appears to inculcate this idea where he says, “Now
we see as through a glass, darkly: but then face to face.” The word
αινιγματι, rendered _darkly_, is peculiarly important, and the right
knowledge of which will assist us to understand his meaning. Parkhurst
gives the following definition of the _term_ and the _thing_. “Αινιγμα
from ηνιγμαι, the _perfect passive_, of αινιττω, to _hint, intimate,
signify with some degree of obscurity_; an _enigma_, in which one thing
_answers_ or stands in _correspondence to_, or as the _representative_
of another; which is, in _some respects, similar_ to it, occurs 1 Cor.
xiii, 12. _Now_, in this life, _we see by means of a mirror_ reflecting
the images of heavenly and spiritual things, εν αινιγματι, _in an
enigmatical manner_, invisible things being represented by visible;
spiritual, by natural; eternal, by temporal; _but then_, in the eternal
world, _face to face_; every thing being seen in itself, and not by
means of a representative or similitude.”
The idea thus suggested, induced the author to engage in the following
work: he thought that if the Mosaic account of the Creation were given
in detail, each day apart, using the aid afforded by the present
enlightened state of science, and directing the reader to look
“Through Nature, up to Nature’s God.”
the work would be instructive, and might tend to cultivate the mind
and amend the heart. And he is happy that he has it in his power to
say, that the plan has obtained not only the general approbation of
orthodox and pious Christians, but the warm encomiums of many Ministers
of the Gospel, both of the Establishment and among the Dissenters. He
has received very flattering Epistolary Communications from persons of
piety, literature, and science.
The author has availed himself of various sources of information: some
of the best works published on different illustrative subjects have
been consulted: and those on Natural History and Chemical Science
were found of considerable service. That part which treats on the
Anatomical structure of Man, the reader will perceive is written
by a gentleman deeply versed in Physiological science. It is from
the pen of the late Benjamin Gibson, Esq. who filled the important
situations of _Vice-President of the Literary and Philosophical Society
of Manchester, and Surgeon to the Infirmary of that town_: and who,
unexpectedly, and in the most obliging manner, offered to prepare a
Manuscript for this work, which gives it a peculiar excellence it
otherwise would not have had.
The favorable reception which the former large edition has met with
from the public, and the consequent demand there was upon the author to
prepare a new one, produced a considerable excitement in his mind; and,
under these circumstances, it was not less his wish, than it has been
his endeavor, to make the second edition more worthy to meet the public
eye, as well as more extensively useful. The _whole_ of the work, with
the exception of that part by Mr. Gibson, therefore, has been written
anew, and such important additions and arrangements made, as will, he
trusts, meet the approbation of his readers. He has received assistance
from a writer of eminence, whose name, were he at liberty to mention
it, would do honor to his work, and whose corrections have increased
its value. The Religious Improvements he believes to be natural and
scriptural, and hopes they may be read with advantage by all Christians
who have received the truth as it is in Christ. He can say, that he
has endeavored to make the whole work both instructive and useful, so
far as his leisure from arduous ministerial duties would allow him: by
directing the attention of the reader to God, through the medium of
his visible works, and by that means to inculcate true religion and
genuine piety. May the Divine blessing render this additional effort
successful!
PREFACE
TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
This work, which is now presented to the public, has not been reprinted
in America heretofore, notwithstanding it passed through _two_ editions
in England, with honorable approbation, in a short space of time. This
first American edition, it is confidently believed, will be received
with approbation; because the work will be found, on perusal, to answer
to its title; and surely no subject can interest the Christian and
intelligent reader more deeply, than the _illustration of the creation
of the world, as recorded by Moses, the servant of God_.
This volume inspires a deeper interest when the reader is promised that
the illustration of this splendid subject shall be _by means of the
discoveries drawn from the present enlightened state of science_. Thus
the reader will see clearly confirmed this glorious truth: _Religion
and Literature are mutual helpmates to the knowledge, love, and glory
of God._
This important truth has been strangely obscured for several ages; but
is now emerging to light with increased splendor. Nor is it important
to inquire, at this stage of mental improvement throughout the
civilized world, the cause of its obscuration, but rather to rejoice,
that it is now assuming its place as a fundamental principle in sound
philosophy. It is the duty of every benevolent individual to contribute
according to his ability, to an inseparable union of sound literature
and vital religion. The one will secure the interests and success of
the other, and both combined, the glory of God.
Our author, in this respect, has been very happily successful. He has,
generally, illustrated the various parts of the Mosaic Creation, with
perspicuity and precision, and then applied the whole to the production
and support of vital piety in the heart of the reader. So that while
the astonishing magnificence, glory, and wisdom of creation, fills the
contemplative mind with admiration, the heart also is fired with an
ardent and rational devotion.
The character of this volume is, therefore, neither _purely_
scientific, nor _purely_ devotional; but both wisely and happily
combined, under the high and direct sanction of revelation.
It will be apparent to every person, by a mere glance at the size
of the volume, that it is not intended to contain all the _minutiæ_
connected with the Mosaic Creation, but the principal, and most
important facts, so as to make the work suitable to the great mass of
intelligent and thoughtful readers. This object it will be found to
have well accomplished.
The _improvements_, which are mentioned in the title-page, have been
added to the American edition, with design to adapt the work more
nearly to the wants of the American public. They are found incorporated
in the body of the volume, in smaller type, and enclosed in brackets;
which was judged to be the best method.
These additional papers are written at some length, principally on
topics which have become more prominent since our author finished his
work, and which are now exciting intense interest in this country. They
are, therefore, considered to be real and interesting improvements to
the American edition.
Finally, the author of these additional papers, would respectfully
commend this American edition of the Mosaic Creation, illustrated by
means of the present enlightened state of science, _to the friends of_
LITERATURE AND RELIGION COMBINED _for the instruction and salvation of
mankind, and for the glory of God_.
J. P. DURBIN.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
ON THE CREATOR OF THE WORLD.
Distinguished by his name _Jehovah_ -- His essence and
self-existence expressed by the words I AM --His attribute
of goodness the glory of all his other perfections -- Elohim
signifying a Trinity of Persons in a Unity of Essence -- The
Creation ascribed to one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit -- The first production of matter -- The creatures made
for the manifesting of God’s attributes, that he might impart
happiness to them. p. 13-40.
CHAPTER II.
FIRST DAY.
_Section_ I.--CHAOS.
Inquiry into the origin of things natural to man --
Character of Moses as a sacred historian important --
Explanation of the term Created -- Chaotic state of the
elementary principles of matter -- Influence of the Spirit
of God upon the chaotic mass -- Opinions of the ancients --
Similitude between the first and second creation -- Agency
of the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration asserted and
proved. p. 41-51.
_Section_ II.--FIRE.
Omnific word -- Moving principles in Nature -- Criticism on
the original word איר _aur_ -- Creation of Fire -- Its nature
-- Friction exciting the action of fire -- Fire attracted by
bodies -- Fire conducted -- Fire in a state of combination --
Fire elastic -- Expansive force of fire -- Subterraneous fires
-- Earthquakes and volcanic Eruptions -- Air a storehouse of
fire -- General and final dissolution of nature by fire --
Fire a symbol of the Deity, in his gracious presence, vital
influence, transforming energy, and destructive operation. p.
51-74.
_Section_ III.--LIGHT.
Motion of luminous and fiery particles the first cause
of light -- Light the most simple body -- Velocity of light
-- Light diffusive -- Light the medium through which objects
become visible -- Light beautiful, or its rays of different
colors -- Light a visible resemblance of its Divine Author,
in his spirituality, simplicity, purity, energy, goodness,
manifestation, glory. p. 75-89.
_Section_ IV.--DAY AND NIGHT.
Original terms of Day and Night -- Motion the effect of
a Divine power -- Commencement of Time -- Utility of Day and
Night -- Religious Improvement of Time -- Sin moral Darkness --
The Gospel a Light to dispel it -- A Christian the subject of
a transition from the one state to the other. p. 89-95.
CHAPTER III.
SECOND DAY.
ON THE ATMOSPHERE.
Composition of Atmospheric Air -- Atmosphere divided
into three regions -- Air a fluid -- Its compressibility
and elasticity -- Weight and pressure -- Equilibrium --
Transparency -- Wind -- Causes of Wind -- Variety of Winds
-- Velocity of Winds -- Destructive Winds -- Wind under the
control of God -- Wind a similitude of the Holy Spirit’s
operations. p. 95-114.
CHAPTER IV.
THIRD DAY.
_Section_ I.--THE SEA.
Water and Land separated -- Formation of the Sea -- Its
restrictions -- Extent -- Depth -- Composition -- Saltiness
-- Motion -- Tides -- Four states of water -- Circulation --
Religious Improvement. p. 114-135.
_Section_ II.--THE EARTH.
Surface of the Earth -- Mountains -- Fertility of Plants --
Dissemination of seeds -- Preservation of Plants -- Adaptation
to different Climates -- Number of Vegetables -- Succession of
Vegetables -- Remarkable Trees -- Sensitive Plants -- Kitchen
Vegetables -- Garden Flowers -- Religious Improvement.
p. 136-165.
_Section_ III.--MINERALS.
Gold -- Silver -- Platina -- Mercury -- Copper -- Iron
-- Tin -- Lead --Nickel -- Zinc -- Palladium -- Bismuth --
Antimony -- Tellurium --Arsenic -- Cobalt -- Manganese --
Tungsten -- Molybdenum --Uranium -- Titanium -- Chromium --
Columbium or Tantalium -- Cerium -- Oxmium -- Rodium -- Iridium
-- Religious Improvement. p. 165-183.
CHAPTER V.
FOURTH DAY.
_Section_ I.--THE SUN.
Signs -- Names -- Nature -- Motions -- Form -- Magnitude --
Distance -- Suspension -- Idolatrous worship of the Sun -- The
Sun an emblem of Christ. p. 183-198.
_Section_ II.--THE MOON.
Names -- Dimensions -- Motions -- Seasons -- Phases --
Harvest Moon -- Moon’s Surface -- Aerial Stones -- Eclipses --
Moonlight -- Epithets -- Religious Improvement. p. 198-214.
_Section_ III.--THE SEASONS.
Seasons: Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter -- Displaying
Divine Power, Wisdom, Goodness, Faithfulness -- Religious
Improvement. p. 214-223.
_Section_ IV.--THE PLANETS AND FIXED STARS.
Mercury -- Venus -- The Earth -- Mars -- Ceres -- Pallas --
Juno --Vesta -- Jupiter -- Saturn -- Georgium Sidus -- Comets
-- Fixed Stars -- Religious Improvement. p. 223-278.
CHAPTER VI.
FIFTH DAY.
_Section_ I.--FISHES.
Of Fishes in general -- The Cetaceous kind -- Cartilaginous
-- Spinous -- Crustaceous -- and Testaceous -- Animalcules --
Religious Improvement. p. 279-296.
_Section_ II.--ON FOWLS.
Number of Species -- Superiority and peculiar construction
-- Skill in building their Nests -- Power and Season of
Propagation -- Dexterity in providing Food -- Instinct --
Migrations -- Insects -- Religious Improvement. p. 296-317.
CHAPTER VII.
SIXTH DAY.
_Section_ I.--ON QUADRUPEDS AND REPTILES.
Quadrupeds in general -- Motion -- Habits -- Rumination --
Proportion -- Tastes -- Clothing -- Weapons -- Proportionate
Number -- Faculties -- Reptiles -- Religious Improvement.
p. 318-344.
_Section_ II.--MAN.
_Body_: -- Its Creator -- Formation -- Vitality -- Blood
-- Heart -- Arteries and Veins -- Digestion -- Respiration --
Glands -- Absorbents -- Nervous System -- Organs of Sense --
Bones -- Sinovia -- Muscles -- Tendons -- Cellular Membrane --
Skin. _Soul_: Its Immateriality -- Freedom -- Immortality --
Moral Image -- Adam’s dominion over the Creatures -- Woman --
Paradise. p. 344-398.
CHAPTER VIII.
SEVENTH DAY.
ON THE SABBATH.
Sabbath instituted -- Blessed and sanctified -- Given to
Adam as a General Precept for his Posterity -- Renewed before
and at the giving of the Law -- A sign between God and his
people -- Worldly Business prohibited -- Works of Necessity
and Mercy excepted --Advantages resulting from observing it
-- A Seventh Day regarded by the Heathens -- The Sabbath of
universal and perpetual obligation -- The Lord’s Day.
p. 399-410.
THE
MOSAIC HISTORY, &c.
CHAPTER I.
ON THE CREATOR OF THE WORLD.
Distinguished by his name JEHOVAH -- His essence and
self-existence expressed by the words I AM -- His attribute
of goodness the glory of all his other perfections -- Elohim
signifying a Trinity of Persons in a Unity of Essence -- The
Creation ascribed to one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit -- The first production of matter -- The creatures made
for the manifesting of God’s attributes, and that he might
impart happiness to them.
As it is proposed, in the following pages to give the Mosaic account
of the creation of the world, it is very natural that the mind should
come to the meditation of this interesting subject, by contemplating
the character of the Great Creator, according to his own revelations.
It is evident that God made himself gradually known, as the state and
condition of mankind required. In the earlier ages of the world, while
revelation was but dawning on the human race, he was but little known,
in comparison of the subsequent diffusion of his glory and perfections.
When he, according to his promise, came to deliver the children of
Israel out of Egypt, he revealed himself to them by his name JEHOVAH.
He had before declared himself by this name to Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob; but not as it imports the performance of his promises; in
which sense, their posterity afterwards, in the time of Moses, well
understood it.
Of all the names which the Divine Being has been pleased to designate
himself by, that of JEHOVAH is the greatest. It comes from a root
which imports his eternity, independency, efficacy, and truth. In the
Hebrew it is written with four letters, י _yod_, ה _he_, ו _vau_,
ה _he_, thus יהוה i.e. JHVH:[1] the points used in that language,
make our English word consist of seven letters, J_e_H_o_V_a_H. God
himself gives the interpretation of this name. “And the Lord passed
by before him, and proclaimed יהוה YEHOVAH, the LORD GOD, merciful
and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression,
and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.” These different
names have been considered as so many attributes of the Divine
Nature. Commentators divide them into eleven, thus: 1. יהוה JEHOVAH.
2. אל EL, the strong or mighty God. 3. רחום RACHUM, the merciful
Being, who is full of tenderness and compassion. 4. חנין CHANUN, the
gracious One: He, whose nature is goodness itself--the loving God.
5. ארך פיםא EREC APAYIM, long-suffering, the Being who, because of
his goodness and tenderness, is not easily irritated, but suffers
long and is kind. 6. רב RAB, the great or mighty One. 7. חסד CHESED,
the bountiful Being: He who is exuberant in his beneficence. 8. אמת
EMETH, the Truth, or true One: He alone who can neither deceive nor
be deceived--who is the Fountain of truth, and from whom all wisdom
and knowledge must be derived. 9. חסד נצר NOTSER CHESED the preserver
of bountifulness: He whose beneficence never ends, keeping mercy for
thousands of generations--showing compassion and mercy while the
world endures. 10. נשא עון ופשע וחטאה NOSE _âvon vapeshâ vechataah_:
He who bears away iniquity and transgression and sin; properly the
REDEEMER, the Pardoner, the Forgiver, the Being whose prerogative
alone it is to forgive sin, and save the soul. נקה (לו) לא ינקה NAKEH
_lo yinnakeh_, the righteous Judge, who distributes justice with an
impartial hand; with whom no innocent person can ever be condemned. 11.
And פקד עון PAKED _âvon_, &c. He who visits iniquity; he who punishes
transgressors, and from whose justice no sinner can escape. The God of
retributive and vindictive justice. These eleven attributes, as they
have been termed, are all included in the name _Jehovah_; and are the
proper interpretation of it.[2]
The Jews had a superstitious respect for this name; and, after the
Babylonian captivity, discontinued the use of it, which caused
them soon to forget its true pronunciation. They called it the
_Tetragrammaton_, or four-lettered name of God, which, to the present
day, the Jews will neither write nor pronounce. They deemed it to be
ineffable; and therefore when it occurred in reading the Scriptures;
substituted אדני _Adonai_.
The Jews tell us that the woman’s son, mentioned in Lev. xxxiv, 11, was
accused of blasphemy and stoned to death, because he pronounced the
name _Jehovah_. But I conceive, that he had spoken contemptuously of
God. We read, verse 10, that he and a man of Israel strove together,
and it is probable that the Israelite, in the heat of contention, would
deny his being a member of the church of God, because he was the son of
an Egyptian father who was an idolater; whereupon, no doubt, the son
of the Israelitish woman spoke scornfully and opprobriously of the God
of Israel, despising the privilege of being one of his people. This, I
imagine, was the blasphemy of which he was accused, and for which he
was condemned and stoned to death; and not for pronouncing the name of
_Jehovah_ only.
The Seventy who translated the Old Testament into Greek, at the desire
of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, about the 124th Olympiad, were
also very sparing in the use of this name _Jehovah_; and therefore did
not render it according to the sacred import of the Hebrew, but changed
it into the word Κυριος, _Lord_, which is of the same signification
with _Adonai_ in the Hebrew. Origen, Jerome, and Eusebius, testify,
that, in their time, the Jews left the name _Jehovah_ written in their
copies with Samaritan characters, instead of the common Chaldee or
Hebrew characters. And those divines, who at the command of King James
translated the Scriptures anew into English, have very rarely used the
word _Jehovah_, but rendered it _Lord_. Yet we may observe, that when
this word _Lord_ is substituted for _Jehovah_, it is printed in large
Roman letters. It is to be wished, that the name _Jehovah_ had been
preserved in the English translation of the Scriptures, and especially
in those passages whose sense entirely depends on the meaning of the
word.
After the appointment of Moses, by Jehovah, to deliver the children of
Israel from the tyranny and oppression under which they groaned, and
to conduct them from Egypt to worship God at Horeb, he was anxious to
obtain a particular revelation of the Divine nature and attributes,
that he might be able to regulate, direct, and superintend their
worship; and this he deemed necessary on account of the Israelites
having been long conversant among the Egyptians, who were idolaters
and polytheists, and called their gods by a variety of names. Hereupon
he said to God, “Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and
shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you;
and they shall say unto me, What is his name? what shall I say unto
them?” Intimating, that it was expedient God should call himself by
an appropriate name, to distinguish himself from all the gods of the
heathen. For men did not, at this time, as Dr. Shuckford observes,
know the works of creation well enough to demonstrate from them the
attributes of God; nor could they, by speculation, form proper and
just notions of his nature. Though he had revealed himself to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, by the name אני אל שדי _Ani El shaday_, “I am God
all-sufficient,” and likewise that of יהוה _Jehovah_; yet a further
knowledge of him was sincerely desired and earnestly requested.[3]
Whereupon, says God to Moses, I AM _that_ I AM, אהיה אשר אהיה EHEYEH
_asher_ EHEYEH. The Vulgate translates these words--EGO SUM QUI SUM,
_I am who am_. The Septuagint--Εγω ειμι ὁ Ων, _I am he who exists_.
The Arabic paraphrases them--_The Eternal, who passes not away_. Not
_I was_, but I AM and WILL BE: a name that expresses his own essence,
and signifies independency, immutability, and necessary existence. As
if he had said, You may inquire who I am, and by what name I would
be distinguished: know then that I AM HE who has being from himself,
and has no dependence on any other.[4] This contains in it the whole
plenitude and possibility of being, all that is, or can be, or, as the
Apostle expresses it, παν το πληρωμα της Θεοτητος “all the fulness of
the Godhead.” By this name he is distinguished not only from all false
gods, but from all other beings whatsoever; implying, that he exists
after some very eminent and peculiar manner, and that nothing else
besides him truly and essentially is.[5]
The self-existence of God proves that he always was, and evidently
shows that he cannot cease to be. “He is, and was, and is to come.” His
necessary existence comprehends a duration which has neither beginning,
succession, nor end. He can have no succession in his duration, because
wherever this is there must be priority, and wherever there is a
priority there must be a beginning. He is in the complete possession
of an endless life, all at once. He exists in one eternal _now_. He
is unchangeable in his essence or manner of existence, so that no
perfection can be added to him, nor any excellency taken from him, but
he remains invariably the same.
All natural perfections are essential to him as an infinite being, such
as eternity, omnipotence, immensity, omniscience, spirituality, and
immutability; and all moral perfections belong to him as a good Being,
such as wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, faithfulness.
These latter are communicable, because there are some rays of them
in his creatures, but none of them in that transcendent degree that
are in him, nor ever can be. The former we call his _natural_ and
_incommunicable_ perfections, for the sake of distinction; though it is
certain the latter are equally as natural to him, and incommunicable,
in that infinite degree possessed by himself.
God being unchangeable in his essence, must also be so in all his
perfections, because they are no other than his essence, and are not
distinguished in him, either from his essence, or from one another;
but are one and the same Being, revealed and manifested to us, under
various notions, which we call _attributes_, to help us the better to
conceive of him, who are not able to apprehend what may be known of
him, under any one name, or by any one act of our understanding.
The combination of all his perfections renders him a glorious Being;
and that fixed and invariable state of contentment and satisfaction,
complacency and delight, which result from the secure possession and
enjoyment of all that is good and desirable, or, in other words, of
all possible excellencies and perfections in the highest degree,
constitutes him infinitely blessed.
Moses was favored with another remarkable and interesting manifestation
of the Divine Being; for perceiving God’s merciful condescension in
answer to his prayers offered up for his people, he persevered in the
holy exercise, and even asked him for a manifestation of his glory:
“Show me,” said he, “I beseech thee, thy glory,” or, according to the
original, “make me see it.” He could not mean an open view of the
unclouded majesty of God, but only such a display of the Divine glory
as a mortal is capable of beholding. God answered, “I will make all
my _goodness_ to pass before thee:” intimating, that his _goodness_
is his glory, and that he could not bear the infinite splendor of his
holiness and justice. _Goodness_ is the true and genuine character of
God, and the glory of all his other perfections, and by it they are
all rendered engaging. Without this they would be terrible: for wisdom
without goodness degenerates into insidious cunning; and power without
it is the character of a tyrant. Were God destitute of this amiable
perfection, he would have such a defect in his nature, as infinite
perfection itself, in every other attribute, could not sufficiently
compensate.
All nations have acknowledged this perfection of the Divine Being.
Plato calls him the ιδεα του αγαθου, the idea or essence of goodness.
In the three principles of the Platonic Trinity--το αγαθον _goodness_,
νους _intelligence_, and ψυχη _vitality_.--The first place is assigned
to the το αγαθον _goodness_, which the Platonists conceive to be like
an immense and most pure light, continually diffusing and communicating
its invigorating beams. To this the Platonist Boctius alludes, in that
celebrated description of God, where he calls him _Fons Boni Lucidus_,
the lucid fountain of goodness.--There is an ancient cabalistical
table, supposed to be borrowed from the Pythagoreans, which represents,
in a visible scheme, the order of the Divine perfections: wherein it is
observable that _goodness_ presides over, and gives laws and measures
to all the other attributes of God.
Philo says, God is the name of _goodness_; and our English word, adds
a late author, seems to be a contraction of the word _good_; or,
however, is the same with the German _Got_, or _Godt_, which came, as
is thought, from the Arabic word _Gada_, of the same signification. So
that the German and the English name of the Supreme Being, in common
use, is taken from the attribute of his _goodness_. “The word itself
is pure Anglo-saxon,” says Dr. Adam Clarke, “and, among our ancestors,
signified not only the Divine Being, now commonly designated by the
word, but also _good_; as in their apprehension it appears, that _God_
and _Good_ were correlative terms; and when they thought or spoke of
him, they were ever led from the word itself to consider him as THE
GOOD BEING a fountain of infinite benevolence and beneficence towards
his creatures.” The word GOD, expressed in the old Saxon, is _bona
res_, a good thing.
That God is _good_, is the constant language of Divine revelation;
for this attribute is every where celebrated, both in the Old and
New Testament. It may be distinguished as _natural_, _moral_, and
_communicative_. The first of these is the absolute perfection of his
nature, which is goodness itself in its very essence. He is originally
good, and that of himself; which is a property peculiar to no other
creature, for all the goodness of the creature is derived from God. He
is infinitely and therefore incomprehensively good to men and angels;
hence his goodness knows no limits. We read of the “riches of his
goodness,” which are as “unsearchable,” as is his “greatness.” He is
immutably good, for “the goodness of God endureth continually.” And as
his dependence on no one admits not of his being changed by others,
so neither does his immutability admit of it by himself; for if he
alter for the better he was not God before, and if for the worse, he
then would not be God. Thus he is essentially, originally, infinitely,
incomprehensibly, and unchangeably good.
The _moral_ goodness of God is his perfect purity or holiness;
therefore his goodness and holiness are united--“good and upright is
the Lord.” According to any rational opinion we can form of him, he
is a Being possessed, not only of every natural power and perfection,
but of every moral excellence. The holiness of his nature removes
him to the greatest possible distance from all moral evil, and makes
him necessarily approve of moral good. All his designs are pure and
upright, and worthy of himself: he always acts according to the perfect
rectitude of his own nature. Though he is not under the direction of
any superior, yet his own rectitude always determines him to pursue
what is right to be done towards his creatures. This property of
the Divine Being greatly heightens our idea of his excellence, and
naturally points him out as the Governor of mankind. And as he adheres
to it in his own conduct and administration, and likewise approves and
loves it in his rational creatures, whom he governs; so he disapproves
and hates the reverse in them, and will most certainly animadvert
upon the temper and behavior of those who act contrary to his divine
admonitions, and make them most sensibly feel the effects of their
wickedness.
The _communicative_, or relative goodness of God, or his goodness to
his creatures, is his inclination or self-propension to deal well and
bountifully with them. As the notion of God includes goodness, so
the idea of goodness implies holy diffusiveness. Therefore, says the
Psalmist, “Thou art good, and doest good.” All that we are, have, or
hope for, that is good, proceeds from God as its fountain; hence he is
called, “the fountain of living waters.” This communicative goodness
implies, that, from his all-sufficiency, he is ready to impart to
his creatures whatever their necessities require. This attribute is
universal: “he is good to all” his creatures from the highest angel
to the meanest reptile; especially, to his people, “Truly,” says the
Psalmist, “God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean
heart.” But, though God is good to all his creatures, yet he is not
equally so in the same kind and degree of blessings. His munificence is
regulated by his wisdom, and the different capacities with which he has
formed his creatures makes this inequality necessary.
[There is one vast and awful question which must occur to
every reflecting mind--_What is God?_
As it regards his _Nature_, the Scriptures say, He is a
_Spirit_. We must therefore, conceive the Creator to be, a
_Living_, _Rational_, _Benevolent_, and _Spiritual_ ESSENCE;
absolutely, necessarily, and naturally _perfect_, and,
therefore, _immaterial_, _uncompounded_, _indivisible_, and
_eternal_.
It is necessarily understood that this essence is
_peculiar_: that there is nothing in its nature which has
any resemblance to _created_ substances, whether material
or spiritual; and that it is _underived_, and consequently,
_independent_.
This Divine Essence being immaterial, impalpable, simple
and indivisible, cannot have _body_ or _parts_: nor can it be
said to be a _whole_, for this would imply an _aggregation_ of
parts: but is itself a perfect, absolute, single, and eternal
INDIVIDUALITY, incapable of self-multiplication, or increase;
or of diminishing itself, or endangering its existence.
This essence is a _living_ essence; and, therefore, has
inherently the power and principles of _action_: It is a
_rational_ essence, and therefore, must act according to
the eternal principles of _reason_ and _right_: It is a
_benevolent_ essence, and therefore, all its actions must
be infinitely _good_ and _kind_. Absolute _perfection_,
_infinitude_, and _sovereignty_ in all these respects,
constitute the Being we call God.
As God is a single, indivisible, independent, and eternal
UNIT, we cannot ascribe _different_ perfections, or attributes
to him, so as to suppose one attribute _separate from, and
independent of_ another, capable of acting _per se_, or
participating _conjunctively_ with other attributes _as an
integer_. Nor can we suppose this eternal, and independent Unit
to act by being _operated upon_ in any degree, by other agents,
nor can he operate on himself. All his actions, therefore,
spring from himself, and are performed _without excitement,
effort, means, or previous ratiocination_.
It will follow from the preceding reasoning, that every
action of the Divine Being, in regard to himself, is precisely
the same in _nature_: so that we cannot say of one act it is
an effort of his _power_ to the _exclusion_ of his wisdom: nor
of his wisdom to the exclusion of his goodness: nor of his
goodness to the exclusion of his holiness: and so of the rest.
Strictly speaking we cannot say the power _of_ God; the wisdom
_of_ God; the goodness _of_ God, &c.; because the power of God
_is_ God; the wisdom of God _is_ God; the goodness of God _is_
God.
In contemplating this awful subject _abstractly_, we should
say there are no such things as _attributes_ in the Divine
Being, _as they are commonly understood_. What we call his
attributes, are only different modes of the operations of the
same eternal, undivided, and independent Unit. Indeed, God is
one entire perfection which exerts itself in different ways and
actions.
But as we cannot comprehend this single entire perfection;
nor understand _how_ it exerts the whole of itself, as a single
indivisible agent, _in each particular act_, as it really
does, mankind have always been in the habit of assisting their
contemplations by regarding the _nature_ of the acts of this
single, indivisible, and eternal agent, and thus _infering_
the nature of the Divine Being. And as these acts appear
to differ in _quality_, we infer a quality in the agent,
corresponding with the quality of the actions which we see: we
call this quality by a _name_, and _thus derive the doctrine of
attributes_.
For example: When we see this single, indivisible agent
manifesting himself in such a manner as to give us the idea
of _unlimited power_, we ascribe _omnipotence_ to him, as an
attribute. When we see a manifestation indicating _infinite
wisdom_, we ascribe _omniscience_ to him as an attribute.
In the same manner in reference to the manifestations
which indicate justice, goodness, mercy, truth, holiness,
faithfulness, righteousness, kindness, &c, all of which we
ascribe to him upon such indications.
Although _this rationale_, in contemplating the Divine
Being, is necessary to _creatures_, yet it is calculated to
lead the mind into error. We am insensibly inclined to ascribe
the divine actions to those attributes _exclusively_ which
we suppose they indicate. This, probably, has been the most
fatal error of mankind, and, doubtless, laid the foundation
of darkness and idolatry. We must never conceive that any act
of the Divine Being proceeds from _one_ or more attributes to
the _exclusion_ of others; or that one attribute participates
_more_ in one act than another. This is the fatal mistake.
Hence theologians have become blind and foolish, bewildering
the multitude by building up theories on the consideration of
a single attribute; thus making the Divine Being to consist
of parts, and these parts independent too. Instances of this
awful mistake might be given, but it scarcely comes within the
design of this paper. It is sufficient to say; if we conceive
correctly of the divine acts, _we will ascribe each equally to
all the Divine Attributes_.
As we conceive this single, indivisible, underived,
independent, and eternal agent, or perfection to be absolutely
infinite, and illimitable in all possible ways, or manner, of
exerting Himself, we, of course, conceive all the qualities,
indicated by the divine acts, which we call attributes, to be
absolutely infinite, perfect, and eternal: and thus we derive
the doctrine of the absolute perfection, and infinitude of all,
and each of the Divine Attributes.
From the foregoing reflections, the reader will readily
conceive of the Divine Being, as a Living, Rational,
Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence, existing as a single,
underived, independent, Unit: a Unit, not in reality consisting
of attributes, or perfections, but itself one single, entire
perfection: exerting itself not by attributes, but as an
individual Unit or Agent, in such a manner that each action
is the action of the Divine Being, and not of one or more of
his attributes: that the existence of this single, underived,
independent, and eternal Agent, was, and is _necessary_, and,
therefore, he could not but have existed, and cannot cease to
be; that He is absolute, and infinite in all possible ways and
manner of acting, and consequently we conceive Him possessed of
all possible perfections in an infinite degree.]
By the assistance of Divine revelation we are enabled further to pursue
our inquiries concerning this very important subject; and without
which, we should be involved in great darkness and uncertainty, not
only respecting his moral perfections, but the _mode_ of his existence.
And this must be a matter of superior interest to mankind, or our
adorable Creator would not have communicated it, which he evidently
has done through the medium of the Scriptures, written by Divine
inspiration.
Moses, having received by Divine revelation instruction concerning the
origin and formation of the world, conducts us at once to its great
and adorable Architect. “In the beginning GOD created the heavens and
the earth.” Here he adopts a phraseology to express the supreme Being,
which is generally used in the Old Testament for the same purpose,
and is very important and necessary to be understood, as it gives us
information after what _manner_ he exists. ‘The original word אלהימ
_Elohim_, God,’ says a great linguist, ‘is certainly the plural form
of אל _el_, or אלה _eloah_, and has long been supposed, by the most
eminently learned and pious men, to imply a _plurality_ of persons in
the divine nature.’ As this plurality appears in so many parts of the
sacred writings to be confined to _three_ Persons, namely, the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, hence the doctrine of the TRINITY.
It is very remarkable that we no sooner open the Bible, than this
doctrine is presented to our view. The laws and ordinances established
among the Jews were designed to guard that people from idolatry, which
in Abraham’s time had become very general. On the recollection of this
circumstance it appears extraordinary that Moses, when he is describing
the creation of the world, should, in order to express his conceptions
of the Divine Being, introduce a term which implies _plurality_; and,
frequently connecting it with verbs and persons singular, should use
that term _thirty_ times in the short account of the creation, when the
language afforded other words in the singular number that would have
answered his purpose equally well; nay, if he did not wish to express
a _plurality_, that grammatical accuracy should have led him to adopt.
When he made use of a plural noun for the name of God, which he has
done, perhaps, _five hundred_ times more in one form or other in the
five books of his writings, this _plurality_, I apprehend, was the idea
he meant to convey to mankind. He, or rather the HOLY SPIRIT, by whom
he was inspired to write his history, meant to give some hints and
intimations of a doctrine more clearly to be revealed in future ages.[6]
The ancient Jews understood _Elohim_ as conveying the idea of a
plurality in the Godhead. “Come,” says one of them, “and see the
mystery of the word _Elohim_: there are _three degrees_, and each
degree by itself _alone_, and yet notwithstanding they are all _one_,
and joined together in one, and are not _divided_ from each other.”[7]
R. Bechai, a celebrated author among the Jews, discoursing of the
word _Elohim_, and of the import and signification of it, adds these
words:--“According to the cabalistical way, this name _Elohim_ is two
words, namely, _El him_, that is, _they are God_. But the explanation
of the Yod is to be fetched from Eccles. xii, 1, _Remember thy_
CREATORS. He that is prudent will understand it.” These words do
sufficiently prove the Cabala among the Jews, says Bishop Kidder, that
though the Divine Nature was but _one_, yet there was some kind of
_plurality_ in this Divine Nature; and this is fairly insinuated in the
_Bara Elohim_, which we find in the beginning of Genesis.[8]
John Xeres, a Jew converted in England some years ago, published a
sensible and affectionate address to his unbelieving brethren, wherein
he says, that “the word _Elohim_, which we render GOD in Gen. i, 1, is
of the plural number, though annexed to a verb of the singular number;
which,” says he, “demonstrates as evidently as may be, that there are
several persons partaking of the same Divine nature and essence.”[9]
It is clear too, how sensible the Jews have been that there is a
notion of _plurality_ plainly imported in the Hebrew text, since they
have forbidden their common people the reading of the history of the
creation, lest, understanding it literally, they should be led unto
heresy.[10] When the Scriptures are suppressed, or the common people
denied the use of them, it may with propriety be presumed that their
superiors, who act in an arbitrary and unjust manner, have embraced
anti-scriptural notions, and, in order to prevent detection, lay
aside the only infallible _test_ of truth; and, to conceal their base
motives, and make their deleterious conduct appear not only plausible,
but necessary and proper, they boldly assert the incompetency of
the people to judge of scripture doctrines for themselves, and wish
to be considered compassionate and friendly in judging and deciding
for them. The fact is, the common people are denied the use of the
Scripture, lest understanding it in a certain sense, which their
superiors call heresy, it should lead them into the understanding of
plain and unequivocal facts stated therein, and which are of the utmost
importance for them to know.
It may be observed here likewise, that the Hebrew doctors always
supposed the first verse of Genesis to contain some latent mystery. The
Rabbi Ibba indeed expressly says it does, and adds, “This mystery is
not to be revealed, till the coming of the Messiah.”
Mr. Parkhurst, who has greatly distinguished himself in Hebrew
literature, and to whose pious and learned labors most Biblical
students are indebted, says, “Let those who have any doubt whether
אלהימ _Elohim_, when meaning the true God, Jehovah, be _plural_ or not,
consult the following passages, where they will find it joined with
adjectives, pronouns, and verbs _plural_:” he refers to twenty-five
texts in the Old Testament on this occasion.[11]
If Moses and the Jews held the doctrine of the Trinity, and the word
_Elohim_ imports _plurality_, it is natural to ask, How comes it to
pass that the Septuagint version renders the plural name Elohim, when
used for the true God, by the singular one Θεος, and never by the
plural Θεοι? The learned Ridley,[12] after Allix, has answered this
question. He says, “The Talmudists own that the LXXII Interpreters
did purposely change the notion of _plurality_ implied in the
Hebrew _Elohim_ into the Greek singular, lest Ptolemy Philadelphus
should conclude that the Jews, as well as himself, had a belief
of Polytheism.” And Bishop Huntingford adds, “Of all the Greek
appellations of Divinity, Θεος was the only simple and direct term
which they could adopt, to counteract idolatrous misconceptions.”
This phraseology, as to its signification, is not peculiar to Moses,
but is used by the other sacred writers also, and exactly accords
with the whole tenor of Divine revelation. The creation of the world
is ascribed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as joint,
concurring, equal, and efficient causes thereof, in the Scriptures. It
will not surely be presuming too much, says Bishop Huntingford, if we
suppose Joshua and Solomon to be more deeply instructed in the Jewish
Religion, than to be capable of using improper language respecting the
Deity. Yet the former says, “Ye cannot serve the Lord: for he is the
Holy Gods;” and the latter says, “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning
of wisdom; and the knowledge of the Holies is understanding.”[13]
Such is the phraseology of the Hebrew text. In these passages, and
others that might be produced, the word in the Hebrew is in the plural
number, because of the _plurality_ of persons in the Godhead; but in
our translation it is in the _singular_ number, because of the unity of
their essence.
But more particularly. The creation of the world is ascribed to
JEHOVAH: “I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even
my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have
I commanded. I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth
forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.”
He had no _moving causes_ exciting him to create matter and produce a
universe, but his own will, goodness, wisdom, and power. He created
all things himself, without the assistance of _any instruments_. The
prophet ascribes to God alone the framing and stretching out of the
heavens and the earth without the counsel, direction, or ministry of
any subordinate agency. “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow
of his hand, and meted out heaven with a span, and comprehended the
dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales,
and the hills in a balance? With whom took he counsel, and who
instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him
knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding?” He created
all things without any _toil_, _labor_, _change_, or _alteration_ in
himself. There was not in him any transition from rest to labor, from
idleness to business, from strength to weariness. Though “every good
and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of
lights,” yet “with him there is no variableness, neither shadow of
turning.” The Prophet says, “Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard,
that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the
earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?” And he proceeded in the work
of creation without _any delay_: it was not a successive forming of
things by alteration, which required much time to render them perfect,
but was as in a moment, as quickly and readily as a word is spoken,
produced in the rapid succession as recorded by Moses. This work then
God is said to have done _alone_, to the exclusion, not of the Son and
the Spirit, but of all that are not God by nature; and by himself, to
the exclusion of all second causes or inferior agents.
It is ascribed also to the SON of God. The evangelist John asserts
in very express terms the Divinity of Jesus Christ, of the truth
of which he designed his whole Gospel should be a proof. “In the
beginning was the Λογος Word.” By the εν αρχη _beginning_, here, we
are to understand the beginning of the creation, not the beginning
of the gospel state, as the Socinians say. We have the authority of
Grotius, that εν αρχη is taken from בראשית _Bereshith_, Gen. i, 1,
translated by the Septuagint εν αρχη, and consequently must signify,
from _the beginning of the creation of God_. It is not said, that
_he_ was _made_ in the beginning, but that he _was_ in the beginning,
did exist when the world began, which is of the same import as if he
said, he was from eternity; for he that did exist in the beginning,
never did himself begin to be. The personal Wisdom of God says, “The
Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of
old.”--“And the Logos,” or “Word, was with God.” He could be with no
creature, because there was no creature in being; and therefore it
is very properly said, that he “was with God,” the Father; and his
being with him shows, that he is a distinct person or subsistence
from the Father.--“And the Logos,” or “Word was God.” Though he is a
person distinct from that of the Father, yet he is of the very same
essence with him. He that was with God, was God; and if he was God in
the beginning, that is from eternity, he is the same still, he cannot
cease to be what he was. Here then the evangelist asserts the eternal
existence of Christ, his personal co-existence with the Father, and
that he is of the very same undivided nature and essence with him.
Though he is a person distinct from the Father, yet he is of the same
substance, equal with him in all divine perfections; not a _secondary_
God, inferior to the Father, as the Arians assert. “All things were
made by him.” All things, from the highest angel to the meanest worm,
were made by him, not as a subordinate instrument, but as a co-ordinate
agent, as a joint efficient cause, co-operating with the Father in this
work. ‘To say that Christ made all things by a delegated power from
God, is _absurd_; because the thing is impossible. Creation means,
causing that to exist that had no previous being: this is evidently
a work which can be effected only by _omnipotence_. Now God cannot
delegate his _omnipotence_ to another: were this possible, he _to_ whom
this omnipotence was delegated, would, in consequence, become God; and
he _from_ whom it was delegated, would _cease to be such_: for it is
impossible that there should be _two_ omnipotent beings.’ “And without
him was not any thing made that was made.” This is added for the more
certainty, it being usual with the Hebrews, when they would affirm that
a thing is so indeed, to confirm by a particular negative what they
had before affirmed. Our Lord said to the Jews, “My Father worketh
hitherto, and I work.” The phrase ὡς αρτι signifies “to this time,” “to
the present,” that is, in all works whatever. Hence he is no creature,
or he must have created himself; and if he created himself, he must
have been in existence and not in existence at the very same time,
which is both contradictory and absurd. And if every work performed
by the Father was equally performed by the Son, the Son must, in all
respects, be equal to the Father, in nature and perfections. This our
Lord’s words signify and imply, and in this sense the Jews understood
him--as “making himself equal with God.”[14] “He is the image of God,”
the πρωτοτοχος “FIRST PRODUCER of every creature: for by him were all
things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities,
or powers:” all the angels, however diversified in rank or employment
in the heavenly world; and all the rational, animal, vegetable, and
inanimate creatures, belonging to this terrestrial abode: “all things
were made by him,” as the efficient cause, “and for him,” as the last
end.--“God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he
hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds,”
i.e. the heavens and the earth. The Father does all by the Son, and the
Son does all from the Father. Whatsoever the Father does, that also
does the Son likewise. “Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, oh God, is
for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy
kingdom. Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the
earth; and the heavens are the works of thy hands.” In these passages
the _Divinity_ of Christ is plainly asserted, and the operations of his
power are proofs of his Godhead. He that is the Creator of all things
is God: but Christ is the Creator of all things; therefore Christ is
God. He calls himself “the Beginning of the creation of God,” where the
word αρχη means the Creator, the efficient Cause of all things, he by
whose power the creation had its beginning and perfection. And “he that
built all things is God.”
The learned Jacob Bryant wrote a very valuable Tract entitled, _The
sentiments of Philo Judæus concerning the ΛΟΓΟΣ, or Word of God_;
from which the following are quotations. “Philo Judæus speaks at large
in many places of the Word of God, the second person, which he mentions
as _the second Divinity_, the _great Cause_ of all things, and styles
him as Plato, as well as the Jews, had done before, the LOGOS. Of the
Divine Logos or Word he speaks in many places, and maintains at large
the Divinity of the second Person, and describes his attributes in a
very precise and copious manner, styling him _the second Deity, who
is the Word of the supreme God, his first-begotten Son; and the image
of God_. In his treatise upon _creation_, he speaks of the Word as
_the Divine operator by whom all things were disposed_: and mentions
him as _superior to the angels and all created beings, and the image
and likeness of God_, and says, that _this image of the true God was
esteemed the same as God_. _This_ LOGOS, _the_ WORD _of_ GOD, says he,
_is superior to all the world, and more ancient; being the productor of
all that was produced. The eternal Word of the everlasting God is the
sure and fixed foundation upon which all things depend_.”
Creation is moreover ascribed to the HOLY SPIRIT. That the Holy Spirit
has a _personality_ distinct from that of the Father, and also that
of the Son, and a real and proper _Divinity_, is a doctrine of Divine
revelation. In his personal capacity, he is not the Father, nor the
Son. He neither is nor can be divided either from the Divine essence,
nor from the other two persons, but yet is personally distinct from
them. His relation to, and mission by, the Father and the Son, clearly
evince his personal distinction. He is called the Spirit of the
_Father_, and the Spirit of the _Son_. He is represented as _sent_ by
the Father, and also as _sent_ by the Son. These things show that he is
a Divine person, and has a distinct personality. The Holy Spirit is the
last in the order of subsistence: the Father is the first, the Son is
the second, and the Holy Spirit is the third. Yet we should know, that
the Father is not before the Son, nor the Son before the Holy Spirit,
by a priority of time, nor of dignity and perfections; for the three
persons in the Divine essence are _co-eternal_.
The Holy Spirit was equally concerned with the Father and the Son in
the work of Creation. “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made,
and all the host of them by the breath (Heb. Spirit) of his mouth.” The
_breath_ or spirit of the Lord’s _mouth_, says an excellent author,
does undoubtedly mean the third person of the Trinity; who is called,
“The Spirit of God, and the Breath of the Almighty.”--“They lift up
their voice to God with one accord, and said, LORD, thou art GOD, which
hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that therein is. WHO,
by the mouth of thy servant David, hast said,” &c. The terms LORD and
GOD are here used to express the Divinity of _him_, says the same able
writer, who spake _by the mouth_ of his servant David. But it was the
HOLY GHOST who _spake by the mouth_ of his servant David--for, saith
St. Peter, “This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the
HOLY GHOST,” by the mouth of David, “spake,” &c. Therefore the terms
LORD and GOD are certainly used to _express the Divinity of the_ HOLY
GHOST.[15] In the work of creation, the “SPIRIT of GOD moved upon the
face of the waters,” by an infinite vitality infusing life, and with
a formative energy giving form. “By his SPIRIT he hath garnished the
heavens” with an incalculable number of luminous stars; all those
glittering worlds, which serve for use as well as beauty, were formed
by the Spirit of God.
As none but the _third_ Person in the Godhead is ever so much as once
in the Scriptures called the _Spirit of God_; so the Holy Spirit’s
agency in the work of creation evinces his distinct personality, and
is a confirmation of his proper Divinity. A cause must be equal to the
effect it produces: but no finite spirit could be a joint, concurring,
efficient cause in the work of the creation: therefore the Holy Spirit
is God. Supposing the matter of which the worlds were made to be called
into being out of nothing by the Almighty power of the Father, or by
the fiat of the Son; yet the animating of the whole lifeless mass, the
putting of every part into motion, the assortment of all the particles,
the assigning of them their proper places, and the completing of the
whole with such astonishing beauty and harmony, which was the peculiar
work of the Holy Spirit, required no less than an almighty power, which
clearly demonstrates that he is God.
Thus we see that the creation of the world is ascribed to one God, the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son and the Holy Spirit were
joint Creators, of equal power, and equal efficiency with the Father.
There is no where to be found in the Scriptures the least hint of
different degrees of creating energy, nor of sole efficiency in one of
the Persons in the Godhead, and a bare instrumental compliance in the
other. The creation was the common effect of their joint acting: nor
is it ever said, nor so much as hinted or implied, that the distinct
Persons in the Godhead had different provinces, nor that one creature
was made by one, and another creature was the workmanship of another.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are never represented as acting
separately, but always in conjunction.
The sacred historian assures us, that, at the commencement of time,
אלהימ _Elohim_, the triune God, caused matter to exist, which, previous
to this astonishing display of his creating energy, had no being.
Moses, as an inspired author, is the only one who could instruct us in
the formation and unfolding of the world. He is not an Epicurus, who
has recourse to atoms; a Lucretius, who believes matter to be eternal;
a Spinoza, who admits a material God; a Descartes, who prates about
the laws of motion; but a legislator, who announces to all men without
hesitation, without fear of being mistaken, how the world was created.
Nothing can be more simple, nor more sublime than his opening: “In the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” He could not have
spoken more assuredly, if he had been a spectator; and by these words,
mythology, systems, and absurdities, shrink to nought, and are mere
chimeras in the eyes of reason.[16]
Had Moses been a fictitious writer, how natural and how easy would it
have been for him to have filled up the first part of his history with
marvellous relations about the creation? With what pomp of language,
with what waste of rhetoric, could he probably have embellished that
surprising scene? With what a grand _apparatus_ of celestial machinery
might he have made the omnipotent Architect come forth to build a
universe? How many sub-agents and subalterns would a fabulous poet
or historian have employed in this stupendous and multifarious work?
With what solemnity would every part have been gone about, and with
how many episodes, digressions, and reflections, would the story have
been filled, in order to give it an air of the marvellous? But read
the beginning of Genesis, and observe how differently Moses writes. No
scope is given to fancy or invention. All is narrated with an ease,
plainness, and simplicity, which evidently shows that he kept close
to truth, and laid down the facts just as they were presented to his
mind; a manner of writing rarely, if at all, to be found in any other
historians, but such as had the honor of being the _amanuensis_ of the
SPIRIT of truth.[17]
The description which Moses furnishes concerning the creation, as
relating to circumstances previous to the existence of mankind, could
be derived only from immediate revelation. It was received by the
Jews with full conviction of its truth, on the authority of that
_inspiration_ under which Moses was known to act.[18] And when the
creation of the world began, by the lapse of time, to be removed to
a remote distance, God was pleased thus to provide a contemporary
historian, and appoint a whole nation to be the guardians of his
history; as well that this register might be the most authentic, as
that all mankind might hence be instructed in the knowledge of a fact,
which was so necessary for them to know, and yet so impossible to be
otherwise ascertained.[19]
It may be proper to notice, that some futile objections have been made
to the period which is assigned by Moses to the creation, as though it
were too recent to be reconciled with reason and philosophical inquiry.
How long matter remained in a quiescent state after its creation, we
have no data to enable us to determine: but, as its resting in an
animate state, so far as we know, could answer no valuable purpose,
we may reasonably conjecture the time would not be long. The creation
of the world began, according to Usher, before the Christian era 4004
years, if we follow the Hebrew text. The Septuagint version places it
5872, and the Samaritan 4700 before the vulgar era.--Sanchoniathon,
the first Phenician historian, according to the most extended accounts
of Porphyry, flourished long after Moses, probably not less than
two hundred years. Manetho, high-priest of Heliopolis, wrote the
Egyptian history only in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, not more
than 300 years before Christ, and professes to have transcribed his
Dynasties from some pillars of Hermes Trismegistus, written in the
Hebrew dialect.--Berosus was the first noted Chaldean historian, and
he was contemporary with Manetho.--The Chinese have not any work in
an intelligible character above 2200 years old. One of the Chinese
emperors, about 213 years before the Christian era, ordered all their
historical records to be destroyed.--The Greeks could produce no dates
beyond 550 years before Christ, and but little historical information
prior to the Olympiads, which began 775 years before the Christian era.
Orpheus and Museus, fabulous poets, were not so remote as Moses; for
it is supposed they lived about 200 years after him, in the days of
Gideon. Daries Phrygius and Dystys Cretensis, fabulous poets, wrote the
history of the Trojan war, about 400 years after Moses. Homer wrote his
poems after David’s time, and about 550 years after Moses. Herodotus,
called the father of history, who flourished about 450 years before
the Christian era, was the first Grecian historian that deserves the
name; yet he begins with fable. Thucydides rejects, as uncertain, all
that preceded the Peloponnesian war; and Plutarch, not one of the least
historians among the Grecians, ventured not beyond the time of Theseus,
who lived a little before the ministry of Samuel.[20] So that all these
poets and historians flourished long after the time of Moses, some of
them nearly a thousand years; for he wrote about A. M. 2460. The works
of the Jewish lawgiver are not only the most ancient, but also the most
authentic, of all the monuments of antiquity.
If the world were some thousands of years older, it must be much better
peopled than it is at present. Population has always increased since
the deluge, and yet there might be three times as many more inhabitants
on the earth than it at present contains. It has been computed that at
least 5000 millions of men might live at once on our globe: and yet it
does not appear that there are really more than 1080 millions. In Asia
are reckoned 650 millions; in Africa and America, 300 millions; and in
Europe, 130 millions.
If we consider the arts invented by men, we shall find that few or none
of them have been discovered more than two or three thousand years.
Man owes not only to his nature and reason the aptitude he has for
acquiring arts and sciences, but he is also led to this by necessity;
by the desire he has to procure himself conveniences and pleasures;
by vanity and ambition; and by luxury, the child of abundance, which
creates new wants. This propensity is evident among all men, in all
ages. History carries us back to the time when men had scarcely
invented the most necessary arts; when those arts which were known were
but very imperfectly understood; and in which they scarcely knew any
thing of the first principles of the sciences.
About four thousand years ago, men were still in a state of great
ignorance concerning most subjects; and if we calculate according to
the progress which they made since that time, and afterwards go back
to the remotest periods, we may with tolerable exactness fix the era
when men knew nothing; which is, in other words, that of the infancy
of the human race. Were their existence to be carried higher, it is
utterly improbable that the most useful and necessary arts should
have continued unknown to them through such a long series of ages. On
the contrary, all that can be discovered by the human mind must have
been known a long time ago. From this circumstance therefore we must
conclude, that the origin of the human race can have no other era than
that which Moses has assigned it in his history of the creation.[21]
If it be asked, What! was God a _solitary_ Being? Did he exist alone,
before this exertion of his glorious power? Formed as we are for
society, we have no conception of any satisfaction arising from a state
of absolute loneliness; nor can we conceive that the Deity should rest
_inactive_ from eternity, and not exert those amazing powers of which
the stupendous creation proves he is amply possessed? There are some
particulars naturally deducible from questions like these, which we
cannot solve. We have no adequate apprehension of eternity; we are
lost in the idea. And when we attempt to contemplate God existing from
eternity without _cause_ or as _beginning_ to exist, we are utterly
lost in the speculation; for among all the objects that come within
the reach of our senses, we see nothing existing that has not had
a cause to produce it. We frequently smile at children, when they
ask their little simple questions, as we deem them; but we are mere
children ourselves, in this profound ocean of wonder. But something
very observable strikes an attentive reader in the Mosaic account
of the creation, which suggests that the Deity is not a solitary
Being, existing in such an absolute _unity_ as to exclude all degree
of personality or communion. For אלהימ _Elohim_, as we have already
observed, the very first name by which Moses calls God, being plural,
shows that though he exists in an undivided unity of nature, yet in a
Trinity of Persons. And this notion of a plurality, so far from being
contrary to reason, is more agreeable to it than any opinion of the
absolute _unity_ of the Divine nature. For conceive we only three
Divine persons mutually to partake of the Divine essence or nature, to
be united by the same perfect will, and to possess the same infinite
powers and perfections; and all our apprehensions of the loneliness of
solitary existence immediately subside; the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, consummately happy in each other, have been from eternity
reciprocal objects of complacence, and will remain such for ever. Let
this argument be fairly and impartially considered, and the notion of
a Trinity of Subsistences in a Unity of the Divine Nature, will appear
far more consonant to reason, and liable to less objections, than that
of mere solitary and absolute unity.[22]
[_A further consideration of the suggestion in the close of
the last paragraph._
Although nothing can be clearer than that the Divine
Essence is _one_, simple, and indivisible; _yet_ this does
not prevent it from subsisting in _personality_, i.e. _in a
plurality of persons_.
It must be carefully observed, that the plurality has
regard to the _persons_, not to the Essence. We cannot say
there is a plurality of Essences; but we can say, the Living,
Rational, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence _subsists in three
persons_. This then is the MODUS EXISTENDI of the Divine Being.
Although we are assured this is his _mode of existence_,
we do not pretend to comprehend the _nature_ of it. We may,
without any injury to the proposition, affirm, the _nature_ of
the fact is incomprehensible by _created intellect_. Yet the
fact itself is sufficiently well attested, and is not repugnant
to reason, though it is above the comprehension of reason.
It is believed by many very learned, pious, and eminent
men, that the doctrine of a _plurality of persons in the
Godhead_, can be established by an argumentation founded solely
on the acknowledged nature of the Divine Being.
The Rev. JAMES KIDD, Prof. of Oriental Languages, Marischal
College and University, Aberdeen, with the approbation of many
learned men in England, among whom is Dr. Adam Clarke, in
whose house he delivered private lectures on his manuscript,
has published a very able and satisfactory essay on this plan,
of which a brief clue to the mode of argumentation is here
attempted.
A. _The Divine Being is a necessarily existent, and an
eternally, immensely, and immutably Living, Intelligent,
Rational, Moral, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence._
B. _The very_ LAW _of the nature of such a being, is
eternal, immense, and immutable_ ACTIVITY, ENERGY, _and_
EFFICIENCY, _exercised eternally, immensely, and immutably_,
ACCORDING TO HIS OWN NATURE.
C. _That such a being_ WAS _as necessarily existent,
perfect, and happy,_ BEFORE _creation, and providence as since;
and would forever continue as necessarily existent, perfect,
and happy, if creation and providence should cease to be_.
These three propositions are so obviously true, every
reader will readily and cordially grant them. It is proposed,
therefore, to show, from the nature of the Divine Being, _that
his Essence_ MUST _subsist in a plurality of persons_.
The proposition does not contemplate an explanation of the
_manner_ of this subsistence; nor, at present, the _number_
of persons; but the simple fact, _That_ FROM THE VERY NATURE
OF THE DIVINE BEING, HIS ESSENCE MUST SUBSIST IN PLURAL
PERSONALITY.
The existence of a being, or the possession, or exercise of
any principle, passion or attribute, _implies personality_, or
individual identity, which is the same thing. The mind cannot
conceive of existence, passion, principle, or action, without
conceiving of them inhering in actually existing Essence, which
_must_ assume in the mind the idea of personality. Therefore,
_personality_ is strictly, and properly applicable to the
Divine Essence. But the doctrine of a _plural_ personality is
to be established at present.
It will be easily conceived, and readily granted, that
a being which exists necessarily, eternally, immensely,
and immutably, as a Living, Intelligent, Rational, Moral,
Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence, _must have exercised
Himself, and his perfections, necessarily, eternally,
immensely, and immutably_. This then is granted. But the mind
will readily and easily perceive, that the Divine Being could
not have exercised Himself THUS, _in the works of Creation
and Providence_. Because, it is readily admitted, there _was_
a time when Creation and Providence _began_: during a whole
eternity _beyond_ this period, there was no existence except
God Himself. Consequently, He _cannot_ have been exercised
according to his own nature and perfections, _eternally_, in
reference to Creation and Providence.
Again: He cannot have exercised his perfections
_immensely_, in reference to Creation and Providence: because,
however extensive we may conceive the empire of Creation and
Providence to be, it is not _immense_; it is actually limited,
and, therefore, could not admit of an _immense exercise of his
nature and perfections_.
It is readily granted, that the Divine Being was as
necessarily, and perfectly happy _before_ Creation and
Providence as since; and if Creation and Providence should
cease, his happiness would continue the same: hence, it
follows, necessarily, that the happiness of the Divine Being
was, is, and ever will be entirely _independent_ of Creation
and Providence.
But the happiness of any being consists, essentially,
_in the exercise of its powers and perfections according
to the law of its own nature_. And as it has been shown,
that the happiness of the Divine Being is eternal, immense,
and immutable, it follows, _He must have exercised Himself
eternally, immensely, and immutably_.
As it has been _granted_, That from the very nature of
the Divine Being, He must have been eternally, immensely,
and immutably active and happy, according to the law of his
own nature: and it has been _proven_, That He could not have
been eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy, in
reference to Creation and Providence, it follows, necessarily,
that the _means_ and _principles_ of these eternal, immense,
and immutable activity and happiness, _must exist_ IN HIS OWN
CONSTITUTION, _and be exercised entirely_ WITHIN _Himself_.
This conclusion cannot be denied, granting the premises in
the propositions A. B. C. in reference to the Divine Being.
It remains to be proven, That such principles, and means
of eternal, immense and immutable activity and happiness
_cannot_ be conceived of in the constitution of the Divine
Being, _without conceiving his essence to subsist in plural
personality_.
The consideration simply of the nature and eternal activity
of the Divine Being would establish the idea of _plural
personality_ in his Essence: because the mind cannot conceive,
that the same single being can be both _agent_ and _object,
in reference to the same action_. And as it has been proven,
that _previous_ to the existence of Creation and Providence,
God existed eternally _alone_, consequently, no possible form
of existence but Himself, and yet he was eternally, immensely,
and immutably active and happy; it will follow irresistibly,
that _there must be a plurality in his single Essence_; and the
mind naturally assumes, this plurality is _personal_; as it
cannot conceive of activity, and happiness without conceiving
them to belong to person, or persons. And as action implies
both _agent_, and an _object_ distinct from the agent; and
there being no such agent, or object existing _without_ the
Divine Being, it must be infered, that these agent and object,
concerned in the eternal activity and happiness of his nature,
must exist _inherently, eternally, immensely, and immutably_
WITHIN _Himself_.
Thus we are COMPELLED to admit a plurality of persons in
the Divine Essence.
It will be recollected, the Divine Being has not only
exercised Himself eternally, but also _immensely_, according
to the law of his own nature and perfections: i.e. He has
necessarily, and eternally exercised Himself to the extent of
his nature and perfections. This will be readily admitted when
we reflect, that unless we admit the exercise of the nature
and perfections of God _to their full extent_, we must admit
a _redundancy_ in the Divine Nature, and perfections, which
would be manifestly absurd, as it would _imply imperfection_.
For it would imply (if we may dare say so) that there is an
_efficiency_, or _ability_ in the Divine Being, which He
has never exercised to its full extent; and in proportion
to the _deficiency_ in the exercise, we must conclude this
_efficiency_ or ability is _useless_, which would be repugnant
to the true idea of the Divine Being.
It is therefore, _proven_, That the Divine Being
necessarily exercised Himself _immensely_, because his nature,
and perfections are immense. But it will be readily perceived,
this could not be done in the works of Creation and Providence:
because, however vast they may be, they are not _immense_:
and, therefore, could not admit of the immense exercise of his
nature and perfections to their full extent: from which it
must follow, inevitably, _That the immense exercise of his own
nature and perfections must be_ WITHIN _Himself_.
As it has already been proven above, that this internal
exercise in the Divine Essence necessarily implies _plurality_
in the Godhead; so now also, is it proven, that the admission
of such plurality is the only view competent to show _HOW_
the Divine Being could have exercised his own nature and
perfections _immensely_, as the attribute of immensity
appertains to God only.
As it is granted, that the Divine Being was necessarily as
happy _before_ Creation and Providence as since, and would
continue so, should Creation and Providence cease; of course
his happiness consists in the exercise of his own nature and
perfections according to their own law. But, in order that the
Divine Being should be eternally, immensely, and immutably
happy, the WHOLE of the Divine Nature and perfections must
be exercised eternally, immensely, and immutably. But if we
divest the Divine Essence of its plural personality, we cannot
conceive that some of the divine perfections can be exercised
at all. For example: the divine goodness, love, wisdom,
intelligence, and all his _moral_ perfections. We surely cannot
say, He manifests his goodness to Himself; or exercises his
love towards Himself; or employs his wisdom in understanding
Himself; all of which ideas are obviously absurd. But so
soon as we admit the idea of a plural personality, or the
subsistence of the Divine Essence in a plurality of persons,
we can conceive the moral perfections exercised in Himself,
between the persons of the Godhead. This is the only ground on
which we can conceive of his eternal, immense, and immutable
happiness. For we can readily conceive of the distinct persons
in the Divine Essence, _communicating mutually_ to each other
the _whole_ of the divine moral perfections; and thus conceive
of the perfect and independent happiness of God.
The only remaining view of this subject would be this:
the activity, energy, and influence of the Divine Being can
only regard Creation and Providence. But as there was a _past
eternity before_ Creation and Providence began, in which the
Divine Being existed, He must be considered as having been
_inactive_, _solitary_, and _unconscious_; (because there
cannot be consciousness where there is not action,) the whole
and every part of which view is derogatory to the acknowledged
character of God. How much more reasonable is it to conceive
the Divine Essence to subsist in a plurality of persons, and
thus to conceive, _consistently_, of the eternal, immense, and
immutable activity and happiness of the Divine Being?
_Thus we see, that what the Scriptures declare concerning
the plurality of persons in the Divine Essence_, CANNOT BE
OTHERWISE, AS IS DEMONSTRATED ABOVE, FROM THE NECESSARY NATURE
OF THE GLORIOUS DIVINITY.
The demonstration might be extended to each of the divine
perfections, and the same result would be obtained. The above
remarks are a mere clue to the argument which is possible, and
satisfactory; founded on the necessary nature of Jehovah.
The key to the whole demonstration is this:
1. The Divine Being, from his very and necessary nature,
must be eternally, immensely, and immutably active.
2. He must be eternally, immensely, and immutably happy.
3. In order to be eternally, immensely, and immutably
active and happy, He must be exercised to the whole extent of
his nature and perfections, eternally, immensely, and immutably.
4. That such an exercise of his nature and perfections, in
an eternal, immense, and immutable manner, cannot be, in regard
to Creation and Providence; because, Creation and Providence
are not eternal, immense, and immutable.
5. As there was not any thing _before_ Creation and
Providence, but God Himself, it must follow, necessarily, that
the eternal, immense, and immutable activity and happiness of
the Divine Being were WITHIN _Himself entirely_.
6. As it is impossible for the human intellect to conceive,
that a being can be both _agent_ and _object, in the same
action_, and the activity of the Divine Being has been shown to
have been within Himself entirely; it follows, THAT THE DIVINE
ESSENCE MUST HAVE SUBSISTED ETERNALLY, IMMENSELY, AND IMMUTABLY
IN A PLURALITY.
7. And as the mind is _forced_ to admit a _plurality_ in
the Divine Essence, it naturally, and necessarily assumes
PERSONS for this plurality; and thus concludes, _There must
be a plurality of persons in the Godhead as the Scriptures
declare._
From the foregoing elements of the argument, it will be
very easy to observe, if a _plurality_ must be admitted, there
is no objection in the mind to admit it is _triple_; and
hence, as the substance of the Divine Essence has been shown
to exist necessarily in a plurality, the mind conceives a
_triple plurality_, as easy as any other, and thus conceives
the reasonableness of the doctrine of the _Trinity in Unity_.
The most successful argument against this conclusion is
this: _It is impossible to conceive how three can be one_.
This is admitted, _when the objects designated by_ “three”
_are the same as the object designated by_ “one.” But this is
not the case in the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. The term
_Trinity_ applies to the _persons_ in which the Divine Essence
subsists, and _not_ to the essence itself. So the term _Unity_
applies to the _Essence only_, and _not_ to the persons. This
simple distinction removes the whole force of the objection.
The Unitarians, therefore, do us wrong when they say, _we
believe three are one_. And Trinitarians do themselves wrong
when they say, _to the three one God_: because, it is not true
that there is a “three one God.” But it is a glorious truth,
THAT THE DIVINE ESSENCE SUBSISTS IN THREE PERSONS, ETERNALLY,
IMMENSELY, AND IMMUTABLY.
It is very natural to suppose, that God imparted a
knowledge of Himself to our first parents in Paradise. The
Scriptures clearly support this supposition. This knowledge
would, of course, include the doctrine of the Trinity; and we
cannot admit for a moment, that so important a doctrine as the
plurality of persons in the Godhead, could have been wholly
lost by mankind, though it might become obscured. Accordingly
we find the traditionary remains of this doctrine throughout
the Old World.
“The Hindoos” says M. Sonerat, “adore _three_ principal
Deities, Brouma, Schiven, and Vichenou, who are still but
_one_; which kind of Trinity is there called Trimurti, and
signifies the re-union of those powers. The generality of
Indians at present, adore only one of these three divinities;
but some learned men, beside this worship, also address their
prayers to the three united. The representation of them is to
be seen in many pagodas, under that of human figures with three
heads, which on the coast of Orissa, they call Sariharabrama,
on the Coromandel coast, Trimourti,” &c.
This account of M. Sonerat is very pertinent, and is
confirmed by Dr. Buchanan who made extensive researches in that
country. See his _Star in the East_.
The same tradition is found in China. “Among the ancient
Chinese characters” says Dr. A. Clarke, “which have been
preserved, we find the following Δ like the Greek _delta_.
According to the Chinese dictionary _Kang-hi_, this character
signifies _union_. According to _Choueouen_, a celebrated work,
Δ is _three united in one_. The Lieou-chou-tsing-hoen, which is
a rational and learned explanation of ancient characters, says;
“Δ signifies intimate union, harmony, the chief good of man, of
the heaven, and of the earth; it is the union of three.”
Lao-tse says; “He who is as visible, and yet cannot be
seen, is denominated _lieou_; he who can be heard, and yet
speaks not to the ears, _hi_; he who is tangible, and yet
cannot be felt, is named _ouei_: in vain do you consult your
senses about these _three_; your reason alone can discourse of
them, and it will tell you they are but one,” &c.
One of the missionaries at Peking, who wrote the letters from
which I have made the above extracts, takes it for granted,
“that the mystery of the _Trinity_ was known among the ancient
Chinese, and that the character Δ was its symbol.” _Dr. A.
Clarke, on the 1st chap. John’s Gospel._
The existence of this same tradition in China is conveyed
to us through another channel. “It was the leading feature in
_Lao-Kiun’s_ system of philosophical theology, and a sentence
which he continually repeated as the foundation of all true
wisdom, that TAO, the eternal reason, produced ONE; _one_
produced TWO; _two_ produced THREE; and THREE produced all
things.” _Le Compt’s Memoirs of China_.
Traditions of this doctrine are found also in Chaldea
and Persia indeed throughout the East; from whence all agree
they were imported, through Phœnicia, into Egypt, and thence
into Greece. The great and original sources of information
being in the neighborhood of the Euphrates, where the _first
post-diluvian_ families resided; and the mighty intellects
which were to influence the world, by the materials which
were drawn from thence, being in Greece, the consequence
was, we find the Grecian philosophers travelling _up_ the
streams of knowledge to the fountains, and thence returning to
enlighten the world by the results of their researches. For
example: Pythagoras, Plato, and others visited Egypt first,
thence to Phœnicia, and thence to Chaldea, and the East, from
whence they undoubtedly drew their theology. (Nor should it
be forgotten that _their_ philosophy was _theological_.) The
concurrent testimony of history establishes this fact. The
consequence of all this is, the doctrine of the Trinity was
known to the Greek philosophers, who preserved it to the world
in their incomparable writings, a collateral testimony of the
authenticity of the Scripture doctrine. For this opinion we
have the highest authority in the republic of letters.
“It is said that the first Christians borrowed their notion
of a Triune God from the later Platonists; and that we hear not
of a Trinity in the church till converts were made from the
school of Alexandria. But if this be the case we may properly
ask, _Whence had those Platonists the doctrine?_
“It is not surely so simple, or so obvious as to have
occurred to the reasoning mind of a pagan philosopher;
or if it be, _why do Unitarians suppose it to involve a
contradiction?_--The Platonic and Pythagorean Trinities
never could have occurred to the mind of him, who, merely
from the works of creation, endeavored to discover the being
and attributes of God; and therefore as those philosophers
travelled into Egypt and the East in quest of knowledge, it
appears to us in the highest degree probable, that they picked
up this mysterious and sublime doctrine in those regions where
it had been handed down as a dogma from the remotest ages,
and where we know science was not taught systematically, but
detailed in collections of sententious maxims, and traditionary
opinions. If this be so we cannot doubt but that the pagan
trinities had their origin in some primeval revelation. Nothing
else indeed can account for a doctrine so remote from human
imagination, and of which we find vestiges in the sacred books
of almost every civilized people of antiquity. The corrupt
state in which it is viewed in the writings of Plato and
others, is the natural consequence of its descent through
a long course of oral tradition. The Trinity of Platonism
therefore, instead of being an objection, lends, in our
opinion, no feeble support to the Christian doctrine, since it
affords almost a complete proof of that doctrine having made
a part of the first revelation to man.” _Ency. Brit. Art._
THEOLOGY.
“Some have indeed pretended, that the _Trinity_, which
is commonly called _Platonic_, was a fiction of the later
Platonists, unknown to the founder of the school: but any
person who will take the trouble to study the writings of Plato
will find _abundant evidence that he really asserted_ A TRIAD
OF DIVINE HYPOSTASES, _all concerned in the formation, and
government of the world_.” _Ency. Brit. Art._ PLATONISM.
“Pythagoras, though inferior to Plato in reputation, and
lived before him, held the same doctrine, and derived it from
the same sources. He visited Egypt, Persia, Chaldea, &c, and
thence returned to Greece.” _Ency. Brit. Art._ PYTHAGORAS.
These quotations are directly from the Encyclopedia
Britannica, than which no authority can be better. I might
increase the quotations to the same effect from Dr. Oglevie,
the learned Cudworth and others, were it necessary. The above
is thought sufficient to establish the fact, _That the doctrine
of a Trinity in Unity was once prevalent in the Pagan world,
and that remains and traditions of it are yet abundant through
all the East, where the revelations of God were made to
mankind_.]
If it be asked, “Why did God conceal himself from eternity till within
six thousand years; for, according to Divine revelation, it is not
yet so long since the world was made?” I answer, God is at perfect
liberty to do what he pleases, to do it when he pleases, and to give
no account of the reasons of his conduct. If he had pleased to create
the world as many millions of years sooner, as there have been days
since its creation, the same question might have been asked, Why did
he not create the world sooner, and thereby discover himself? For the
longest time that can be imagined is just as nothing in comparison with
eternity. If God had pleased, he might have concealed his existence
and perfections to all eternity, or, in other words, never have made
any thing. Seeing therefore it was only of his sovereign pleasure that
he made creatures, to whom he might manifest himself, surely he had a
right to fix on the time for doing it. We are sure he is infinitely
wise, and consequently all his works are done in the fittest time, and
best manner.
God made the world, not because he needed the praise or service of
creatures to add to his blessedness; for he who is self-existent
must necessarily be infinitely perfect and absolutely independent;
and would always have remained the same happy Being, enjoying his
own excellencies and perfections, had no creature ever been made.
But it was for the manifesting of his own glorious attributes, and
communicating happiness to creatures capable of it, that he, in
the beginning, created this magnificent fabric of the heavens and
the earth, with all things therein, whether visible or invisible,
animate or inanimate, material substances or immaterial spirits. For
he created beings of different ranks and powers, to whom he might
manifest himself, or communicate his goodness. Some of these were pure
intellectual spirits, fit for the felicity and employments of the
heavenly state, to stand in his immediate presence, and execute his
righteous commands: but these were created before the solar system;
for the angels, those “sons of God,” called “morning stars,” were
present, and sung together for joy, when “the foundations” of this
world were laid. Others he formed out of the earth, with life, sense,
and instinct, but destitute of reason, designing them to be subservient
to the necessities or conveniences of a higher order of beings. Besides
these he created other beings of a middle rank, partaking of an earthly
part, fashioned with infinite skill and art, of exquisite symmetry, and
adorned with great external beauty; and of a spiritual part akin to
angels, and but little inferior to them, being in their constitution a
compound of the animal and angelic natures.
It is not by reason alone then, or the light of heathen philosophy,
but “through faith,” in the infallible testimony of Divine revelation,
“we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that
things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” The
sun, moon, stars, and earth, which we see, were not made of matter
which had existed from eternity, as some of the heathen philosophers
supposed, but of what God created anterior to the formation of those
wonderful orbs. The word κατηρτισθαι, _framed_, signifies not only to
_make_ or _produce_ simply, but properly _to place_ or _set in joint_
the parts of any body or machine in their right order. Accordingly
Plato says, that in making the world, God proceeded with the exactness
of a geometrician, arranging every thing in complete symmetry. All this
was done by the _word_ of God, which is not to be understood of any
articulate sound, but of the simple act of his own will; he willed the
universe, with all its variety of furniture, into existence. And this
is a matter of _faith_, to be believed; not to be known by mere reason;
for reason, without faith, can apprehend a formation of things from
matter previously made ready.
A pious expositor very justly observes, By faith assenting to Divine
revelation, and not by reason we understand the truth and wonders,
the reasons and causes, the manner and end, of the creation of the
world. Reason indeed tells us that there was a creation, consequently
a Creator; but reason without Divine revelation could never have
discovered the circumstances and manner of the creation, which wholly
depended upon the will of God. Reason could never have known them,
if God had not in his word first revealed them. Reason may propound
the question, How was the world made, and all things therein? But
revelation must resolve it.
“Oh Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honor
and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who
stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: who layeth the beams of
his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who
walketh upon the wings of the wind: who maketh his angels spirits; his
ministers a flaming fire: who laid the foundations of the earth, that
it should not be moved for ever. Thou coveredst it with a garment:
the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the
voice of thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains;
they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for
them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn
not again to cover the earth.” Such is the sublime language of Divine
revelation!
* * * * *
Footnotes - Chapter I
[1] As the name _Jehovah_, in the Hebrew consists of four
letters, so for the most part the name of the supreme Being
does in all languages. Thus among the Persians, the name is
Σορυ; among the Arabians, _Alla_; among the Assyrians, _Adad_;
among the Egyptians, Θωυθ or Θευθ with the Grecians, Θεος; the
Latins, _Deus_; the French, _Dieu_; the Spaniards, _Dios_; the
Italians, _Idio_; and with the Germans, _Gott_.
The name _Jehovah_ is written differently. Sanchoniathon
writes it _Jevo_; Diodorus the Sicilian, Macrobius, Clemens
Alexandrinus, Jerome, and Origen, _Jao_; Epiphanius, Theodoret,
and the Samaritans, _Jabé_ or _Jave_: we find likewise _Jahoh_,
_Javo_, _Jaou_, _Jaod_. Lewis Capellus is for _Javo_; Drusius
for _Javé_; Mercer for _Jehevah_: Hottinger _Jehra_. The Moors
call their God _Juba_, whom some believe to be _Jehovah_.
The Latins probably took their _Juvis_ or _Jovis Pater_ from
_Jehovah_. It is certain that these four letters may likewise
be expressed by _Javo_, _Jaho_, _Jaon_, _Jevo_, _Javé_,
_Jehvah_, &c. Mussulmen frequently use the name _Hu_, or
_Hou_, which has almost the same signification as _Jehovah_,
i.e. _He who is_. But the great name of God is _Allah_, which
they pronounce often, and have great confidence in. Among the
Arabians, and all Mahometans the name _Allah_ corresponds with
the _Elohim_ and _Adonai_ of the Hebrews, and even that of
_Jehovah_. See Calmet’s Dictionary.
[2] Dr. A. Clarke on Exod. xxxiv, 6, 7.
[3] Philo-Biblius seems to intimate, that the God of the
Phœnicians was anciently called by the name _Jehovah_; and that
_Jevo_, _Javo_, more recently used by them, is a corruption of
it; for it is said, that Jerombalus who supplied Sanchoniathon
with materials for his Phœnician history, was a priest of the
God Jevo. Euseb. Præp. Evang. lib. i. c. 9.
[4] “On the front of the famous temple of Apollo, at
Delphos, was graven the Greek word Ει (which signifies _thou
art_, being the second person singular of the verb εἰμὶ.) The
learned among the Philosophers labored long to discover its
meaning, each giving his own opinion; but could not find it
out, until Plutarch (who travelled into Egypt and Greece for
instruction in ancient sciences and other things) meeting with
that passage in the writings of Moses, where God manifested
himself by saying, I AM THAT I AM; he was struck with it, and
having it explained to him, he then conceived the true and
exalted sense of the word Ει, engraved on the front of the
temple. It implied, as it were, an admonition to those who were
about to enter the temple, to worship God, who is the only
self-existent Being in the universe.” Creighton’s Enquiry into
the Origin of True Religion, p. 21. Second Edition.
On a temple dedicated to Neitha, at Sais, the chief town
in Lower Egypt, was this inscription: “I am whatever is, or
has been, or will be, and no mortal has hitherto drawn aside
my veil; my offspring is the sun.” It appears highly probable
that the ancient Egyptians acknowledged an active as well
as a passive principle in nature, and, as Plutarch asserts,
worshipped τῳ πρώτῳ Θεῳ, the supreme Deity. Enfield’s History
of Philosophy, vol. i. p. 76, 77.
[5] Norris on Reason and Religion. Contemp. i.
[6] Allix’s Judgment of the Jewish Church against the
Unitarians, p. 116. Edit. 1699. See also p. 119. Simpson’s
Apology for the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 379, 380.
[7] Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai, in Zoar, on the sixth section
of Leviticus. See Ainsworth’s Annotations on the place.
[8] Demonstration of the Messias, Part iii. p, 170, 171.
Edit. 1700.
[9] Jones on the Trinity, chap. iii. sect. 1.
[10] Allix. p. 132.
[11] Gen. i, 26; iii, 22; xi, 7; xx, 13; xxxi, 53; xxxv,
7; Deut. iv, 7; v, 23; Josh. xxiv, 19; 1 Sam. iv, 8; 2 Sam.
vii, 23; Psal. lviii, 12; Isai. vi, 8; Jer. x, 10; xxiii, 36;
See Prov. ix, 10; xxx, 3; Psal. cxlix, 2; Eccl. v, 7; xii, 1:
Job v, 1; Isai. vi, 3; liv, 5; Hos. xi, 12, or xii, 1; Mal.
i,6; Dan. vii, 18, 22, 25; Hebrew Lexicon, p. 19. Edit. 1811.
See also Mr. Parkhurst’s pamphlet against Dr. Priestly and Mr.
Wakefield, p. 3-9, and p. 148, &c.
[12] Ridley’s Eight Discourses, p. 79.
[13] See Allix’s Judgment of the Jewish Church, p. 118.
[14] Professor Kidd’s Essay on the Doctrine of the Trinity,
p. 452.
[15] Jones on the Trinity.
[16] Ganganelli’s Letters.
[17] Rev. Hugh Knox’s Sermons.
[18] Gray’s Key to the Old Testament.
[19] M. Pascal’s Thoughts.
[20] See Gray’s Key, Notes, p. 82-83.
[21] See Sturm. vol. iv. p. 266.
[22] Christian’s Magazine, vol. ii, p. 97, 98.
* * * * *
CHAPTER II.
FIRST DAY.
_Section_ I.--CHAOS.
Inquiry into the origin of things natural to man --
Character of Moses as a sacred historian important --
Explanation of the term Created -- Chaotic state of the
elementary principles of matter -- Influence of the Spirit
of God upon the chaotic mass -- Opinions of the ancients --
Similitude between the first and second creation -- Agency of
the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration asserted and proved.
As creatures possessed of conscious existence, and furnished with both
intellectual and moral powers, it is very natural for us to inquire
into the origin and first state of things; and, when difficulties
present themselves, to meet with clear and satisfactory solutions of
them, removing the darkness in which they were enveloped, affords
to reflecting minds a high gratification. Without the aid of divine
revelation, the creation of the world would have been involved in
uncertainty, and our unassisted reason left to speculate in fields
of wide conjecture. But in following the luminous torch of sacred
communication, we are safely conducted to the first great Cause, by
whose almighty _fiat_ matter was called into existence, and afterwards
disposed and modified according to the plan devised by the eternal Mind.
Moses, considered as a man of scientific habits, being well versed in
all the “wisdom of the Egyptians”--mathematical, physical, moral, and
divine; could not but know that his cosmogony would have to pass the
ordeal of critical investigation, and undergo the best of philosophical
inquiry: that contemporaries, as well as future and remote nations
and generations, would minutely examine his historical record; and
science, in its progressive state of improvement, try the validity
of his system: that it would meet the inquisitive eye of genius and
learning, and fall into the hands of both sincere friends and insidious
enemies to religious truth: that candor would patiently search into its
pretensions, impartially weigh its evidence, and sober inquiry respect
its claims: while narrow prejudice, blind bigotry, or superstitious
enthusiasm, would dispute its authority, deny its veracity, and
disdainfully reject its aid. But listening to an all-wise Instructor,
following a Guide that could not deceive him; and disregarding the
envenomed tongue of calumny, the lampooning pen of the satirist, the
surly frown of literary pride, and the imperious authority of exalted
rank; he committed to writing a true account of the creation of the
world, for the information and religious improvement of mankind to the
latest generation.
Viewed as the ground-work of all future revelations, if any defect or
false position were discovered in his relation of things, that would
deprive his history of credibility, and decisively prove him to have
been led by the sallies of a vain and heated imagination, and not the
Spirit of the living God. But of this there was no danger; and, as a
distinguished author pertinently observes, “from the book of Genesis,
almost all the ancient philosophers, astronomers, chronologists, and
historians, have taken their respective _data_: and all the modern
improvements and accurate discoveries in different arts and sciences
have only served to confirm the facts detailed by Moses, and to show,
that all the ancient writers on these subjects, have approached to,
or receded from truth, and the phenomena of nature, in the exact
proportion as they have followed the Mosaic history.” As a writer,
Moses does not attack other systems, formed on this or that hypothesis;
but in a simple and incontrovertible narrative, acquaints us with the
origin of matter, and the progressive formation and completion of the
solar system.
The Scriptures inform us, that Moses was privileged to converse with
God “face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend,” and from him
received clear and manifest revelations, not by visions, ecstasies,
dreams, inward inspirations, or the mediation of angels, but familiarly
and with confidence, by articulate sounds, in his own language. The
Lord said, “With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently,
and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he
behold.” God being a Spirit, has neither shape nor parts, consequently
is invisible, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh: he is the most
simple essence. When he speaks of himself as having a face, mouth,
eyes, hands, &c, he adapts his language to our capacities, designing
to express by these figures the perfections of his nature; but he
is really one undivided essence. That which Moses saw, was only the
_Shekinah_, a glorious brightness, the symbol of the Divine presence,
and not the essence, which is invisible.
In giving an account of the true origin of things, he attends
particularly to the _mode_, _agent_, and _time_ of their being
produced. His history commences with the creation of matter, “In
the beginning.” Before the creative acts mentioned by him, all was
eternity. _Time_ signifies _duration_ measured by the revolutions of
the heavenly bodies; but prior to the creation of these bodies, there
could be no measurement of duration, and consequently no _time_;
therefore, “In the beginning,” must necessarily mean the commencement
of time which followed, or rather was produced by God’s creative acts,
as an effect follows, or is produced by a cause.
[From several expressions in this chapter, it is obvious
that Mr. Wood considered the account given by Moses, in the
first chapter of Genesis, to apply to _universal creation_,
and not to be restricted to our _Solar System_. It is also
plainly inferable, that he considered this the _first exercise
of God’s creative energy in any way_. This view is entirely too
contracted, is not clearly warranted by the text of the sacred
historian, and is unnecessary.
There are no passages of Scripture which say distinctly,
the Mosaic creation is the first or only acts of creative
energy: but there are several which intimate the _previous
existence of creatures_, and of course imply a previous
exercise of creative power.
It is sufficiently clear that there were intelligent beings
existing at the creation of this world. Hence it is said, “the
morning stars sang together, and the sons of God shouted for
joy,” in view of the rising creation.
Since, therefore, the previous existence of intelligent
beings is established, we must, of course, assign to them some
_mode_ of subsistence; and this will compel us to assign at
least what must be _necessary_ to every creature, a _place of
abode_, suited to his wants and conditions, without which he
cannot subsist. Thus we establish even a _material_ creation,
_anterior_ to the creation mentioned by Moses.
After weighing the account which Moses gives in the first
chapter of Genesis, together with the facts and analogies in
Nature, the conclusion seems irresistible, _that he describes
only our Solar System_; which includes the seven primary
planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and
Herschel: the four asteroides, Vesta, Juno, Ceres, and Pallas:
and the eighteen moons which attend the primary planets.
Because,
1. As this account forms the introduction to a revelation
designed for the _human family only_, it is reasonable to
conclude it would have reference to those bodies only which
operate materially to their benefit or injury. But there are no
such bodies except in the Solar System.
2. Moses in describing the formation of the heavenly
bodies, mentions only the _sun_ and _moon_ in a conspicuous
manner: because, these are the only luminaries which contribute
_essentially_ to our comfort: and then, lest a beholder might
imagine God did not also make the other suns and stars, says
incidentally, “He made the stars also.”
3. The conclusion is clear from the fact, that _the Solar
System is complete in itself_: forming a perfect whole, which
could exist were all other stars and suns destroyed, and vice
versâ, all other systems could exist were the Solar System
destroyed.
4. It does not well comport with the character of the
Divine Being, when we consider his eternal power, infinite
wisdom, and boundless goodness, to suppose He never exercised
his creative energies but _once_, and that not until a few
thousand years since. Yet we are compelled to this conclusion,
however reluctantly, unless we restrict the Mosaic account of
the creation to our Solar System.
This argument will derive additional weight, when we
recollect the _immensity_ of God’s works taken together, and
the _illimitable space_ in which he has, and may, exercise his
creative energy. We may _approximate towards_ a very faint idea
of their immensity, by calling to mind the immense number of
_fixed stars_. All astronomers admit their number to be very
great indeed, but how many cannot be correctly known. There
may be millions whose light has not reached us yet. Of those
which may be detected, Professor _Vince_, says, there are at
least _seventy-five millions_; and each the centre of a system
as large, possibly much larger than our own. Indeed we can
scarcely approach towards a competent idea of _illimitable
space_. The nearest _fixed star_ is supposed to be Sirius, or
the dog-star, at the lowest calculation _twenty-two billions
of miles distant_. If we compute according to this analogy,
and say there are seventy-five millions of fixed stars, each
the _centre_ of a system, perfect, and independent: what mind
can conceive the illimitable space through which these worlds
must lie? Yet this would scarcely be an approximation towards
the true extent. Beyond this there is still _unoccupied space_,
“where existence sleeps in the wide abyss of possibility.”
It may, therefore, be asked with justice, whether a being
capable of creating, even in this limited view, would have
exercised his creative powers _but once_, and that not until
a few thousands years since? _Credat qui posset, non ego._
Who can tell what may have been the _successive_ creations,
durations, and, possibly, destructions of those worlds which we
see, and of others, of which the inhabitants of this earth have
never heard, whose light has not yet reached us since their
creation, though coming at the rate of nearly _twelve millions
of miles in a minute_?
Finally: A _succession_ of creative acts, whose
commencement runs back _almost_ parallel with eternity, and
will extend forward _almost ad infinitum_, seems to comport
best with the eternal, immense, and immutable activity, energy,
and goodness of the Divine Being.]
The word _created_ means, that God caused that to exist which,
previously to this moment, had no being. The Rabbins, who are
legitimate judges in a case of verbal criticism on their own
language, are unanimous in asserting, that the word ברא
_bara_ expresses the commencement of the existence of a thing,
or its egression from nonentity to entity. It does not, in its
primary meaning, denote the _preserving_ or _new forming_ things
that had previously existed, as some imagine; but _creation_, in
the proper sense of the term, though it has some other acceptations
in other places. The supposition that God formed all things out of
a pre-existing eternal nature, is certainly absurd: for, if there
was an eternal nature besides an eternal God, there must have been
two self-existing, independent, and eternal Beings, which is a most
palpable contradiction. _Ex nihilo nihil fit_, “That out of nothing,
nothing is produced” is a maxim that applies itself in every case where
Deity is not concerned; it was the main argument used by Aristotle and
his followers, but is completely refuted by the authority of Divine
revelation. God created את השמים ואת הארץ _eth hashamayim
veet haarets_, “the heavens and the earth.” The word את
_eth_, which is generally considered as a particle, simply denoting
that the word following is in the accusative or oblique case, is often
understood by the Rabbins in a much more extensive sense, “The particle
את _eth_,” says Aben Ezra, “signifies the _substance_ of the
thing.” The like definition is given by Kimchi in his _Book of Roots_.
“This particle,” says Mr. Ainsworth, “having the _first_ and _last_
letters of the Hebrew alphabet in it, is supposed to comprise the _sum_
and _substance_ of _all things_.” “The particle את _eth_,”
says Buxtorf, Talmudic Lexicon sub voce, “with the Cabalists, is often
mystically put for the _beginning_ and the _end_, as Α
alpha and Ω omega are in the Apocalypse.” On this ground,
these words should be translated, “God in the beginning created the
_substance_ of the heavens, and the substance of the earth: i.e. the
_prima materia_, or first elements, out of which the heavens and the
earth were successively formed.”[23]
During the first state of things, Moses informs us, that “the earth was
without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The
original terms תהו _tohoo_, and בהו _bohoo_, translated, “without form
and void,” convey the idea of confusion and disorder. The translation
by Paginus, is _desert and emptiness_; in the Vulgate, it is _empty and
void_; in the Septuagint, _invisible and incomposed_; from the Syriac,
_desert and uncultivated_; the Samaritan is the same as the Vulgate;
the Arabic, _covered with abysses_: these translations are allowed
by the learned Walton. There is but little difference in their real
meaning, and all the Versions express the first state of things.[24]
The whole collection of matter, created in a fluid state, was a crude,
indigested chaos: all belonging to our system, as the sun, moon, stars,
earth, and seas, lay blended together in one vast, confused mass,
without any arrangement of their constituent particles, heavy and
light, dense and rare, fluid and solid, being all mixed together; air,
water, and earth, (which have since obtained the name of elements,)
were promiscuously scattered throughout.
The chaotic mass remained in this primitive state, till God was pleased
to assimilate, assort, and arrange the materials,--out of which he
built up, in the space of six days, the whole of creation.[25] _The
Spirit of God_, represented us sitting upon the vast abyss, like a
bird, while either in the act of incubation or fostering its young,
_moved_ or brooded _upon the face of the waters_, communicating, by his
vital energy, life and motion to the unformed chaos.
Some writers understand by רוח אלהימ _the Spirit of God_, a “mighty
sweeping wind,” a “tremendous tempest,” separating diversified
particles of the elementary principles of matter, and combining those
of the same kind together. But this is making an effect to be produced
by a cause, which, as yet, had no existence; nor, as a cause, is it
sufficient to produce so great an effect. To make an effect superior to
its cause, is as absurd and contradictory as to say, a long line and a
short one are equal. That the single Hebrew word רוח _ruach_, the Greek
πνευμα _pneuma_, the Latin _spiritus_, and the ancient Saxon _ghost_
or _gast_, signifies _wind_, as well as the vital breath, the soul of
man, a created spirit good or evil, is readily admitted. But concerning
the phrase רוח אלהימ, _the Spirit of God_, so frequently used in the
Scriptures of the Old Testament, there is not one instance that it
signifies _wind_, and to attempt to force such meaning upon it, is a
most manifest violation done to the text. By _the Spirit of God_, is
meant the third subsistence in the Divine essence, distinguished from
the person of the Father, and that of the Son; he is called a _Spirit_,
to signify his spiritual and immaterial nature, as well as to express
his mighty agency; and the works of which he is the author can only be
effected by an omnipotent power.
Milton, who was well versed in the Hebrew language, in his address to
the Holy Spirit, says,
“Thou from the first
Wast present, and with mighty wings outspread,
Dove-like, sat’st brooding on the vast abyss,
And mad’st it pregnant.”
The Holy Spirit, by his vital influence, infused that efficient power
into the great mass of matter, which was necessary for the assumption
of different forms, and the discharge of the assigned functions of
selecting and arranging the materials out of which the world is
formed. By brooding over the mingled earth and water, says Dr. Owen,
“he communicated a prolific virtue; and inlaid them with the seeds of
animal life; and therefore the earth and the water brought forth all
sorts of creatures in abundance, according to the seeds and principles
communicated to them by the cherishing motion of the _Spirit of God_.”
As several of the ancients have described the elementary principles
of all things to be a gloomy chaos, consisting of _darkness_ and
_water_, we may easily infer from what source they derived this notion.
Aristotle observes, the theologists and natural philosophers agreed,
that all things were produced, as the former said, “out of night;” or,
as the latter, “out of a confused mixture.” Whatever knowledge the
inhabitants of Chaldea had of the creation of the world, they ascribe
to the teaching of an amphibious monster denominated Oannes. He taught
his auditors, that there was a time when all things were darkness
and water, in the midst of which various monsters of horrible forms
received life and light. Over this chaotic mass presided the demon
Omoroca, a mythological personification of the ocean. At length arrived
the destined hour of the creation. The monster Omoroca fell subdued
beneath the victorious arm of Belus; the animals which composed her
empire were annihilated; and the world was formed out of her substance.
Oannes, however, taught, that this physiological description was to be
taken merely in an allegorical sense, and that the whole fable alluded
to the aqueous origin of the universe. Matter having been thus created,
Belus divided the darkness from the light, separated the earth from the
heavens, disposed the world in order, and called the starry host into
existence.
According to the Phœnician system, the principle of the universe was
a _dark air_, and a _turbulent evening chaos_; an opinion not very
dissimilar to that given by Moses. Sanchoniathon afterward ascribes to
material operation the origin of that which may be denominated the will
or desire of God, when in his great wisdom he thought fit to create
the world out of nothing. From this personification of Divine love,
a chaotic mixture was produced, and within it were comprehended the
rudiments of all things.
The cosmogony of the ancient Egyptians, though more obscure, is
given by Diodorus Siculus. “Damascius having inquired about what was
the first principle in the world, gives this as an ancient Egyptian
doctrine. The Egyptians have chosen to celebrate the first cause
as _unspeakable_. They accordingly style it _darkness unknown_ and
mention it with a three-fold acclamation. Again. In this manner the
Egyptians styled the first principle _an inconceivable darkness; night
and darkness past all imagination_.” This is perfectly consonant
to passages from the same author, quoted by Dr. Cudworth. “There
is one origin of all things, celebrated by the name of _unknown_
(incomprehensible) _darkness_.” Again. “They hold, that the first
beginning or cause of things was _darkness beyond all conception; an
unknown darkness_.”
Hesiod mentions, “A chaos as first existing. Next was produced the
spacious earth, the seat of the immortals; Tartarus hid within the
recesses of the ample globe; and divine love, the most beautiful of the
deities. From chaos sprung Erebus, and black night; and from the union
of night and Erebus were born ether and the day.”[26] Zeno, of Cittium,
the founder of the Stoics, said, Hesiod meant by the chaos, “Water, out
of which all things were formed, which by concretion became firm earth.”
In the work of Aristophanes, we meet with a similar passage. “Chaos,
and night, and black Erebus, and wide Tartarus, first existed; at that
time, there was neither earth, air, nor heaven. But in the bosom of
Erebus, black-winged night produced an aërial egg; from which, in due
season, beautiful Love, decked with golden wings, was born. Out of dark
chaos, in the midst of wide-spreading Tartarus, he begot our race, and
called us forth into the light.”[27]
It is unnecessary to multiply quotations to prove, that the ancients
were not only acquainted with the cosmogony of Moses, but received it
as true; to which they added their own coloring.
[It is now generally agreed by cosmogonists, commentators,
biblical critics, and natural philosophers, that the
_substance_ of the earth certainly, and probably the materials
of the Solar System, was first created in a chaotic state, and
subsequently arranged in order. This opinion is very ancient
and almost universal, found in all nations. Ovid, an ancient
heathen poet, has well described this chaos:
Ante mare et terras, et, quod teget omnia, Cœlum,
Unus erat toto naturæ vultus in orbe,
Quem dixére Chaos; rudis indigestaque moles,
Nec quicquam nisi pondus iners; congestaque eodem.
Non bene junctarum discordia semina rerum.
Before the seas, and this terrestrial ball,
And heaven’s high canopy that covers all:
_One_ was the face of nature if a face:
_Rather a rude and indigested mass:
A lifeless lump, unfashioned and unframed,
Of jarring seeds, and justly_ CHAOS _named_.--Dryden.
Notwithstanding the general prevalence of this opinion,
and the high authorities which support it, the reader must not
imagine it is absolutely _universal_. Some eminent men have
suggested, that the earth, and matter generally, was created in
a _solid_ state at first. This is the view taken by Mr. Ure, of
the Andersonian University. He supposes _the earth was created
a solid ball, or spheroid, regular on its surface, without
hills and vallies, and immersed in a crust of ice, which
completely and uniformly surrounded it: that it was a cold
lifeless lump; heat not yet having pervaded it_. The first, and
all quickening operation of heat he supposes to be indicated
by these words of Moses: “And the Spirit of God moved on the
face of the waters.” He supposes, all the matter of our earth
is in the same relative position, in which it was when it first
existed at the command of God; _except such cases in which some
subsequent force has disarranged it_. These cases he supposes
to have been many, and to have operated to the _upheaving_
the mountains, and hollowing out the beds of the sea, &c. He
says of the earth: “The central mass composed, most probably,
of the metallic bases of the earths and alkalies, as volcanic
phenomena seem to attest, would fuse, when first the calorific
energy was made to actuate the body of the earth, and the
exterior parts would oxydize into the crust of mineral strata,
and the outermost coat of all, the fixed ice, would melt into
the moveable _waters_.” _New Syst. of Geol. B. 1. chap. 1. p.
7._
Perhaps Mr. Ure’s view might be improved, and made
to approximate much nearer the common opinion, possibly
identified with it, by supposing the mass of matter composing
our earth, was confusedly mixed,--and of course chaotic--but
was in a frozen, hard, inactive state: that the quickening
energy, which softened and fused it, was simultaneous with its
revolution on its axis. The consequence then would be precisely
what we find it to be; viz: an enlargement of the equatorial
diameter, and a flattening of the poles. This I conceive to be
the true theory in this case.
Mr. Ure confirms his view by a quotation from Sir Isaac
Newton; Optics, Book 3. towards the conclusion. “It seems
probable to me that God in the beginning formed matter in
solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such
sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such
proportions to space, as most conduced to the end for which he
formed them. All material things seem to have been composed
of the hard and solid particles above mentioned, variously
associated in the _first creation_ by the counsels of an
intelligent agent. For it became him who created them to set
them in order; and if he did so, it is unphilosophical to seek
for any other origin of this world, or to pretend that it might
rise out of chaos by the mere laws of Nature; though being once
formed, it may continue by those laws for many ages.”
I have given this quotation precisely as I found it in
Mr. Ure’s New System of _Geology_, B. 1. chap. 1. p. 10.
Considering the well founded reputation of Newton, it adds very
much to the probability of the above theory: yet it seems to
me to be at variance with the commonly received impression of
Newton’s opinion on this subject. I have not his work at hand
to examine it.
The Encyclopedia Britannica, Article _Earth_, seems to
favor this view. It says, “The common notion of the earth’s
being originally a chaos, seems neither to have a foundation in
reason, nor in the Mosaic account of the creation.”
The reader will here perceive high authorities on both
sides, and all claiming to agree with Moses. The weight of
evidence seems to be in favor of a chaotic creation, which
does _not_ necessarily imply that the mass was created in a
_soft_ state. But the configuration, and internal structure of
the earth abundantly prove it was in a soft, or compressible
state when it was assuming its present form and structure.
This condition was the effect of the quickening energy of the
Spirit of God. The difference between the _equatorial_ and
_polar_ diameters of the earth, which is now well established,
and is about twenty-seven miles, can scarcely be accounted for,
without supposing the substance of the earth, at least to a
great depth, to have been partially or wholly fluid; in which
case, by turning round rapidly on its own axis, it would assume
the shape it is known to possess. It may, indeed, be said, the
Almighty could give it any shape and qualities he pleased, and
we cannot well object to it.
As it regards the interior, or central parts of our planet,
our author has said nothing, and possibly he would give
this very good reason for his silence--_we can know nothing
certainly_. Still, however, we may subjoin the conjectures of
some eminent philosophers.
Some suppose the central parts of our globe to be
_cavernous_ or _hollow_. The principal argument for this
theory is the transmission of _sound_ and _motion_ through vast
extents of country, in case of volcanoes and earthquakes. It is
supposed this could not be done so perfectly and extensively,
unless we suppose some _aëriform_, or _gaseous_ body within the
earth, by means of which it might be transmitted: which would
be to suppose it _cavernous_ or _hollow_.
Dr. Halley supposes the earth is a hollow sphere, in
which there is inclosed a central magnetic globe, and by the
motions of this globe the variations of the magnetic needle are
produced.
Our own ingenious, but unfortunate countryman, _Symms_,
supposed the earth to be hollow, and inhabited within, and its
interior accessible to us. He argues, there is no necessity,
for the purposes of gravitation, or for any other purposes, to
suppose the earth solid to the centre: And it is inconsistent
with the divine beneficence to suppose such an amount of matter
as this globe would be, if solid, should have been created to
afford so small a portion, _scarcely one-fourth_, fit for the
actual habitation of man, for whom principally it was created.
He, therefore, supported, that the interior of the earth was an
immense cavern blessed with changes of season, succession of
day and night, cold and heat, and inhabited by human beings,
and other animals. He supposed the poles of the earth were
hollow, and this hollow entrance gradually verged round towards
the equator; and ships have, without knowing it, been within
the verge, from whence they found no difficulty of returning.
Others have supposed the central parts of our globe are
solid. This is the common supposition, and is principally
supported by these two arguments:--As the attraction of
gravitation depends on the _quantity_ of matter, as well as
the distance; unless we suppose the earth a _solid_ body it
will not be able to exert a sufficient attractive influence on
the moon to keep her in her orbit. Again: it is ascertained
by actual experiment, that the _mean_ density of the earth is
about _five_ times that of water: from which it is infered it
is solid, and must increase in density from the surface to the
centre, in order to give this high mean proportion over the
bodies at its surface.
The increasing density of the earth, from the surface to
the centre is owing to _compression_ in part, and partly to the
supposed fact, that the heavier substances are placed nearer
the centre. Thus we find the different strata of rocks indicate
the same. Granite is the heaviest and lowest rock _in situ_.
Some have supposed that _iron_, probably nearly in a
metallic state, constitutes the nucleus of our earth. This idea
seems to have been suggested to account for the influence of
the earth on a magnetic needle.
But the most splendid, and very probable conjecture is
founded on the experiments of Berzelius, and Sir H. Davy, on
the earths, which experiments prove them to have _metallic
bases_ universally: hence all our earths are _metallic oxides_.
From these circumstances it is conjectured, that the nucleus
of our globe is constituted of the metals in a pure, or nearly
pure state, which are the bases of our earths, alkalis, and
alkaline earths.
It would almost seem a legitimate conjecture to suppose the
substances of our globe were, at _first, metals_ and _gases_:
that the oxygen, combining with the metals formed earths, and
alkalis; and the gases combining among themselves formed air,
water, &c. This would be a chemical process, and necessarily
_fuse_ and soften the earth, and introduce the process of
cooling, which would proceed from the surface towards the
centre. Hence some eminent philosophers have conjectured that
there is a great degree of heat in the interior of the earth
yet: probably the central parts are in a state of igneous
fusion. Some recent researches of Cordier tend to establish
this opinion. The amount of evidence in favor of this
conjecture is increasing annually, and probably will prevail.
See the _additional_ paper on _volcanos_ in this volume.]
* * * * *
_Section_ II.--_Fire._
Omnific word -- Moving principles in Nature -- Criticism
on the original word אור aur -- Creation of fire -- Its nature
-- Friction exciting the action of fire -- Fire attracted by
bodies -- Fire conducted -- Fire in a state of combination --
Fire elastic -- Expansive force of fire -- Subterraneous fires
-- Earthquakes and Volcanic Eruptions -- Air a storehouse of
fire -- General and final Dissolution of Nature by fire --
Fire a symbol of the Deity, in his gracious presence, vital
influence, transforming energy, and destructive operation.
The sacred historian here informs us of the first regular production
reduced from the chaotic mass. With an astonishing majesty of
expression, God said, יהי אור ויהי אור YEHI AUR, _vayehi aur_, _Let
there be light: and there was light_. Or, more literally, _Be light:
and light was_. Pagninus translates the words יהי אור YEHI AUR,
literally, _Sit lux, Be light_. In the Greek it is γενεθητω φῶς, _Be
light made_, or _generated_. In the Vulgate, _Fiat lux_, which is much
the same as the Greek. The celebrated Dionysius Longinus, meeting
with this passage in the Septuagint, considered it as a specimen of
the _true sublime_. Though a heathen, he thus expresses himself:
“So likewise the Jewish lawgiver, (who was no ordinary man) having
conceived a just idea of the divine power, he expressed it in a
dignified manner; for at the beginning of his laws he thus speaks: GOD
SAID--_What?_ LET THERE BE LIGHT! _and there was light_. LET THERE BE
EARTH! _and there was earth_.”[28]
Here we may inquire, Whether this was a word uttered with a sound, like
that which God spake from mount Sinai in giving the Law; or only the
exercise of the inward faculty of reason or understanding? It could not
be a word spoken with a sound, for that requires air as its _medium_,
and none as yet existed; neither was there any ear to hear, nor any
use of such words. Nor could it be any exercise of the Divine Mind,
now beginning to think of the creation and formation of things; for
this purpose was in his thoughts from eternity. The meaning therefore
is, that God did, without any instruments, toil, labor, alteration,
or delay, for the manifestation of his own infinite goodness, wisdom,
power, and will, actually working like a powerful word or command,
instantaneously produce _light_.[29] Thus
“Dark Chaos heard his voice.”
The Psalmist, touching on the subject of creation, says, “He spake, and
it was done: he commanded, and it stood fast”--יעמד _jagnamad, it stood
forth_, as a servant at his master’s command, prepared to do his will,
and to execute his pleasure.[30]
The divine commandment which produced light, says an intelligent
writer, must be considered as operating on the properties of matter
already created; and as light is found to proceed from the motion of
luminous particles, we must conceive some central force, or attracting
power, to be the instrument of producing this phenomenon of light,
by its attractive or propelling properties. There seem to be moving
principles in all nature, which, when put in action by the first
Cause, produce natural effects according to established laws, which
cannot be altered unless by the first Mover. As the Hebrew word תהומ
_tehom, abyss_, translated _deep_, signifies also to move with a sort
of confused motion; we may justly conclude that the chaotic mass had
some gravitating powers in it, before the forming of the system; and
that attracting and repelling force was naturally and originally in
the universe; and that the first Mover gave them in a regular course,
the specifical direction, and systematical attractions. What our
distinguished philosopher, Sir Isaac Newton, has suggested concerning
attraction and gravitation, even in point of philosophy, appears to
agree with the Principia of Moses.
Another author writes, Whether Moses intended a philosophical account
of light in this place, I will not pretend to say; but one thing is
certain, that he makes use of a word which points out some of the
principal properties of light. The original word אור _aur_ signifies
that body which renders objects visible, which we call _light_; it
also signifies _fire_, and perhaps Moses intended to point out in one
word, what in our language requires two, _light_ and _fire_. When we
consider the words of Moses, it appears evident that what is in our
version called _light_, is in the Hebrew rather something that sends
forth light. The original word אור _aur_ may signify any thing that
makes things visible by emitting particles of light. When the Almighty
said, “Let there be אור _aur, light_,” it is not certain that he meant
elementary fire, or original unpropagated light. It is more probable
that he intended by that word, a body that sent forth light by means of
the motion of similar particles of luminous and igneous matter.
Whatever may be the philosophic differences between these two, _light_
and _fire_, continues the same author, we are certain that they are
seldom separated. The origin of that light which now renders bodies
visible to us, seems chiefly to be _fire_, though light and fire are
not inseparably connected; for light may be propagated where there is
no fire, as from putrid bodies, &c, and fire may be where there is no
light, as in iron, sulphur, &c.
The Hebrew word אור _aur_, signifies not only light, but
_fire_. God created this powerful agent on the first day, and diffused
it through every part of nature; because without it no operation could
be carried on and perfected. T. Bartholine quotes Aristotle as saying,
“That fire is the efficient cause of all things.” Robison says, “Heat
is susceptible of fixation--of being accumulated in bodies, and, as
it were, laid up till we have occasion for it; and we are as certain
of getting the stored-up heat, as we are sure of obtaining from our
drawers the things we put in them.”[31] It pervades all bodies: this is
not the case with any other substance we know of--not even light. It
lies hid in every thing around us. It is a substance which we are ever
in want of; it is therefore deposited on every side, and is ready for
every exigency.
_Caloric_ is the name given by modern chemists, to that substance by
whose influence the phenomena of heat are produced, and which had
before been distinguished by the terms _igneous fluid_, _matter of
heat_, and other analogous denominations. In order to give precision
to chemical language, it was necessary to adopt a word by which to
distinguish between the substance which produces the sensation we call
heat, and the sensation itself; these being connected as cause and
effect; for whenever caloric becomes fixed in a body, it loses its
property of affording heat. Whatever is the nature of that quality in
bodies called heat, we are assured it does resemble the sensation of
heat. A man whose mind is destitute of the cultivation of science, if
endued with common sense, never imagines the sensation of heat to be
in the fire; he only imagines that there is something in fire which
occasions this sensation.
Though we are well acquainted with the effects of fire, we know but
little of its nature. It is so active, as well as powerful a principle,
that it eludes all our researches. We may, however, define it to be the
phlogiston or inflammable principle, which pervades in a greater or
less degree all substances. Boerhaave thinks it is a fluid of a nature
peculiar to itself; that it was created such as it is, and cannot be
altered in its nature or its properties; that it naturally exists in
equal quantities in all places; and that it is wholly imperceptible to
our senses, being only discoverable by such effects as in its operation
it produces.[32]
That fire is really a substance, and not a quality, appears from its
acting upon other substances, the reality of which has never been
doubted. Charcoal, in its natural state, contains within its pores a
large quantity of air; but if charcoal is heated, this air is expelled
by the fire, which assumes its place, and occupies the pores of the
charcoal. The burning of lime also, which deprives it of a great part
of its weight by expelling the fixable air, demonstrates that fire, as
a substance, enters into the pores of the lime, and forces out those
other substances which are least intimately combined with it.
Collision or friction of solid bodies, is the means most generally
used for exciting the action of fire. The vacuities of all solid
bodies are replete with fire, so that it is impossible to agitate or
separate their parts swiftly, without giving the same rapid motion to
the element contained within them. When a piece of hardened steel is
struck with a flint, some particles of the metal are scraped away from
the mass, and so violent is the fire which follows the stroke, that it
melts and vitrifies them. If the fragments of steel are catched upon
paper, and viewed with a microscope, you will find most of them perfect
spherules, and very highly polished. Their sphericity demonstrates that
they have been in a fluid state, and the polish upon their surface
shows them to be vitrified; the fire being disengaged with violence,
disposes the particles of the substance to combine with the vital
air, while this air accelerates the combustion. The whole of the heat
produced is not afforded by the body itself, because in proportion as
the interior fire is disengaged, the external air acts upon the body
and gives out fire.
If the irons at the axis of a coach-wheel are applied to each other,
without the interposition of some unctuous matter to keep them from
immediate contact, they will become so hot when the carriage runs
swiftly along, as to set the wood on fire; and the fore wheels being
smallest, and making more revolutions, will be most in danger. The same
will happen to mill-work, or any other machinery, if the necessary
precautions are neglected. It is no uncommon practice with a blacksmith
to use a plate of iron as an extemporaneous tinder-box; for it may be
hammered on an anvil till it becomes red hot, and will fire a match of
brimstone. A strong man who strikes quick, and keeps turning the iron,
so that both sides may be equally exposed to the force of the hammer,
will perform this in less time than would be expected. If in the
coldest season you lay one dense iron plate upon another, and press the
upper one, by a weight, on the lower one, and then rub the one over the
other; by reciprocal motions, they will first grow warm, and at length
so hot, as in a short time to emit sparks, and at last grow red hot, as
if taken out of a vehement fire.
It is not necessary that the substance should be very hard; a cord
rubbed backwards and forwards swiftly against a post or a tree will
take fire; a stick of wood pressed against another which is turned
swiftly about in a lathe, will soon make it turn black and emit smoke.
Even the palms of your hands, if you rub them briskly together, when
they are dry, will smell as if they were scorched. The method of
exciting fire by rubbing two sticks of wood together, was anciently
practised by country people, and is still retained in some parts of
the world. The manner is exactly described in Captain Cook’s voyage.
The inhabitants of New-Holland are there said to produce fire with
great facility, and spread it in a wonderful manner. To produce it,
they take two pieces of _soft_ dry wood; one is a stick about eight or
nine inches long, the other piece is flat. The stick they shape into an
obtuse point at one end, and pressing it upon the other, turn it nimbly
by holding it between both their hands, as we do a chocolate mill,
often shifting their hands up and down, and then moving them down upon
it to increase the pressure as much as possible. By this method they
get fire in less than two minutes, and from the smallest spark they
increase it with speed and dexterity.
The matter of fire is attracted more or less by all bodies. When any
heated body comes in contact with a cold one, the former loses a part
of its heat, and both of them become equally warm. If heated iron is
laid upon a stone, its heat will flow into the stone; if thrown into
the water, the heat will be diffused through the water. If a number of
different substances, as metals, wood, wool, &c, are brought together
into a place where there is not a fire, if they are of different
temperatures, that is of different degrees of heat, the fire will be
attracted from the hottest to those that are colder, till a perfect
equilibrium is produced, or till they have all acquired the same
temperature, as may be proved by applying the thermometer successively
to each of them.
It does not appear, however, that all bodies have an equal attraction
for the matter of fire. If a rod of iron is put into the fire for a
short time, the end which is at a moderate distance from the fire will
almost burn the hand; but a rod of wood, of the same length will be
consumed to ashes at the end which is in the fire, before the other end
is sufficiently heated to burn the hand. A ball of lead, and a ball of
wool, may be of exactly the same temperature by the thermometer, but
they will not appear of the same degree of heat on applying the hand.
If they are of a temperature below that of our bodies, the lead will
appear much colder than the wool, because it attracts the heat more
rapidly from the hand; if they are of a higher temperature, the lead
will appear much hotter, from the facility with which it parts with its
heat. This property in bodies is called their _conducting_ power; and
those bodies through which the element of fire most rapidly circulates,
are called good conductors.
The power of conducting the matter of fire seems to depend upon the
texture of bodies, that is, upon the contact of their parts; hence the
excessive slowness with which heat is communicated to bodies of a rare
and spongy texture. Thus flannel, wool, and feathers, are considered as
warm coverings, not because they possess more heat in themselves--for
they serve to preserve any cold body in a cool state better than other
substances--but because they prevent the escape of the animal heat from
our bodies.
The matter of fire will exist in a state of combination, in a _latent_
state, so as not to be perceptible to our senses. It will be found by
observation, that every body which exists contains a quantity of the
matter of fire in a fixed or neutralized state, disarmed of all its
active, penetrating, and destructive qualities, like an acid and an
alkali in combination.
Fluids, from their very nature and constitution, contain a greater
quantity of caloric in a latent state than solid bodies: indeed it is
now universally admitted, and may be easily proved, that the fluidity
of all bodies is altogether owing to the quantity of fire which they
retain in this latent or combined state, the elasticity of which keeps
their particles remote from each other, and prevents their fixing into
a solid mass. All bodies, therefore, in passing from a fluid to a solid
state, emit a quantity of fire or heat. When water is thrown upon quick
lime, it is absorbed by the lime, and in this state it is capable of
retaining a much smaller quantity of caloric than in its natural state;
on the slacking of lime, therefore, a very intense heat is produced,
the matter of fire which preserved the water fluid being disengaged and
detached. If spirit of vitriol is added to strong oil of turpentine,
they will condense into a solid mass, and a great quantity of heat will
be sensibly emitted. Upon the same principle it will be found, on the
other hand, that when any body passes from a solid to a fluid state,
the adjacent bodies will be deprived of a quantity of their natural
heat.
[This theory of what is called _burning lime_, is not
sufficiently clear. Fire does not enter into the pores of the
lime by burning. The mineral commonly used for procuring _quick
lime_ is the _carbonate_ of lime, or common _limestone_, which
is composed of carbonic acid with a small quantity of water,
43, and lime 57, in 100 parts. By submiting it to a strong
heat, the carbonic acid is driven off, and the quick or pure
lime remains, which is an _oxide of calcium_. The loss in
weight is owing to the expulsion of the carbonic acid, with
the small portion of water. By adding water to the quick lime,
it is dissolved, and falls into a powder. This process is
called _slacking lime_, and the product, _slack-lime_. During
the process a large quantity of heat is disengaged; and if
the slacking be done in the dark, _light_ is also observed to
be thrown out. This heat is given out by the _water_, not the
lime. The lime having a _greater affinity_ for the _hydrogen_
of the water than exists between the hydrogen and oxygen in
water, seizes upon it, and the _oxygen passes off_, together
with the _latent caloric_ of the water, and thus the heat is
produced which is observed in slacking lime. The hydrogen of
the water combines with the lime and becomes solid, forming
an _hydrate of lime_, which is the common slacked lime used in
mortar.]
The matter of fire is _elastic_, as is proved evidently from all its
effects. There is indeed reason to believe, that caloric is the only
fluid in nature which is permanently elastic, and that it is the
cause of the elasticity of all fluids which are esteemed so. From the
elasticity of this element it results, that all natural bodies can only
retain a certain quantity of it, without undergoing an alteration in
their state and form. Thus a moderate quantity of fire admitted into a
solid body expands it; a still larger quantity renders it fluid; and if
the quantity is still increased, it will be converted into vapor.
Caloric expands all bodies which it penetrates, more or less, in
proportion to its quantity, and to the nature of those bodies. The
expansion of water, even previous to its assuming the form of vapor,
may be seen in an easy experiment. If a quantity of cold water,
contained in a clear flask, is immersed in a vessel of boiling water;
as the heat enters, the water in the flask will be seen to rise in the
neck till it overflows.
An iron rod a foot long being heated red hot, became 1-60 longer
than before; and a glass cylinder, a fathom long, under the same
circumstances, gained 1-50 in length. A metalline ring thus heated was
increased 9-100 in its diameter; and a glass globe became extended
1-100 part by the heat of the hand only applied to its surface.[33]
The _general_ effects of caloric are to increase the bulk of the
substances with which it unites, and to render them specifically
lighter than they were before; but in whatever quantity it is
accumulated in bodies, it never adds to their absolute weight.
Caloric favors the solution of salts, and promotes the union of many
substances. In other cases it serves to separate bodies already united;
so that in the hands of chemists it is the most useful and powerful
agent with which they are acquainted. It is the cause of fluidity in
all substances which are capable of becoming fluid, from the heaviest
metal to the lightest gas. Let it be remembered that _all_ fluids are
formed from solids by an addition of caloric; and that, by abstracting
this caloric, solids would be reproduced. It insinuates itself among
their particles, and invariably separates them in some measure from
each other. We have reason to believe that every solid substance on
the face of the earth might be converted to a fluid, or even a gas,
were it submitted to the action of a very high temperature in peculiar
circumstances.[34]
[The general and aggregate bearing of the facts and
experiments which are now known, render the statement here
made by Mr. Wood extremely probable, viz; That caloric is a
very subtle fluid which pervades in large quantities every
particle of matter in the universe--that it is the agent which
regulates the _densities_ of all bodies, and by consequence,
regulates in some measure their _weight_ and _dimensions_. It
is considered as an almost settled question, _that a stratum
of caloric surrounds each ultimate particle of every body, so
that the ultimate particles of bodies do not, and cannot be
made to touch each other_. Their inherent inclination to come
into actual contact is called their _attraction of cohesion_:
the power of this attraction is in proportion to the distance
at which they are kept from each other by the atmosphere of
caloric which intervenes between them. This atmosphere of
caloric is _idio-repulsive_: of course the particles of caloric
have an inherent _repulsion_ among themselves, and are ever
struggling to get further asunder.
This idio-repulsive nature of caloric is the great, and
constant antagonist power to the attraction of cohesion.
Caloric has a tendency to drive the particles of matter further
from each other, and these particles have a mutual tendency
to approach. Hence these two principles are ever in conflict.
As a general rule we may say, when the attraction of cohesion
prevails greatly, the body becomes _solid_: when the two forces
are pretty nearly balanced, the body becomes _liquid_: when the
caloric prevails greatly, the body becomes _gaseous_.
There is sufficient reason to believe, that _every_ body
in nature might be raised to a _gaseous_ state by the addition
or action of a sufficient quantity of caloric: and there is,
probably, a sufficient quantity in nature, to render the whole
_universe_ gaseous, were it sufficiently excited to a state
of freedom. It is a well known fact, that _all the metals are
fusible by heat_, and many of them have been _volatalized_, and
it is extremely probable all of them may be.
As caloric regulates the density of bodies, by resisting
and modifying the influence of the attraction of cohesion: if
it were entirely withdrawn from nature, or the whole of it
rendered perfectly latent, _all matter would become perfectly_
SOLID and FIXED: even _water_ and _air_ would assume the
_solidity of the diamond_.
We must, therefore, regard caloric as the great
conservative principle of the Universe, and yet capable, if
called into action, of destroying it instantly.
These views strongly corroborate _our_ paper on _chaos_.]
From the experiments of General Roy, in the 75th volume of the
Philosophical Transactions, it appears that the expansion of a steel
pendulum of a clock is such, that every four degrees of the thermometer
will cause a variation of a second per day; and that the difference
between the going of a clock in summer and winter will be about six
seconds per day, or one minute in ten days, owing to the metallic
pendulum varying in length with every change of temperature. A
knowledge of this circumstance gave rise to Harrison’s self-regulating
time-piece, which, by the different expansion of _different_ metals,
accommodates its movements to every change of seasons or climate.
The fire deposited below the surface of the earth is peculiarly
important, having produced earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Dr.
Watson, late Bishop of Llandaff, in his Chemical Essays, says, The most
remarkable changes which have taken place in the form and constitution
of the earth, since the deluge, have probably been produced by
subterraneous fires; for it is to their agency that philosophers
ascribe volcanos and earthquakes; those tremendous instruments of
nature, by which she converts plains into mountains, the ocean into
islands, and dry land into stagnant pools. Mr. Lemery, as far as I have
been able to learn, adds the learned Bishop, was the first person who
illustrated, by actual experiment, the origin of subterraneous fires.
He mixed twenty-five pounds of powdered sulphur with an equal weight of
iron filings; and having kneaded the mixture together, by means of a
little water, into the consistency of a paste, he put it into an iron
pot, covered it with a cloth, and buried the whole a foot under ground.
In about eight or nine hours time the earth swelled, grew warm, and
cracked: hot sulphureous vapors were perceived: a flame which dilated
the cracks was observed; the superincumbent earth was covered with a
yellow and black powder: in short, a subterraneous fire, producing a
volcano in miniature, was spontaneously lighted up from the reciprocal
actions of sulphur, iron, and water.
Volcanic eruptions are awfully terrific, and sometimes extensively
destructive. The violent eruption of Vesuvius, in 1767, is reckoned the
27th since that which destroyed the cities of Herculaneum and Pompeii,
in the reign of the Emperor Titus; and this eruption of 1767, has been
succeeded by several others. Of the eruptions of Ætna, Mr. Oldenburg
has given a historical account in the Philosophical Transactions, No.
xlviii. p. 967. A very great eruption of this mountain was in the year
1669. The progress of the lava, or fiery deluge, was at the rate of a
furlong a day. It advanced into the sea 600 yards, and was then a mile
in breadth. It had destroyed, in forty days, the habitations of 27,000
persons; and of 20,000 inhabitants of the city of Catanea, only 3,000
escaped. This inundation of liquid fire, in its progress, met with a
lake four miles in compass, and not only filled it up, although it was
four fathoms deep, but raised it into a mountain. Borelli, an ingenious
Neapolitan, has calculated, that the matter discharged at this eruption
was sufficient to fill a space of 93,838,750 cubic spaces. The lava
which ran from it is fourteen miles in length, and, in many parts, six
in breadth. There have been no such eruptions since, although there
have been signs of many, more terrible, that preceded it.[35]
The principal volcanos in Europe are Mount Vesuvius, near Naples, in
Italy; Mount Ætna, in Sicily; Mount Hecla, in Iceland; and Stromboli,
the most northern of the Lipari islands, north of Sicily. Of all the
volcanos recorded in history, Stromboli seems to be the only one that
burns incessantly. Ætna and Vesuvius are sometimes many months, and
even years, without the least emission of fire; but this is ever at
work, and, for ages past, has been considered as the light-house of
the Mediterranean Sea. It is very probable, that Mount Vesuvius and
Mount Ætna form but different portions of _one_ chain of mountains that
passes under the sea, and the isle of Lipari; for whenever one of the
volcanos has a great eruption, it is observed that the other, and the
volcano in the isle of Lipari, throw out more flames than ordinary.
This remark was made by Huet, Bishop of Avranches, in France, a
celebrated philosophical, historical, and commercial writer. The force
of volcanos is supposed to be the greatest of any thing yet known in
nature. In the great eruption of Vesuvius, in 1779, a stream of lava,
of an immense magnitude, is said to have been projected to the height
of at least 10,000 feet above the top of the mountain.
[The present state of chemical science, and the
geological discoveries of the last ten or fifteen years,
seem to discountenance the theory, that volcanic action, and
earthquakes result from _sulphur_, _iron_, and _water_, as Mr.
Lemery’s experiment seems to indicate.
The vast extent of volcanic action, as indicated by extinct
and active volcanos, would require a greater amount of these
materials, than can be supposed to exist in the composition of
the earth. Thus, according to the Newtonian test of a correct
theory, the means, if true, would not be sufficient.
Again: If sulphur and iron were the principal agents in
producing volcanic action, and earthquakes, _volcanic products
would give evidence of it_, by being, principally, _sulphate
of iron_. So far is this from being the fact, that in 100
parts, volcanic product, Dr. Kennedy found, in reference to two
volcanos, not exceeding 14.25 oxide of iron, and no sulphur at
all.
Volcanic products are generally, “mixtures of the earth in
an oxidated and fused state, under intense ignition; water and
saline substances, such as might be furnished by the sea and
air, altered as might be expected from the formation of fixed
oxidated matter.” URE.
These two simple considerations must set aside the theory
mentioned in the text. Other valid objections might be urged.
As this theory is inadmissible, because, neither true in
application to volcanic action and product, nor sufficient in
force, it is proper to supply the deficiency.
By a careful inspection of the phenomena attending volcanic
action, as well as an examination of its products, we are
clearly convinced, the _agents are aëriform_; chiefly _steam_
and the _gases_, and they act with an _expansive force from
beneath_.
Mouna Roa, in the island Owhyhee, rises 15,000 feet,
and has on its top a crater _eight miles_ in circumference,
containing a vast lake of molten lava. Mr. Goodrich visited it
in 1824. He says, “exhalations escape from all the fissures of
the lava crust, producing here and there a blast _like strong
vapor blowing out of a steam boiler_.”
Subsequently, a party from the Blonde frigate visited it,
and the Rev. Charles Stewart, who accompanied the party, has
given a description of the crater. He says, “its surface had
all the agitation of the ocean. Billow after billow tossed
its monstrous bosom into the air, and occasionally the waves
from apposite directions met with such violence, as to dash
the fiery spray, in the concussion, forty or fifty feet high.”
_Ure’s New Syst. Geol._ pp. 381-2.
In both these accounts we clearly see aëriform agents
acting from beneath. The _hissing_ noise of steam escaping from
a boiler, convinces of the _nature_ of the body escaping. The
_upheaving_ of the melted lava proves, not only, that the agent
acts from _beneath_ by expansion, but also, by its resemblance
to the common phenomenon observed in boiling liquids, that
the agent is formed below, and rises through the melted lava,
heaving it up in swells and waves, until it escapes in a
gaseous state, like vapor from boiling liquids.
We must come to the same conclusion from the experiments,
observations, and reports of the celebrated, and intrepid
Spallanzani, who visited and examined the crater of the
ever-burning Stromboli. His words are nearly these: Fluid lava,
resembling melted brass red-hot, and liquid filled the crater
to a certain height, and this matter appeared to be influenced
by two distinct impelling powers; the one whirling and
agitated; and the other upwards, terminating in an explosion
like a short clap of thunder. Immediately before the explosion
occurred, the lava appeared _inflated_, and _large bubbles_,
some several feet in diameter, rose and burst, the detonation
followed and the lava sunk. During the rising, _a sound
issued from the crater like that produced by a liquid boiling
violently in a caldron_. In this case we have every evidence of
an _aëriform agent acting from beneath_.
An aëriform agent is detected also by examining the
_structure_ of volcanic products, which have been ejected in
a melted state. They are found to be _vesicular_, _cellular_,
and _porous_. This structure proves, incontestibly, that these
cavities and cells were filled with an aëriform body, which
escaped upon cooling.
This position might be sustained by other proofs, but it
is unnecessary. It remains only to ask, _whether these elastic
agents are sufficient to produce the astonishing amount and
products of volcanic action and earthquakes_?
The force which elastic agents are known to possess, when
generated suddenly, and raised to a high temperature, answers
this question promptly in the _affirmative_. A very few grains
of gunpowder, when converted into gas by sudden ignition in
a gun-barrel, by their expansive force drive a bullet with
astonishing power and velocity. A few cubic feet of water
converted into steam, will burst the strongest metallic barrier
which man can construct, unless it find vent.
As we have seen sufficiently clearly that aëriform bodies,
as steam and gases, are the elastic agents in producing
earthquakes and volcanos, it remains to inquire into the
_production_ and _action_ of those agents.
As it regards their production, the present state of
geological and chemical science suggests _three_ theories,
each of which would be adequate to the object.
It is necessary to premise that _water_ is a common agent
in each of the three theories.
1. The splendid discoveries of Sir H. Davy, in regard to
the _bases_ of the earths, demonstrating them to be _metallic_,
and the earths merely _oxides_ of those metals, have led to the
conjecture, _that these metals exist in nearly a pure state in
the interior of the earth_; of course the _crust_ of the earth
is composed of the various metallic oxides.
It is well known that many of these metals _take fire on
coming into contact with water, as potassium, sodium, &c_; and
_all of them oxidize rapidly on meeting with water and air_,
and thus _large quantities of hydrogen gas would be evolved_.
This theory is so reasonable, in view of the
_combustibility_ of metals, and so conformable to science, that
we almost decide it is true, without further examination.
But, in order that its demonstration should be clear, it
must first be shown, _that the metals do exist in nearly a pure
state in the interior of the earth_: and then, _that they are
accessible by water, or air, or both_.
The first point can only be rendered _probable by analogy_.
We _know_ that the earths which are found in the crust of our
planet are _metallic oxides_. It is very natural to suppose
these metals existed in a pure _metallic state at the creation,
as well at the surface as at the centre_; as all other bodies
most probably existed in an elementary and uncombined state
when God first produced them. From this supposition it is
easy to see, that when water and air came into action, which
would be at the earth’s surface, these metals would be rapidly
oxidized, thus forming the earths. But as this process would
commence at the _surface_ of the earth, and _tend towards the
centre_, it is evident its _progress would be arrested by its
own action_.
For the _accumulation of the earths_, by the oxidation of
the metals, would gradually form the _superincumbent crust_,
which would act as a _barrier_ to the water and air, preventing
their contact with the metals in the interior, _which_, of
course, _would not be oxidized_.
In this state they would remain buried deep under the
superincumbent oxidated crust of the earth, until water and
air should find access to them. When this should take place
a rapid, and extensive _chemical action_ would commence,
generating immense quantities of hydrogen gas, the metals
_decomposing_ the air and water, in the process of oxidation,
and setting the _hydrogen_ of the water, and _nitrogen_ of the
air _free_. Thus a large amount of the most inflammable of all
gases would be disengaged. The rapid chemical action would
_raise the temperature_ of these gases, and thus _increase
their bulk_ immensely, which would produce an irresistible
_expansive force_, which would _increase the pressure_ against
the sides of the cavern in which the gases were generated,
_and the_ IGNITION _of the hydrogen would be a necessary
consequence_. Such an immense volume of gas being ignited, and
confined, would produce such a degree of heat, as rapidly to
_decompose_ or _melt_ the substances in its neighborhood, and
set at liberty a vast quantity of other gases; all of which
being _ignited_, and of course _expanded_ immeasurably, would
not only shake a given section of the earth, but, if placed
in its centre, would shake the solid globe throughout, and
rend it into ten thousand pieces, if it did not find means to
escape. If it found means of escape by some opening forced from
its seat to the surface of the earth, _that opening would_
CONSTITUTE A VOLCANO; from which the gases would escape, and
throw out before them the vast amount of volcanic products
which are known to come forth of the craters.
It now remains to inquire, _whether a sufficient quantity
of water can be supposed to have access to these metals_?
From what we know of the distribution of water generally
in the bowels of the earth, we should have no difficulty in
admitting the _affirmative_. But this question may be clearly
answered by two circumstances.
First: Large quantities of boiling water and mud, are
frequently ejected from volcanos. This proves an _excess_
of water at, or near the seat of action, which could not be
decomposed, before the amount of gases generated, and acting
with incredible force, drove it out of the crater. This fact is
true in some measure of all volcanos, but eminently so of those
in South America. “Bouguer and Condamine saw these formidable
torrents tear up the surface of a whole country. Six hours
after an explosion of Cotopaxi, a village nearly eighty miles
distant in a straight line, and probably one hundred and forty
by the winding channel, was entirely swept away by the flood.”
_Ure’s New Sys. Geol._ p. 386.
Secondly: The position of volcanos, _always near the
sea_, together with the _agitations of the sea_, previous to,
and during an eruption, as well as the _saline_ matter in
the ejected substances, render it very clear, _that the sea,
by subterranean communication, supplies water at the seat
of volcanic action_. “The sea seems to sympathise with the
agitations of the adjoining volcanos, rising and falling with
rapid alternation--_caused by the sudden deflux of a great body
of water into the vast volcanic caverns_.” _Ure’s New Sys.
Geol._ p. 388.
This fact is so well known in the history of volcanos,
that it needs no further proof. It has, however, led to the
remark, that volcanos are generally situated in islands, or
near the sea coast. Indeed many of them are _submarine_, and
have actually been seen in operation, throwing up vast columns
of water to an immense height, until the edge of the crater
appeared above the surface of the sea, and increased into
islands, which have become permanent. At such times the water
of the sea for a great distance round became _hot_, fishes
died; and even the pitch melted from the hulks of the vessels
in the neighborhood.
2. Another theory has been proposed which does not differ
from the first, in regard to the _materials_ employed at the
seat of volcanic action, nor in the _manner_ of the process;
but in regard to the _condition_ of those materials when they
_begin_ to operate in the production of the elastic agents.
These materials may be in a state of _igneous fusion_ in the
interior of the earth. This state is supposed to have resulted
thus:
When God created the substances of the earth, they were
in an _elementary_ and _uncombined_ state, promiscuously
mixed through each other from the surface to the centre. By
his _Spirit brooding over the great deep_, caloric and light,
which were in a _latent_ state, were called into action,
which gave impulse and motion to every particle of matter,
thus quickening the whole mass by producing _intense heat_.
This would cause the _aqueous_ and _gaseous_ particles to
rise through the mass, and collect at the surface. This would
bring them in contact with the metals in a pure state, which
would of course _oxidize_, and become _earths_. This action
would go on until it arrested its own progress, by forming and
consolidating the oxidated crust of the earth inclosing all
the interior substances in a state of igneous fusion, which
have been gradually cooling ever since. The _primitive_ rocks,
which have a crystalline structure, are supposed to have been
deposited during this process, as it is evident they could not
have crystallized under any other circumstances, and they are
well known to be composed of the earths which are only metals
in a state of oxidation. It is now only necessary to introduce
the water to this mass of melted matter, or any part of it, as
in the first theory to the metals in their pure state, _and we
have the same results in all respects_.
This theory has two advantages over the first. It agrees
best with the crystalline structure which primitive rocks are
known to possess, and which must result from chemical action on
the materials in a state of solution. It also seems to accord
best with the Mosaic account of the action of heat and light,
in assimilating, arranging and settling the materials of the
earth.
Moreover, it is confirmed by experiments made on the
_temperature_ of the earth at different depths. The following
tables are extracted from Mr. Ure’s New System of Geology, pp.
426-7. They accord, in their tendency, with the opinions of
other eminent philosophers than those whose names appear in the
tables.
_Observations on the temperature of the earth._
In the mines of Giro-Magny, three leagues from Befort,
M. Gensanne found:
At 333 feet, 54½ Fahr.
680 “ 62
1016 “ 66½
1429 “ 73
In the mines of Freyberg, M. D’Aubuisson found
External air 41
In the galleries 50
528 feet, water pool 52
858 water of a spring 57
At Junghohebirke,
external thermometer 32
1040 feet, water was 63
Observations by Captain Lean in the mines of
Cornwall.
At surface, in June, 59
118 feet deep 64½
480 “ 68
840 “ 69½
1144 “ 79
_December._
At the surface air 50
120 feet air 57
600 “ air 66
---- “ water 64
962 “ air 70
---- “ water 74
1200 “ air 78
---- “ water 78
M. Humboldt obtained analogous results in many mines
in South America. The evidence in favor of a _perpetually
increasing temperature as you descend into the earth_, and a
_higher temperature formerly at the surface of the earth_, is
increasing daily. _See the conclusion of this paper._
3. There is yet a third theory, founded on _voltaic
energy_, or _galvanism_ and _electricity_.
The application of these agents to the production of
volcanic action, had occurred to me, before I met with the
“Outline of the course of Geological Lectures, given in Yale
College,” by Professor Silliman, from which the following
extract is made. I had not regarded their application in
the same manner as he has explained it. Indeed, my thoughts
on the subject had not assumed any definite direction. I
shall transcribe from his “Outline,” pp. 118-19, inserted in
“Bakewell’s Introduction to Geology, first American Edition.”
“Whatever we may think of the hypothesis now detailed, may
we not suppose, with sufficient probability, that those voltaic
powers which we _know_ to exist--whose action we can command,
and whose effects having been first observed within the memory
of the present generation, now fill us with astonishment, are
constantly active in producing the phenomena of earthquakes and
volcanos?
“Arrangements of metals and fluids are the common means
by which we evolve this wonderful power, in our laboratories;
and it would seem that nothing more than juxta-position, in
a certain order, is necessary to the effect. Even substances
apparently dry and inert, with respect to each other, will
produce a permanent, and in proportion to the means employed,
a powerful effect, as in the columns of De Luc and Zamboui. It
would seem indeed that metals and fluids are not _necessary_
to the effect. Arrangements of almost any substances that are
of different natures, will cause the evolution of this power.
Whoever has witnessed the overwhelming brilliancy and intense
energy of the great galvanic combinations, especially the
deflagrator of Dr. Hare, and considers how very trifling, in
extent, are our largest combinations of apparatus, compared
with those natural arrangements of earths, salts, metals, and
fluids, which we know to exist in the earth, in circumstances
similar to those which, in our laboratories, are effectual in
causing this power to appear, will not be slow to believe that
it may be in the earth perpetually evolved, and perpetually
renewed; and now mitigated, suppressed, or revived, according
to circumstances influencing the particular state of things at
particular places.
“In our laboratories we see emanating from this source,
intense light, irresistible heat, magnetism in great energy,
and above all, a decomposing power, which commands equally
all the elements, and the proximate principles in all their
combinations.
“Sir Humphrey Davy, after discovering that the supporters
of combustion and the acids, were all evolved at the
positive pole, and the combustibles and metals, and their
oxidated products, at the negative--proved that even the
firmest rocks and stones could not resist this power; their
immediate principles and elements being separated by its
energy. The decomposition of the alkalies, earths, and other
metallic oxides being a direct and now familiar effect of
voltaic energy--their metals being set at liberty, and being
combustible both in air and water--elastic agents produced
by this power, and rarified by heat, being also attendant on
these decompositions, it would seem that the first principles
are fully established by experiment, and that nothing is
hypothetical, but the application to the phenomena of
earthquakes and volcanos.”
The reader will perceive that all of the above theories
agree in one respect, viz; in the agency of _elastic bodies_,
as steam and gases, produced by the decomposition of
substances; and that the same substances are supposed to be
employed, though not precisely in the same manner, nor in the
same condition. Further Geological and Chemical experiments
may, hereafter, settle the question between these theories.
They are all scientific in their principles, and fully
competent to the object, and it is not impossible but that they
may all be true in part or in whole, acting separately in some
instances, and combined in others.
Under the agency of either of them the products would be
the same. Dr. Kennedy has made experiments on the composition
of volcanic products, and found, Silex, 51--Alumina, 19--Lime,
9.5--Oxide of iron, 14.5--Soda, 4--Muriatic acid, 1--in 100
parts.
As it regards the extent of volcanic action and
earthquakes, the two first theories agree best with actual
appearances. They would lead us to conclude that volcanic
action was necessarily more extensive in the earlier ages of
the world than now. Because, every action would oxidize the
crust of the earth deeper, and increase the superincumbent
strata, and render the access of water and air more difficult.
_This is found to be the fact by observation in different
countries._
In some parts of France, in which kingdom there is not,
and has not been for the last two thousand years, any active
volcano, _there are ranges of extinct volcanos, in which may
be counted from seventy to one hundred craters_. They are so
close their bases touch in many instances. The same fact is
observed along the Rhine, and in Hungary, and other countries.
_See Ure’s New Syst. Geol. and Bakewell’s Geology._
Mr. Ure reckons up two hundred and five _active_
volcanos at this time. One hundred and seven in islands, and
ninety-eight on continents.
It is very evident that the _seat_ of volcanic action is
vastly below the surface of the earth. The _extent_ of country
which is shaken by the effort of the gases to escape, will
prove this. The agitations have been felt over all Europe, and
even _across the Atlantic_!
Again: If the action were not situated far below the
surface of the earth, the mountains, which only serve as
_chimnies_, and which have been formed by the action of the
volcanos, _would sink in_. This has been the case in a few
instances. This will appear more clearly if we consider
the _amount_ of matter ejected. Did it not come from an
immeasurable distance beneath, the accumulated mass at the
surface of the earth would break down the _substrata_ which
lie over the immense caverns formed by the ejection. The
_dimensions_ of those caverns, situated under the volcanic
mountains, are far greater than one would suppose at first
consideration. _The internal caverns must be as large as the
ejected masses, which came out of them._ Ætna is known to have
thrown out matter sufficient to form twenty such mountains as
it is. It is strongly probable that the whole island of Sicily
is of volcanic origin. Humboldt says the dome-shaped craters
of volcanos rise from six hundred to eighteen thousand feet in
height. He considers the _whole mountainous district of Quito
as one immense volcano_.
Indeed, from a close survey of the geological features of
the earth, there is reason to believe, that at very remote
periods almost the whole surface of our globe has been the
theatre of volcanic action. It is a matter of gratitude
that its amount is growing less every year, of course the
destructions by earthquakes are more limited. In process
of time, it may be hoped, the earth may become permanently
tranquil, nor flame, nor shake, until the final catastrophe,
which God has ordained to destroy our planet, by a general and
simultaneous action of all the fires of the earth.
P.S. It may be of advantage to recollect, that the
_expansive force of steam is to that of gunpowder as 140 to
5_. According to Vauban, 140 pounds of water converted into
vapor would produce an explosion capable of blowing up 77,000
pounds, while 140 pounds of gunpowder could only blow up a mass
of 30,000. _See the text under the head_, “SALUTARY EFFECTS OF
WATER.”
APPENDIX.
_On the temperature of the earth anciently._
That the temperature of the earth’s surface was much higher
in the first ages of its existence, than since the period of
authentic history, seems now to be nearly established, in the
opinion of the learned, and only requires time to have the
weight of evidence produce its proper effect on the great mass
of community.
Though this fact would be apprehended from what is said
above, it may be desirable to the reader to see a concise view
of the reasons which induce this opinion.
1. _It may be inferred from the original constitution of
the globe, and the chemical action consequent upon it._ It
has been seen above that the _natural_ condition of matter
is _cold_, _frozen_, _inactive_, and _solid_: and that the
elements of this globe were created in a _simple, uncombined
state_. If this mass of elements received a quickening impulse,
the chemical laws of _affinity_ and _attraction_, and also the
natural law of _gravitation_, would commence exerting their
influence. This we know would create a rise in the temperature
of the whole mass, in proportion to the _amount_ of matter
acted on, and the _force_ of the different principles and
agents which were in operation. Upon consideration of these
points in regard to our earth, no one can doubt but that they
would raise the temperature to an inconceivable height.
_Refrigeration_ would commence at the surface as soon
as the first violent action was abated, and the water and
air began to assume their relative places, through which the
heat would escape into celestial space. This refrigeration
would be increased by the oxidation of the metals forming the
crust of the earth, which would confine the interior heat
more effectually, because, the earths are almost complete
_non-conductors_ of caloric. Thus the crust of the earth would
continue to cool, and the oxidation would thicken it, and, of
course, contribute to the reduction of its temperature.
From this natural process it is very evident that the earth
was much warmer during its first periods; earthquakes, and
volcanos much more common than now, and a general instability
in the condition of our globe. The deluge was the climax of its
alternations, and settled, in some measure, its constitution by
a sudden and great reduction of temperature.
2. _It may be inferred from the vast extent of volcanic
action, as indicated by the remains of extinct volcanos, and
their effects on the earth._ This argument is merely _called up
here_, not to be discussed at length, but to be _referred_ to,
as it has been mentioned in a preceding part of this paper.
It is almost impossible for the ordinary reader, who has
not closely studied the geological phenomena which present
themselves to the close observer, to conceive of the extent
to which volcanic action operated anciently. It would not be
exaggeration to say, there was a remote period _when our globe
was a single volcano_: the whole surface of it being subject to
its action.
Though we may ascribe something of the formation of hills
and vallies to the action of water, yet, doubtless, the
most effectual agent in upheaving the mountains, and even
continents, possibly, was volcanic force.
“Those ranges of volcanos,” says the celebrated Humboldt,
“those eruptions through vast chasms, those subterranean
thunders, that roll under the transition rocks of porphyry and
slate in the new world, remind us of the present activity of
subterranean fire, of the power, which in remote ages, _has
raised up chains of mountains, broke the surface of the globe,
and poured torrents of liquid earth in the midst of the most
ancient strata_.”
From this constant and extensive volcanic action we may
safely infer the high temperature of our earth anciently.
3. _It may be inferred from the origin of primitive,
trapean, and basaltic rocks._ The primitive rocks, as granite,
gneiss, mica slate, &c, give evidence on this consideration;
they must have been deposited when their substance was in
solution, admitting of _chemical mobility_, in order that they
might assume a crystalline form which they are known to have.
It is not easy to conceive _how_ the substances of the
primitive rocks could be solved, except by _heat_, as a
_principal solvent_. The acids, and water also, may have
contributed to their solution, but would not be competent of
themselves. This consideration would give a high temperature
for the earth anciently.
It is now generally admitted that the trap, and basaltic
rocks are of _igneous_ origin. When we consider the _magnitude_
of the trap and basalt formations, the extent of surface which
they cover, the hills, and even elevated and lofty mountains
which they form, we shall not hesitate to assign a higher
temperature to our earth at the period when fires, so immense
as to effect the upheaving and ejection of all these, actually
burned in the bowels of the earth.
4. _It may be inferred from the well preserved remains of
vegetables and animals of warm equatorial climates, in high
northern latitudes where they have not been found since the
memory of man._ This is a conclusive argument if its _data_
be well established. Because, if _tropical_ and _equatorial_
animals and fruits are _now_ found buried and fossilized
in Siberia, and the islands of the _arctic sea_, in such a
state of preservation as to forbid the supposition they were
transported thither, it will follow inevitably, that they _grew
there_, and there flourished, died, and were buried.
Moreover, if _herbivorous_ animals are found fossilized
in those high northern latitudes, under such circumstances as
forbid the supposit
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/44636