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^CELRATH & BANGS.

1831.

[Entered, according to the Act of Congress, July 27, in the year 1831, by M^cElrath & 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, Jehovah. 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. נצר חסד 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 s, 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 millionsof 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!

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

At surface,	December.	air	50
120	feet deep	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 supposition, that they were transported thither, it will doubtless, follow, that not only they lived there, but also luxuriant vegetation must at the same time have covered the plains where their remains are entombed.

The inference which we are forced to draw from these data, is this: As no such tropical and equatorial animals or plants have been known to exist there, nor even herbage of any kind, on which such animals might subsist, since the memory of man, there was a time anciently when the climate suited their growth, and of course was very much warmer than it is known to be now, its temperature then corresponding to the temperature of the present equatorial regions, as it produced and subsisted anciently the animals and plants which the tropical regions produce and subsist at the present time, and which cannot subsist in any other climates.

In proof of the above position, it is well known that animals and plants have their peculiar climates, in which they are indigenous, and out of which they cannot thrive, or even live, if too far removed. It is also well known, that the warmer, and more moist the climate is, the more luxuriant the vegetation, and the more huge the animals.

Hence we are in the habit of denominating animals and plants by the climates in which they are indigenous, as arctic, or northern; tropical, or southern. Let us now see if the tropical animals and plants once lived and flourished in high northern latitudes. The best authorities follow.

“We proceed now to examine the remains of quadrupeds: these are found accumulated in regions where similar animals do not now exist. Some are buried deep in gypsum.—Some present themselves to view, accumulated in vast caverns, and destitute of any envelope. The islands of Lachof, situated to the north of Siberia, are, according to a modern traveller, only heaps of sand, ice, and bones of elephants and rhinoceros, mixed with those of great cetaceous animals, and even, agreeably to the latest accounts, with the remains of gigantic birds.

“There have been found in Siberia, whole carcases of the elephant, covered with their flesh and skin, preserved by the frosts which prevail in those regions.—Germany has furnished the greatest number (of bones:)—In France a great many bones of the elephant have been met with.

“These discoveries, though as yet scarcely commenced, have thrown already a new light upon the revolutions which our globe must have undergone, and upon the states which must have preceded the present course and constitution of nature.

“These bones, presenting no trace of having been rolled up and down, occurring only fractured as we find those of our domestic animals, and sometimes joined together in the form of skeletons, often even as it were heaped up in common cemeteries, clearly demonstrate, that the catastrophe which has destroyed the living beings to which they belonged must have overtaken them in the same climates where we meet with these records of their former existence.

“The quantity of nourishment which such huge animated masses required, and their numbers, proved by the existence of the carnivorous kinds, render it probable that the countries where we find their remains once enjoyed a temperature, if not warmer, at least more favorable to vegetation.” Malte Brun, Physical Geography, Book 12.

In the above quotations, the data on which our argument rests are so clearly sustained there needs no comment. The authority given is unquestionable, and could be corroborated by scores of weighty names, and in reference to all the northern countries of Asia, Europe, and America.

It is impossible to read the above extracts without being convinced that those tropical and equatorial animals lived, flourished, and died where their remains are now found. And it is equally impossible to avoid another conclusion; viz: that there must have been a heavy vegetation on those plains, where now the rein-deer can scarcely pick up a blade of grass.

From these convictions no other inference can be drawn, but that the temperature of the frigid zones, was anciently much higher than at present; and of course the general temperature of the earth also.

From the perfect preservation of these fossil remains; from the fact that they are found in their relative position, bone to bone, and, in some instances, with their hair, skin, and flesh undecayed, it is obvious, the animals must have perished by a catastrophe which overwhelmed them suddenly, and was, instantaneously followed by a freezing of the overwhelming waters. Such was the catastrophe of the scripture deluge, which physically was competent to perform the phenomena, as shall be shown presently.

Let us now see if we do not arrive at the same conclusion by examining the fossil vegetables.

At Portland, England, the Rev. Dr. Buckland finds fossil plants akin to the cycas family of Malabar, from which he concludes, “it is probable that the climate of these regions, at the time when the oolites (a series of rocky strata) were deposited, was of the same warm temperature with that (the tropical) which produces a large proportion of the existing cycadeæ.” Ure, New Syst. Geol. p. 433.

“The remarkable development of these vegetables (equisetums) during the first (or coal measure) period of vegetation, and their size in the second (or oolitic) period, smaller than before, but still far greater than our existing equisetums, accord with many other facts, furnished by fossil vegetables of many other families, to lead us to regard the climate of the earth, at these remote epochs, to have been hotter than the hottest of modern climates.” Ibid, p. 443.

“There is no doubt, however, that palms with fan-shaped leaves covered Europe with their lofty vegetation at this remote period, in regions where no species of these plants could now grow!” Ibid, p. 452.

The palm is well known to be a tropical plant, and cannot thrive, except in a warm climate. The climate of Europe, when it grew in the north, must have been tropical. Indeed, in all parts of northern Europe tropical flowers, leaves, and fruits are found in such a state of preservation as to convince the most incredulous, that they must have grown on the spot; which would be to convince him of the high temperature, anciently, of those regions.

“Professor Kounizin describes in the Isis for 1821, immense beds of fossil wood in several localities of the governments of Novogorod and Twer in the north of Russia, where no such trees are now found to grow.

“Near Constand on the river Necker, M. Autenrieth found an entire forest of the trunks of palm trees, buried along with the remains of elephants.” Ure, Ibid, p. 455.

“The fossil shells found in the strata of England, and France, and the contiguous countries, having for the most part, no antitypes alive except in equatorial regions, harmonize with the preceding details.” Ibid, p. 456.

To the above testimony might be added the caves in Germany, England, and France, in which great quantities of bones are found in such a state of preservation, and under such circumstances as to show that the animals whose bones are found were in the habit of frequenting these caves, and perished in them suddenly, as their remains are found mixed with sand and gravel, but not water-worn. Of these bones, the great majority are those of the hyæna; hence these dens, specially in England, are called hyæna dens. In them are also found the bones of other animals gnawed by the hyænas.

From these facts there can be no doubt but the hyæna inhabited England, France, and Germany, and dwelt in these caves, and here perished when the sudden catastrophe of the flood overtook him. This argues beyond doubt that these countries were once warm, when these tropical animals lived in them.

5. The same fact may be inferred from the immense amount of vegetable matter which was necessary to supply the materials for the coal measures. This is an irresistible argument in view of the immense amount of coal in the bowels of the earth, which must be of vegetable origin. Because at the ratio of vegetable product of our age, the earth would not produce a sufficient amount to form the coalbeds, short of millions of years.

The vegetative power of the earth, therefore, must have been anciently very much greater than at present, which could only be on the supposition of a warmer and more moist climate.

Moreover, the fact that tropical plants are known to have contributed almost entirely to the formation of coal measures in the northern latitudes, is proof direct. This is clear from the fact that their roots, stems, leaves, flowers, and fruits are found impressed on the coal, in such a manner that there can be no mistake; and the perfection of the impression forbids the supposition that they were transported thither from tropical climates.

“Brown coal and black coal, the former sometimes called wood coal, is found chiefly in diluvial or alluvial ground. It contains, besides charcoal and bitumen, various vegetable principles, and the branches or trunks of trees partially decomposed, which mark the origin of this kind of coal.” Bakewell’s Geology, p. 111.

“Wood coal, or brown coal, is found in low situations and appears to have been formed of heaps of trees buried by inundations under beds of clay, sand, or gravel.—In some specimens of this coal the vegetable fibre, or grain, is perceptible in one part, and the other part is reduced to coal.” Ibid, p. 121.

“In wood coal we may almost seize nature in the fact of making coal, before the process is completed. These formations of coal are of far more recent date than that of common coal, though their origin must be referred to a former condition of our globe, when the vegetable productions of tropical climates flourished in northern latitudes. The vegetable origin of common mineral coal appears to be established by its association with strata abounding in vegetable impressions, by its close similarity to wood coal, (which is undoubtedly a vegetable product) and lastly by the decisive fact, that some mineral coal in the Dudley coal-field is entirely composed of the layers of mineralized plants.” Ibid, p. 122.

“When we see the multitude of reeds filled and surrounded with sandstone, having their thin scaly bark converted into a true coal, it is impossible to doubt of its vegetable origin.” Ure’s New System Geol. p. 166.

Quotations from the best authorities might be multiplied to the same effect, but it is deemed unnecessary. It remains to repeat the question, Could such an amount of vegetable matter have been accumulated, short of millions of years, at the ratio of the present vegetative powers of the earth? It is impossible. The only remaining conclusion is, the vegetative power of the earth anciently was much greater than at present, which could not have been except its temperature was much higher also.

In conclusion on this question, it is necessary to say, that the reduction of the earth’s temperature would be gradual, in a natural way, by the heat flying off into celestial spaces, until the crust became so thick and compact as to prove a perfect non-conductor of caloric. Then the surface of the earth would depend on the heating power of the sun altogether. The thickening of the crust of the earth would be attended with earthquakes, volcanos, and partial deluges, the natural and necessary results of the oxidations of the metals. Hence we would have different strata of rocks, sand, gravel, &c., deposited at different times, and over different sections of the country. Hence also forests would be overthrown, and the vegetation of years be thrown together in the nearest lakes or seas; which explains the origin of coal-basins. This state of things also well explains the alternations of strata of different kinds, as sand, gravel, chalk, fresh and salt water deposites, &c., as well as the dislocations, fractures, contortions, and confusions observable in the structure of the earth’s crust.

There are however various phenomena which indicate clearly that there was a general and sudden reduction of temperature. The state of preservation, in which those animals in Siberia are found, proves this. The vestigia of the last great revolution in our globe clearly indicate the deluge to have been the cause of this general and sudden reduction of temperature. This would be the natural consequence of submerging the earth in water: and the suddenness of the event is well attested both by the scriptures, and the physical history of our earth.

The action of the deluge does not come within the contemplation of this volume, and therefore will not be noticed here.]

The air is another storehouse of fire. When lucid igneous particles are strongly attracted to one another in great quantities, their heat becomes intolerable, and is capable of destroying the most solid bodies. It is well known, that when converged in the focus of one of Hartsocker’s burning-glasses, they will produce wonderful effects: tin, lead, or any soft metal, will dissolve at the first touch; and iron, which requires a very strong fire for liquefaction, will melt before one of these glasses almost as soon as applied. They will consume wood, though wet, in a moment; vitrify bricks and pumice stones, and dissolve earthen vessels full of water; and plume-allum, which will resist the fire of the hottest glass-houses, without alteration, is instantly melted. Even gold, that resists the force of common fire, is soon liquefied by their powerful agency. This plainly shows us that, provided there were not a wise and almighty Providence, superintending all his works, those materials which are of the greatest utility to the harmony and order of things, would have a direct tendency to destroy the whole. If lucid igneous particles were to form solid bodies, and depart from their state of fluidity, they would, in an instant, reduce this globe to ashes, or render it liquid fire. Were they all of one kind, it is probable they might unite in solid bodies; but the wisdom of Providence has formed them of various colors, and of different reflections and refrangibility. This prevents them from associating in such a manner as to do harm, which can only be produced by converging them with some instrument which prevents their flying off. As all these have not the same degree of reflexibility and refrangibility, but as some are capable of greater reflections and refractions than others, they cannot, without force, be united in one solid body, yet they are all serviceable for important purposes, contributing to the happiness of man, and the welfare of all living creatures.

Considering the extent of fire, and that its property is, when put into motion, to consume all combustible substances within its reach, it is astonishing that the world has not long since been destroyed! This terrible element is at present restrained and directed by its almighty Creator; but divine revelation informs us, that a period will arrive when its utmost energies shall be called into action. The apostle Peter asserts, that “the heavens and earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men;—in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burnt up.” Again he says, “looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.” The passing away of the heavens means the same as their being dissolved by fire. The word Ῥοιζηδὸν signifies with a very loud and terrible noise: with a sound resembling that of a great storm. In this place it more particularly denotes the horrid crackling noise of a wide-spreading fire.

“The cloud-capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces,

The solemn temples, the great globe itself

Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve;

And, like the baseless fabric of a vision,

Leave not a wreck behind.”

The word rendered melt, is a metaphor taken from metals, dissolving in the fire, or wax before the flame; so will the fierce and spreading fire of the last day melt down this globe, and its surrounding atmosphere.[36] That the world was to be dissolved by fire was the opinion of Anaximander, Anaxiphanes, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, Diogenes, and Leucippus.[37] The inference which the apostle deduces from this view of the general and final conflagration of the world, is highly impressive. “Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness.”

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.

Moses, in the original word אור aur, seems plainly to hint at the operation of a principle in the universe which, as a second cause, produced the phenomenon of light. This, most probably, was the motion of the luminous and fiery particles in the chaotic mass which, at the Divine command, separated themselves from the other gross materials of the miscellaneous composition, and by an attractive sympathy associated in one body.

It is conjectured, that light was at first impressed on some part of the heavens, or collected in some lucid body. Dr. Wall says, Though the sun was not yet formed into a compact body, yet the most subtile and active particles had already begun to fly together to the centre of the solar system, which gave some light; though probably not so great as when afterward they made the compact body of the sun. And the earth, which was then only a round lump of mud, or muddy salt-water, being turned, as it has been ever since, upon its own axis, receiving that light on its several hemispheres successively, made night and day, or evening and morning. Milton gives his opinion in the following lines:

“Let there be light! said God; and forthwith light

Ethereal, first of things, quintessence pure,

Sprung from the deep; and from her native east

To journey through the aery gloom began,

Spher’d in a radiant cloud; (for yet the sun

Was not;) she in a cloudy tabernacle

Sojourn’d the while.”

Light, after a short progression, concentrated in the sun, the common centre of our system; the various parts of this system, by his central light or fire, are balanced, and, by mutual attraction, move in the expanse, according to fixed laws, or determined distances.[38]

Light was once considered to be a property or quality of matter only; but more recently it has been discovered to be a body, a very subtile fluid, consisting of minute particles. We have no certain knowledge of its nature; though a collection of its rays make other things visible, yet its constituent parts themselves are most exquisitely small, and quite imperceptible; and therefore it approaches the nearest to the nature of spirit.[39]

Of all material bodies, light is the most simple. Most others are compounded of several parts, not only of different, but sometimes of contrary natures: but light is an unmixed body. It is also a most pure matter; It has no defilement in itself, neither is it capable of contracting pollution from other objects. When it shines upon a dunghill or sepulchre, which sends forth the most offensive effluvia, it still remains uncontaminated.

[The author is undoubtedly mistaken when he considers light “of all material bodies—the most simple,” and “an unmixed body.”

It is well known that a beam, or pencil, of light, as emitted from the sun, is not a simple body, but is capable of being divided into seven prismatic colors. The image which is formed by the refraction of the pencil, by means of a prism, is called a Spectrum, and clearly exhibits the compound nature of light. The refracted rays of the Spectrum may be collected and made to constitute a pencil of light again, which will be white, or colorless as before.

If this prismatic Spectrum be examined closely, it will be found that the different colored rays differ very much in their heating, illuminating, and chemical powers. Dr. Herschell, and other experimenters, have found that the orange rays possess a greater illuminating power than the red; and the yellow more than the orange: but the maximums of illumination lies in the brightest yellow or palest green.

There is also a very sensible difference in the heating power of these colored rays. By passing the bulb of a delicate air thermometer through the different colored rays, it indicates the greatest heat in the red rays; next in the green, and so on diminishing to the violet. But the maximum of heat has been ascertained to be immediately beyond the red rays, and of course out of the Spectrum, in an unilluminated spot: thus indicating that there are invisible rays possessing a greater heating power than any of the seven colored rays. These are called calorific rays.

By the experiments of Ritter and Wallaston it is now satisfactorily ascertained that there are also chemical rays which excite neither heat nor light, and lie on the other side of the Spectrum from the invisible calorific rays, just without the violet. It is true, the chemical effect can be distinguished even to the green rays, but this seems to be by diffusion, or a species of sympathy. The sensible chemical power is exerted just without the violet rays.

This fact is established more clearly by Berard. He concentrated, by a lens, all the portion of the Spectrum from the green to the red rays, and made them act on muriate of silver two hours without effect. He then concentrated all the portion of the Spectrum from the green to the violet rays, and made them act on muriate of silver, and they blackened it in less than six minutes. Thus, evidently, are detected very different properties in the different portions of the prismatic Spectrum.

Instead, therefore, of light being a “simple substance,” and “unmixed” it is found to be decidedly compound. It is capable of being divided into seven differently colored rays, and these rays, according to their natural properties, into three classes: the illuminating rays, calorific rays, and chemical rays.]

The rays of light always proceed in straight lines, unless diverted by some intervening body. They are subject to the laws of attraction like other small bodies. If a stream of light be admitted through a small hole into a dark room, and the edge of a knife be applied, it will be diverted from its natural course, and inflected towards it. When the rays of light are thrown back by any opposing body, they are said to be reflected. When in passing from one medium to another, they are inflected or diverted from their rectilineal course, they are said to be refracted; and this property of light is called its refrangibility. Refraction arises from this, that the rays are more attracted by a dense, than by a rare medium.

The velocity of light is prodigious, and almost incredible; it moves at the rate of near 200,000 miles in a second of time! Roemer, a Danish philosopher, was the first who found the means of determining the velocity of light, by the difference of time in the eclipses of Jupiter’s satellites, when the earth was on the same, or on the contrary side of the sun, with that planet. This point may be easily proved; for when the earth is between the sun and this planet, those eclipses will happen about 8¼ minutes sooner, than according to the tables; but when the earth is in the contrary position, the eclipses happen about 8¼ minutes later than they are predicted by the tables. Hence, therefore, light takes up about 8¼ minutes in passing from the sun to the earth, a distance of 95,513,794 miles; and it takes about 16½ minutes of time to go through a space equal to the diameter of the earth’s orbit, which is at least 190 millions of miles in length; which is near a million of miles swifter than the motion of a cannon-ball, which flies with the velocity of about a mile in eight seconds.[40] In comparing this velocity of light with that of a cannon-ball, it has been observed, that light passes through a space in about eight minutes, which a cannon-ball with its ordinary velocity, could not traverse in less than thirty-two years! The velocity of sound bears a very small proportion to that of light. Light travels, in the space of eight minutes, a distance in which sound could not be communicated in seventeen years; and even our senses may convince us, if we attend to the explosion of gunpowder, &c., of the almost infinite velocity of the one compared with that of the other.[41] Were the propagation of the rays of light less rapid, the darkness would be very slowly dissipated, and great inconveniences would result to the inhabitants of the earth.

The divisibility of the parts of matter is no where more apparent than in the minuteness of the particles of light. The unobstructed rays of light which proceed from a candle, will, almost instantaneously, fill a space of two miles; and it has been computed, says Dr. O. Gregory, that there fly out of the end of the flame of a burning candle, in a second of time, ten thousand millions of times more such particles than there are visible grains of sand in the whole earth. Dr. Nieuwentyt has computed, that an inch of candle, when converted to light, becomes divided into 269,617,040 parts, with 40 ciphers annexed; at which rate there must issue out of it, when burning, 418,660, with 39 ciphers more, particles in the second of a minute; vastly more than a thousand times a thousand million of times the number of sands the whole earth can contain; reckoning ten inches to one foot, and that 100 sands are equal to one inch.[42] As sound is propagated only at the rate of 1,142 feet in a second, a particle of light must be 786,000 times more subtile than a particle of air. If the particles of light were not extremely small, their velocity would be highly destructive. Indeed, were they equal in bulk to the two millionth part of a grain of sand, this impulse would not be less than sand shot from the mouth of a cannon. If the particles of light had more density, they would not only dazzle us by their splendor, but injure us by their heat.

There is no creature of God that diffuses itself, and whose influence reaches so far and wide, and fills so large a vacuum, as light. All that inconceivable space between this globe and the fixed stars, a distance which numbers cannot reach, is replete with light. Nay, the space in which it is diffused is not less than the universe itself; the immensity of which exceeds the conception of human understanding. It is from this almost unlimited diffusion of light that the very remotest of the heavenly bodies in the solar system become discernible, either by the naked eye or by telescopes. And had we instruments that could carry our sight as far as the light is extended, we should discover those bodies which are placed at the very extremity of the universe.[43]

Light is the medium through which objects become visible to us. It is owing to it, that we are enabled to behold and contemplate the wonderful works of the great Creator; to discover unexplored systems in the trackless regions of unbounded space, to imbibe knowledge from things created, to hold intercourse with each other, to steer the hollow bark to distant climes, and to investigate the records of all science. Without its aid, the world would have been an inhospitable wilderness, involved in sable shades of perpetual night. “Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold it.”

Light beautifies every delightful object which comes within the reach of its rays.

“Nature’s resplendentrobe!

Without whose vesting beauty all were wrapt

In unessential gloom.”

All colors are rays of light differently reflected. The cause of their diversity was first rationally accounted for by Sir Isaac Newton. He has shown that color is not a specific property of bodies, but is caused by the different rays of light being reflected from the surface of the body; the rest of the rays passing into or through the body. He discovered that in the rays of light are all the colors in nature; and the primary colors he considered to be seven in number, namely, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet; and that bodies appear of different colors, as they have the property of reflecting some rays more powerfully than others. These colors are poetically enumerated by Thomson.

“First the flaming red

Sprung vivid forth; the tawny orange next;

And next delicious yellow; by whose side

Fell the kind beams of all-refreshing green:

Then the pure blue, that swells autumnal skies,

Ethereal play’d; and then, of sadder hue,

Emerg’d the deepen’d indigo, as when

The heavy-skirted evening droops with frost;

While the last gleamings of refracted light

Dy’d in the fainting violet away.”

Since the time of this justly celebrated philosopher, it has been objected, that the seven colors above mentioned are not primitive. It seems very obvious that there can be only three primitive colors, namely, red, yellow, and blue; since all the colors can be made by means of these. It has lately been advanced by Prieur, that the primitive colors are violet, green, and red; that the yellow is formed with red and green, the latter being in excess; and that when the red is in excess, they form orange; the green and violet form blue. The colors excited by the different refrangible rays do not appear to determine what are the primitive colors, since we find that different rays are capable of producing the same color, as a mixture of the yellow with the red produces orange. And it must be admitted, that the violet rays excite, in some degree, the idea of red along with the blue; as in the green, the yellow and blue may be discerned, but none of the red. When the different colored rays are mixed together, either by recomposition, or by getting each color by a separate Spectrum, the result will be white light. Hence Sir Isaac Newton concluded, that when the rays are promiscuously reflected from any surface it will appear white. He also found, and the discovery has since been confirmed by the experiments of Dr. Herschell, that the different colored rays have not by any means the same illuminating power. The violet rays appear to have the least luminous effect, the indigo more, the blue a little more, the green very great, between the green and the yellow the greatest of all, the yellow the same as the green, and the red less than the yellow.[44] From experiments it is found, that those rays of light are of the largest quantity that paint the brightest colors; and of all these, the red rays have the least refrangibility. Without light vegetables would have no color, but would appear white; this has been remarkably illustrated by Professor Robison. Some bodies absorb one colored ray, others another, while they reflect the rest. This is the cause of color in bodies. A red body, for instance, reflects the red rays and absorbs the rest. A white body reflects all the rays, and absorbs none; while a black body, on the contrary, absorbs all the rays, and reflects none:[45] this shows, that black colored apparel is very improper during the heat of summer, or in tropical climates.

[There is one difficulty scarcely mentioned, and surely not accounted for, in the preceding chapter: i.e. How are we to reconcile the creation of light on the first day, and the creation of the sun not until the fourth?

This has been a standing proposition since the revival of learning. There can be no doubt but the account of the creation, arrangement and nature of the world, as given by Moses, is correct; and would so appear to the most philosophically scientific, could we ascertain certainly the meaning of the sacred historian, and did we understand perfectly the phenomena of nature.

It is reasonable to suppose that the discoveries in natural philosophy would tend to influence the explanations of Moses’ account. This is the fact. These discoveries have produced two theories in regard to light: The vibratory, or Cartesian; and the corpuscular, or Newtonian.

The Newtonian theory supposes the sun to be the original and principal source of light; and that light is emitted from the sun’s surface in inconceivably small corpuscles, in such rapid succession, and in straight lines, as to seem a continuous ray, though, in reality, the particles are a thousand miles apart in their approach to the earth.

This is the most popular of modern theories, and the only one, as I recollect, employed by commentators in illustrating the account of Moses; or rather in solving the difficulty by reconciling this theory with his account.

Some have supposed the sun was created long before, our earth, and that his beams took effect on our earth, as now, on the fourth day from his creation. Others have supposed that the sun and earth were created simultaneously, but that the sun’s beams did not fully penetrate our atmosphere, so as to make himself distinctly visible as now, until the fourth day. In both these cases it is supposed that the words of Moses, in regard to the creation of the sun on the fourth day, are to be interpreted of his appearance, and influence on the earth, by dispensing light. But this does not account for the existence of light from the first to the fourth day. This is an insuperable objection here.

Finding the foregoing theories pressed with this insurmountable difficulty, other commentators have supposed, Light was a real substance, created simultaneously, and in conjunction with the original chaotic mass of our earth; and when God said “Let there be light, and there was light,” He, by his divine power, caused the chaotic light to separate itself from the earth, and, departing, to condense in the body of the sun; or, as some would probably say, in view of Dr. Herschell’s solar discoveries, in the phosphoric clouds which surround the real body of the sun. In this case, if the light concentrated in the body of the sun, then that luminary must be a body of condensed light: if in the solar phosphoric clouds of Dr. Herschell, then those clouds would be condensed light. This body of condensed light is considered the source of our solar light, which flies off from it in the form of rays or beams.

Dr. Ure, in his Chemical Dictionary, article Light, takes this view. He says, “We learn from scripture, that light pre-existed before this luminary (the sun) and that its subsequent condensation in his orb was a particular act of Almighty Power. The phosphorescence of minerals, buried since the origin of things in the bowels of the earth, coincides strictly with the Mosaic account of the creation. We shall therefore regard light as the first born element of chaos, as an independent essence, universally distributed through the mineral, vegetable, and animal world, capable of being disengaged from its latent state by various natural and artificial operations.”

This theory, as I understand Dr. Ure’s view, has two advantages, and three disadvantages. It accounts for the production of light on the first day, as Moses says. It also accounts for the artificial production of light by friction between bodies which have never been exposed to solar light, by combustion, compression, &c. For though it supposes light “subsequently condensed” in the sun, I presume it does not suppose all the light thus transferred from the earth, and condensed: much of it is latent, and combined with other substances, from which it is evolved by friction, combustion, compression, &c.

But this ingenious theory, which is mentioned by our author, and attributed to Dr. Wall, is pressed with three difficulties:

1. It does not suppose the existence of the sun until the fourth day, and of course no common centre of attraction to the earth and other planets. But it is impossible to conceive of the safe existence of the planets previous to the existence of their common center, which now regulates their order and motion. This is an insuperable difficulty, unless we resort to a “particular act of Almighty Power.”

2. If the body of the sun be “condensed light,” abstracted from the earth, the scene of its creation, then we must suppose that a body more than a million times greater than the earth was drawn off from it, which indeed would require an “act of Almighty Power,” and is utterly irreconcilable to the laws of attraction.

3. This view also destroys the idea of the sun’s being an opake and habitable globe, unless we could conceive the inhabitants capable of dwelling in “condensed light;” which supposition is at variance with all our ideas of rational existence. Hence it robs the mind of the pleasing and almost intuitively correct idea of the sun’s being a habitable globe.

These difficulties appeared so great that others, and particularly Dr. Adam Clarke, have offered a new mode of interpretation, founded on the Newtonian theory as improved by Dr. Herschell. Dr. Clarke supposes that caloric, or latent heat, was produced on the first day, when God said, “let there be light; and there was light.” In this case he considers that latent heat and latent light are, probably, the same: or that it is the same subtile substance diffused throughout creation, which is capable of producing heat and light, when properly excited.

Yet, in his remarks on the sun, he embraces Dr. Herschell’s ideas of the sun’s real body being opake and habitable, surrounded by phosphoric clouds which are the source of our solar light. Of course the Doctor only transfers the source of light from the real body of the sun to these phosphoric clouds with which he is invested. Our solar light then comes by impulsion from these clouds, and not from the sun’s real body.

These clouds are supposed to give light to the Solar inhabitants also, the intensity of which is regulated by a stratum of clouds placed below the outer phosphoric clouds, and which defends the sun’s real body from too great degree of light.

This is Dr. Herschell’s supposition, and seems to be pretty well established.

This ingenious theory solves the difficulty under notice, by supposing that caloric, and not light, is intended in the third verse, where God said, “Let there be light.” And by supposing latent light, as well as latent heat, it seems to provide for the well known existence of light in combination with many, if not all, terrestrial substances; and yet it refers to the sun as the principal source of light, which according to this interpretation, was not necessary to the existence of the substance intended in the third verse—“Let there be light, and there was light.”

This theory has another most excellent suggestion, viz: that the heat excited by the sun at the earth’s surface, is produced by the luminous rays of the sun combining with the caloric in the atmosphere, and other substances at the surface of the earth. This suggestion supposes a very close affinity, if not identity in the matter of light and heat.

Although this explanation approaches much nearer a satisfactory solution of the difficulty in question, yet it is by no means unembarrassed.

In the first place it is built upon a singular translation of a word. The text, according to this theory, should be, “And God said let there be caloric, and there was caloric.” This may be the text; but I cannot help thinking, that a bias to a system of philosophy, and a strong desire to cut the difficulty rather than solve it, suggested this translation. The text seems to have been so generally and uniformly understood of light, it would be difficult to alter it. It would be better to suspect a defect in our knowledge of the source and nature of light.

Again: this view seems to suppose a consecutive creation, which is at variance with a seemingly well settled opinion, in regard to the Solar System, and even at variance with Dr. Clarke’s own remarks on Gen. chap. i, v. 2. On this verse he says: “God seems at first to have created the elementary principles of all things.”

Finally: as his view is Newtonian, it is liable to all the objections to which that theory is liable: such as the diminution which would take place at the source from whence the light came; and the destructive force with which it would fall at the surface of the earth.

These considerations, with others, have influenced many of the most learned and acute philosophers to look for another theory. Our own countryman, Dr. Franklin, felt them. He says, in a letter dated April 23, 1752, in reference to the theory, of light being particles of matter driven off from the sun’s surface; “Must not the smallest portion conceivable have, with such a motion, a force exceeding that of a twenty-four pounder discharged from a cannon? Must not the sun diminish exceedingly by such a waste of matter, and the planets, instead of drawing near to him, as some have feared, recede to greater distances, through the lessoned attraction? Yet these particles with this amazing motion, will not drive before them, or remove the least, and slightest dust they meet with, and the sun appears to continue of his ancient dimensions, and his attendants move in their ancient orbits.”

He then supposes the phenomena of light may be more satisfactorily solved by supposing a subtle fluid, universally diffused, which is invisible when at rest, but becomes visible when put in motion, by affecting the nerves of the eye, as the vibrations of the air affect the ear, and produce the sensation of sound; and that the different degrees of intensity in the vibrations, will account for the different colors. See Nicholson’s Encyclopedia, Light.

This is the vibratory or Cartesian system of light. As already suggested, it supposes the existence of a subtle, luminiferous ether, diffused throughout the universe, pervading every particle of matter, and is capable of being put in motion, so as to become visible, by the sun, as the grand natural excitant, friction, combustion, compression, &c. The laws of the vibrations of this luminiferous fluid, are precisely the same with those ascertained, and determined, in regard to light as commonly understood. This luminiferous fluid is to be considered an elementary substance, and was created when the different substances composing the chaotic mass were created. At its first creation, like caloric, it was in a latent state, as no excitant as yet had put it in motion.

It is to be understood, therefore, that the substances of each planet in the Solar System, as well as the sun himself, were created simultaneously in a chaotic state, at their proper relative distances from each other: that the requisite quantity of each elementary substance was present in each mass: but as caloric, and this luminiferous ether were latent, these masses were solid, frozen lumps; inactive and lifeless; and darkness necessarily prevailed. This then was the original condition of the elements of our Solar System, according to the scriptures. “And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” Gen. i, 2.

In order, therefore, to produce a quickening in these masses, which rendered them soft, it was only necessary to call the latent caloric, and this luminiferous ether into action, which would agitate, and bring to light the whole mass, and thus commence the arrangement and organization of the Solar System. However, as there was no exciting cause then in operation, it is evident the Almighty must have given the first impulse to these elements. This he did, and the important fact is recorded by Moses in these words: “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the great deep,” Jehovah saying at the same time, “Let there be light.”

Here is the Mosaic account of the production of light, and possibly heat also, which took place on the first day. The same process went on simultaneously in the sun and planets, and the continued action cleared up their respective atmospheres, and the sun became visible at the earth’s surface on the fourth day. Hence, the sun was said to have been made on the fourth day.

This solution of the difficulty is consistent with the account of Moses; and also all the well ascertained phenomena of light can be satisfactorily explained by it. It will naturally lead the mind to observe the resemblance between the phenomena of light and heat, and impel us to the conclusion, that light, or vision, is the effect of a material cause, as heat is of caloric: and it is natural to suppose this cause is in the same relation to light, that caloric is to heat. Of course we should conclude that light, or the luminiferous ether in a latent state, enters into combination with all substances, as does caloric; and at the same time a large proportion of it is free, or in motion, and of course sensible to the eye, as free caloric is to the sense of feeling. Moreover we must conclude that this latent light is capable of being set free or evolved by the exciting influence of the sun, as also by friction, compression, combustion, chemical action, &c. It will be of advantage, therefore, to establish the fact of the existence of latent light, in combination with terrestrial substances.

That this is the fact may be proven by a single reflection on the process of combustion. It is a daily observation that light is produced by burning bodies. Let us suppose these bodies burnt at midnight in a close room; still light will be given out copiously and constantly. Whence this light? The natural and obvious answer is, it was in combination in a latent state with the burning bodies, and by combustion it was set free, and thrown out, and thus put the surrounding luminiferous ether in motion.

It is said by some, the light evolved in this case is not from the burning bodies, but from the oxygen which is supplied by the air to support the combustion. This does not alter the case at all: for then the light was in combination with the oxygen, and was invisible, being in a latent state, until it was set free from the oxygen by combustion.

The same conclusion is obtained in the process of compression and expansion. If atmospheric air, or oxygen be suddenly compressed in a glass syringe; or if a glass ball, filled with the latter, be suddenly broke in vacuo, a flash of light is instantly perceived. In this case the light suddenly becomes visible, which was invisible before, being latent in combination with the air. (Ure.)

We arrive at the same conclusion in case of friction. It is well known that pieces of wood can be made to blaze by rubbing them together. But it is not so well known, that two pieces of rock crystal, or quartz, taken from any depth in the earth, and which cannot be supposed to have ever been in the light of the sun, when rubbed quickly together, even under water, will give out volumes of light. Whence this light? from the quartz doubtless. Of course it must have been in a latent state, and was set free by friction. Let it be strictly observed, the crystals never were exposed to the light of the sun, of course could not have derived this light from that luminary.

We must come to the same conclusion, in regard to the light given out by animal substances. Many insects are known to have the power of evolving light, or putting the surrounding luminiferous ether in motion, which is the same. Putrescent animal matter has been observed to possess it, in some cases, in a very great degree; sufficiently to illuminate a room, or pantry, for hours together. In some instances the fingers of those who touched the luminous flesh, became luminous.

This is eminently the case in regard to some fishes. A species of fish called pholas, has the power of evolving a large quantity of light. This power is greater when the fish is sound and fresh. Pliny mentions this fish, and says it rendered the hands and clothes of persons luminous. When put in water, under proper circumstances, it renders the water luminous. But when put in milk, a single pholas made seven ounces of it so luminous as to enable one to distinguish the faces of persons present. Ency. Brit. Art. Light.

The evolution of light from the sea in the night, is a fact of common observation, and is sometimes so great as to enable one to read large print on a ship’s deck. Ency. Brit. Art. Light.

In all the above instances, and many more might be added, the light evolved, or, (which is the same thing in this investigation,) the luminiferous ether put in motion, must have been in a state of combination with the substances from which it was evolved. The only question which remains is this: Was all this light transmitted from the sun, and become latent and combined at the earth’s surface by absorption?

It would certainly be hazardous to answer this question in the affirmative. For how could we account for the evolution of light from those bodies which have never been subject to the sun’s influence?

Again: If all this light had been transmitted from the sun, it will inevitably follow, that there was a time when the quantity of light at the surface of the earth, and in combination with terrestrial bodies, was very small, and of course combustion, friction, and compression of bodies produced anciently a much smaller quantity of light than now; because there was a smaller quantity in combination.

It is evident that this supposition would come to this conclusion: The quantity of light, in combination at the earth’s surface, has increased in the same ratio as the increase of the duration of the influence of the sun on the earth: and, by consequence, the quantity of light produced by artificial means has increased in the same proportion. Of course, fires and candles burn more brightly now than they did five thousand years since.

Though this conclusion is legitimate from the foregoing supposition, yet it is at war with common sense, and the current observations of the world.

We are therefore compelled to conclude that the matter of light is diffused throughout the universe, as is caloric, and that it is evolved, or put in motion by the influence of the sun; as also by artificial and chemical means; as combustion, compression, friction, chemical action, &c.

This conclusion is much strengthened by the fact, that the existence of caloric is well ascertained, not as proceeding from the sun, but in combination with all terrestrial substances; and also by the fact of the constant analogy between the phenomena of light and heat. This analogy is so strong and striking that we are compelled to conclude, if heat be the effect of a real substance, light must be also. Indeed the analogy is so strong that it almost convinces us of the identity of the matter of heat, light, electricity, and galvanism.

Notwithstanding the amount of evidence is against this supposition at present, yet there is a strong tendency in recent philosophical experiments to confirm it; and I am inclined to believe that future discoveries will confirm this identity. Some of the most obvious evidences in favor of it may be introduced here.

1. Almost all the celebrated authors and experimenters have occasionally suggested the probability of this identity. Mr. Turner, Elements of Chemistry, p. 67, says, in reference to heat and light: “It has been supposed that they are modifications of the same agent; and though most persons regard them as independent principles, yet they are certainly allied in a way which at present is inexplicable.” Again, p. 71. “Mr. Leslie conceives that light when absorbed, is converted into heat.” Dr. Henry (Art. Light,) says, “A new fact has been lately ascertained by Dr. Delaroche, which seems to point out a close connection between heat and light, and a gradual passage of the one into the other. The rays of invisible heat pass through glass with difficulty at a temperature below that of boiling water; but they traverse it with a facility always increasing with the temperature, as it approaches the point at which bodies become luminous.” “The general facts, says Sir H. Davy, of the refraction and effects of the solar beam, offer an analogy to the agencies of electricity.” (Ure, Chemical Dictionary, Article Light.) It is well known that this view pressed itself strongly on the attention of Sir Isaac Newton, during his philosophical investigation. See Ure, Chem. Dic. Art. Light.

2. This identity is strongly suggested by the constant and striking analogy between the laws of heat and light.

First: The color of surfaces has an influence on the passage of light and heat.

Secondly: The power of light, heat, and electricity diminishes as the squares of their distances.

Thirdly: The particles of heat, light, and electricity, are idio-repulsive.

Fourthly: The passage of the electric spark is generally attended with the production of light and heat.

Fifthly: Heat is emitted in all directions from the surface of an ignited body: so is light from the surface of a burning body.

Sixthly: The laws of reflection are the same in light and heat.

Other coincidences might be established, and other celebrated names added.

If this identity should be established finally, it would not effect the doctrine of the foregoing pages in the least. It would only be necessary to say, the luminiferous fluid of this essay is the well established substance now called caloric.

Addenda on Light.

1. It is now generally admitted that the real body of the sun is surrounded with a peculiar set of clouds, phosphorescent in their nature. It is also allowed that these clouds do not emit heat. And as it is well known that no one of the planets has such clouds, but receive their light from the sun, it is extremely probable that these phosphorescent clouds are intended by the Creator, to be the great dispenser of light to the solar system, by operating as the exciting cause to put the luminiferous ether in motion throughout the solar system.

By a parity of reasoning, each centre of a system may be invested with similar clouds, which operate in the same way in reference to the planets which belong to it.

2. If light were a real substance, as commonly understood, solar light must proceed from the sun by impulsion, and artificial light from burning bodies by evolution. Take the case of burning bodies. A single candle placed two miles above the surface of the earth in the air, and lighted up in that position, will instantly illuminate a space of two miles in every direction from itself, or a spherical space four miles in diameter. In this case a sufficient quantity of light is instantly evolved to fill this space, and the evolution continues as long as the candle burns. The question upon this fact is this: Can it be supposed that there is a sufficient quantity of light, in combination with a single candle, or the oxygen necessary to keep up its combustion, to fill a spherical space four miles in diameter for several hours together? This would indeed be almost incredible in view of the space filled by light evolved from a single candle.

But this difficulty would be satisfactorily solved upon the supposition that light is the effect, produced by a luminiferous ether, universally diffused, and put in motion, by which it becomes visible, by the sun, burning bodies, &c. Because, the motion which renders the luminiferous ether visible, commences instantly upon the commencement of combustion, and is propagated from the point of combustion in right lines, under the appearance of rays of light: but the motion ceases instantly on the cessation of combustion, and of course darkness instantly ensues.]

After having attended to the production of light, and noticed some of its properties, it is a paramount duty to contemplate its glorious Author; especially as by this mysterious production he himself has chosen to be represented. If creatures be excellent, what must be the Creator? and to admire the former without adoring the latter, would be profane and atheistical. “The Deity,” says Sir Isaac Newton, “in infinite space, as in his own sensorium, has an intimate perception of all things:” so we, possessing intellect, should “look through nature up to nature’s God.” Then matter, however rarefied or diversified, would serve as his minister to introduce us into his presence. A pious ancient, on being asked by a profane philosopher, How he could contemplate high things, since he had no books? answered, That he had the whole world for his book, ready open at all times, and in all places, and that he could therein read things heavenly and divine. As the visible creation is the outward expression of the existence of God, and displays several of his infinite perfections; so we should study him in the works of nature, and trace him in the operation of his hands.

The late excellent and pious Bishop Horne very beautifully observes,—“When the angels beheld the dark and disordered state of created nature upon its first production, they were, doubtless, thrown into some perplexity to conceive how it should ever be made a means of manifesting forth the glory of the Creator. But when they saw the light spring up, at the Divine command, from that blackness of darkness, and fix its residence in its tabernacle the sun, illuminating and adorning the firmament of heaven with its glorious show, and the earth with its beautiful furniture, all formed out of rudeness and confusion, then they confessed that the difficulty of the work served only to display the skill of the workmaster, which is proportionally estimated by the unpromising nature of the materials.

In like manner, whoever views the chaos to which the infinite wisdom of a presiding Providence sometimes permits the moral world to be reduced by the prevailing power of the prince of darkness, and the agency of his instruments, will scarce be able, at first, to discern any traces of the Divine counsels in a mirror so sullied and clouded over by the enormities of sinful men. Yet let him wait with patience for a little season, and those clouds shall pass away; a light shall shine, and some great end present itself to sight, so worthy of God, so beneficial to man, that standing amazed at a power able to bring the greatest good out of the greatest evil, he will be forced to cry out concerning the economy of the spiritual system, as David did concerning the operations of the natural—‘Oh Lord, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all.’”[46]

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.

The separation of light from the darkness, was the work of the first day. This was an arrangement made by infinite Wisdom, as well as a display of almighty power. When this took place, it is highly probable that God gave to the earth its rotation upon its own axis, to produce the necessary succession of day and night. “The word ערב éreb, which we translate evening, comes from the root ערב ârab, to mingle, and properly signifies that state in which neither absolute darkness, nor full light, prevails. It has nearly the same grammatical signification with our twilight, the time that elapses from the setting of the sun till he is eighteen degrees below the horizon, and eighteen degrees before he arises. Thus we have the morning and evening twilight, or mixture of light and darkness, in which neither prevails; because, while the sun is within eighteen degrees of the horizon, either after his setting, or before his rising, the atmosphere has power to refract the rays of light, and send them back to the earth. The Hebrews extended the meaning of this term to the whole duration of night, because it was ever a mingled state; the moon, the planets, or the stars, tempering the darkness with some rays of light. From the ereb of Moses came the Ερεβος Erebus of Hesiod, Aristophanes, and other heathens, which they deified, and made with nox, or night, the parent of all things. The word בקר boquer, which we translate morning, from בקר boquar, he looked out, is a beautiful figure, which represents the morning as looking out at the east, and illuminating the whole of the upper hemisphere.”[47]

All bodies continue in a state of rest, till they are put into motion by some external force impressed on them. Motion is the removal of a body from one place to another, or a continual change of place.[48] Any force acting on a body to move it, is called a power. The momentum, or quantity of motion, is in proportion to the force impressed. The heavier any body is, the greater is the power required to move it.

There are but three possible ways of accounting for motion:—either by supposing that there has been an infinite succession of impulses communicated from one body to another from eternity, without any active principle either in matter or without it: or, that there is an active principle in matter that renders it self-active, and motion essential to it: or, else, that there is a Being distinct from matter, and is the cause of its motion.

An infinite succession of impulses, without an active or moving principle, will never give birth to motion, because this would be to produce an effect without the assistance of a cause. This absurdity was asserted by Spinosa; yet when urged by his friends to explain how matter could ever come into motion, if motion was neither essential to matter, nor proceeded from any external cause, he always avoided giving a direct answer. This conduct makes it reasonable to believe, that he himself would have given up his account of motion, if he could have saved his atheistical scheme and his reputation.

That motion is essential to all matter, and action as much an attribute of matter, as extension or solidity; and, consequently, every atom of matter is necessarily self-moving, or active from the necessity of its own nature, is asserted by Toland. Though he thought fit to reject the hypothesis of Spinosa as indefensible, yet he believed in the atheistic notion, that motion is essential to matter, and thinks it will be sufficient without troubling the Supreme Being. The reason which has always determined mankind to look out for a cause of motion extrinsical to matter, was this: though they could easily conceive it capable of being moved and divided; yet the conceiving of it to be undivided, and unmoved, was a more simple notion of matter, than the conceiving it divided and moved. This being first in order of nature, and an adequate conception of it too, they thought it necessary to inquire, how it came out of this state, and by what causes motion, from whence this diversity in matter arose, could come into the world?

Descartes, though he allowed the infinity of matter, as well as Toland, was yet sensible that even this would not alter the nature of matter, nor the idea that every person had of its inactivity, and therefore could see no way of altering its primitive idea, and reconciling it with the motion of matter, but by introducing an infinite Being, who had sufficient power to rouse matter out of that sleepy state in which its original idea had represented it.[49]

That such a circumstance exists, and what it is, a French author very clearly states. He says, The universe is composed of matter, and, as a system, is sustained by motion. Motion is not a property of matter, and without this motion the solar system could not exist. Were motion a property of matter, that undiscovered and undiscoverable thing, called perpetual motion, would establish itself. It is because motion is not a property of matter, that perpetual motion is an impossibility in the hand of every being but that of the Creator of motion. When the pretenders to atheism can produce perpetual motion, and not till then, they may expect to be credited.

The natural state of matter, as to place, is a state of rest. Motion, or change of place, is the effect of an external cause acting upon matter. As to that faculty of matter called gravitation, it is the influence which two or more bodies have reciprocally on each other to unite and be at rest. Every thing which has hitherto been discovered with respect to the motion of the planets in the system, relates only to the laws by which motion acts, and not to the cause of motion. Gravitation, so far from being the cause of motion to the planets that compose the solar system, would be the destruction of the solar system, were revolutionary motion to cease; for as the action of spinning upholds a top, the revolutionary motion upholds the planets in their orbits, and prevents them from gravitating and forming one mass with the sun.

“By ceaseless action all that is subsists;

Constant rotation of the unwearied wheel

That nature rides upon, maintains her health,