« VorigeDoorgaan »
upon which to found a judgment of our own. Up to the present period we had concluded the diluvium of the globe (obviously, on account of its diversified material, a peculiarly difficult object of study) not to have been examined so extensively, or with that nice discrimination, which is requisite to justify any positive opinion adverse or favourable to its contemporaneity and recent date being pronounced. The thought also occurs to us, with reference to the phenomena in central France, that though, according to all the analogies of known volcanic action, it would require a series of many ages to produce those characteristics of surface which are observable in Auvergne, yet they might not only have existed prior to the deluge, but have been submerged; and seasons of paroxysm since the retirement of its waters, would be sufficient to account for the cones of pumice and other light materials at present exhibited. The argument is certainly not conclusive to our minds, advanced against the universality of the deluge from these phenomena alone; and though this may be owing to our imperfect acquaintance with recent geological results, yet we are bound to state our present convictions, and endeavour to live and learn. But other difficulties, apart from geology, have presented themselves to Dr. Smith's mind respecting the prevailing notion of the universality of the deluge; and ihese have evidently weighed powerfully with him in rejecting it, as we conceive they must do with all unprejudiced persons. He might indeed have excused himself from entering upon these other topics, as foreign to the particular object of his lectures; but it is the part of moral honesty, and a sign of true nobility of mind, to take in all the difficulties of a question, and not to seek to evade any, under the plea that the service has not been literally promised. After speaking of the astonishing mass of waters necessary to cover all the land of the globe, increasing its equatorial diameter by some eleven or twelve miles, adding to its weight, causing the mutation of its axis to vary, and thus propagating a series of changes through the entire solar system, he deals with some other difficulties to which the popular interpretation is subject in the following passage :
“Ingenious calculations have been made of the capacity of the ark, as compared with the room requisite for the pairs of some animals and the sextuples of others; and it is remarkable, that the well-intentioned calculators have formed their estimate upon a number of animals below the truth, to a degree which might appear incredible. They have usually satisfied themselves with a provision for three or four hundred species at most; as, in general, they show the most astonishing ignorance of every branch of natural history. Of the existing mammalia (animals which nourish their young by breasts) considerably more than one thousand species are known; of birds, fully five thousand; of reptiles, very few kinds of which can live in water, two thousand; and the researches of travellers and naturalists are making frequent and most interesting additions to the number of these and all other classes. Of insects (using the word in its popular sense) the number of species is immense ; 10 say one hundred thousand would be moderate : each has its appropriate habitation and food, and these are necessary to its life; and the larger number could not live in water. Also the innumerable millions upon millions of animalcula must be provided for; for they have all their appropriate and diversified places and circumstances of existence. But all land animals have their geographical regions, to which their constitutional natures are congenial, and many could not live in any other situation. We cannot represent to ourselves the idea of their being brought into one small spot, from the
polar regions, the torrid zone, and all the other climates of Asia, Africa, Europe, America, Australia, and the thousands of islands; their preservation and provision, and the final disposal of them, without bringing up the idea of miracles more stupendous than any that are recorded in Scripture, even what appear appalling in comparison. The great decisive miracle of Christianity, the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, sinks before it.
“The persons of whom we are speaking have probably never apprehended any difficulty with respect to the inhabitants of the waters; supposing that no provision was needed for their preservation. It may therefore be proper to notice some particulars. Such an additional quantity of water as their interpretation requires, would so dilute and alter the mass as to render it an unsuitable element for the existence of all the classes, and would kill, or disperse their food; and all have their own appropriate food. Many of the marine fishes and shell animals could not live in fresh water; and the fresh-water ones would be destroyed by being kept, even a short time, in salt water. Some species can indeed live in brackish water, having been formed by their Creator to have their dwelling in estuaries and the portions of rivers approaching the sea; but even these would be afected fatally, in all probability, by the increased volume of water, and the scattering and floating away of their nutriment.
"Thus, in a variety of ways, it is manifest that, upon the interpretation which I conceive to be erroneous, the preservation of animal life in the ark, was immensely short of being adequate to what was necessary.
" Forther; if we admit that interpretation, and also accede to the usual opiDion that the Ararat upon which the ark rested was the celebrated mountain of that came in Armenia, and which tradition points out as being such, we are involved in another perplexity. That mountain is nearly the height of our European Mont Blanc, (higher ?) and perpetual snow covers about five thousand feet from its summit. If the water rose, at its liquid temperature, so as to overflow that summit, the snows and icy masses would be melted ; and, on the retiring of the flood, the exposed mountain would present its pinnacles and ridges, dreadful precipices of naked rock, adown which the four men and four women, and, with hardly any exception, the quadrupeds, would have found it utterly impossible to descend. To provide against this difficulty- to prevent them from being dashed to pieces-must we again suppose a miracle? Must we conceive of the human beings and the animals, as transported through the air to the more level regions below; or that, by a miracle equally grand, they were enabled to glide unhurt down the wet and slippery faces of rock ?
"One fact more I have to mention, in this range of argument. There are trees of the most astonishing magnificence as to form and size, which grow, the one species in Africa, the other in the southern part of North America. There are also methods of ascertaining the age of trees, of the class to which they belong, with satisfaction generally, but with full evidence after they have passed the early stages of their growth. Individuals of these species now existing are proved, by those methods, to have begun to grow at an epoch long before the date of the deluge; if we even adopt the largest chronology that learned men hare proposed. Had those trees been covered with water for three quarters of a year, they must have been destroyed : the most certain conditions of vegetable Dature, for the class (the most perfect land-plants) to which they belong, put such a result out of doubt. Here, then, we are met by another independent proof that the deluge did not extend to those regions of the earth.”* pp. 159-164.
The following passage is scarcely comprehensible: we suppose that it refers to the course of the eastern monsoon.
" Again, pursuing the supposition, the ark would not remain stationary: it went upon the face of the waters. Its form was adapted to secure slowness of motion; so that it should float as little distance as possible from the place of human habitation. But, by the action of the sun upon the atmosphere, currents
VOL. IV. N. S.
1. The first objection here advanced against the notion of literal universality has been strongly felt by most writers who have thoughtfully examined the subject; and, unquestionably, the vast dimensions required for the ark, in order to contain the preserved pairs of living animals; their congregation from remote districts; the provision necessary for their sustenance, and their constitutional adaptation to particular climates, are formidable difficulties. According to the account given by Moses, the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 broad, and 30 high; but the exact measure of the cubit intended cannot be ascertained. Bishop Cumberland computed it at about 22 inches, which makes the ark 550 feet long, 91 broad, and 55 high, Parkhurst estimated it at something less than 18 inches, which makes the ark 450 feet long, 75 broad, and 45 high; while, according to Dr. Hales's measurement, the vessel was upwards of 42,413 tons burden, equal in size to eighteen first-rate men-of-war, and might carry 20,000 men with provisions for six months, besides the weight of 1800 cannon, and all military stores. We have never yet been satisfied, that according to the dimensions given by Moses, and taking the Hebrew cubit at the greatest extent assigned to it, sufficient accommodation could be found in the ark for preserved specimens of all existing land animals, reptiles, insects, and animalcula, with their provision for upwards of a year; and the circumstances mentioned by Dr. Smith; the impossibility of many species of freshwater fish living in saline; the adaptation of animals to different geographical regions, with their transit from remote situations, increase the difficulties connected with the popular hypothesis. It is easy to have recourse to the wonder-working arm of Omnipotence; but this we conceive that we are not justified in doing, without a direct authority for it.
2. The next objection made to the prevailing persuasion—the impossibility of descent from Ararat-is intended to prove that the moun. tain known now by that name in Armenia, could not have been the place of the ark's rest. It is necessary to establish this point, in order lo support Dr. Smith's views; for as Ararat, according to Humboldt, is 2,700 toises, or about 17,260 English feet above the level of the sea, it is obvious that a deluge covering its summit would sweep over the hills of Auvergne with the higher Alps, and leave only some of the peaks of the Andes and Himalaya unsubmerged-in short, be a universal flood. The loftiest peak of Ararat rises far above the limit of eternal snow; and often have travellers been foiled in the attempt to reach its summit. Tournefort, in the year 1700, was obliged to abandon the undertaking, after enduring great fatigue. The Turkish pacha of Bayazeed fitted out an expedition more recently, and built huts supplied with provisions at different stations; but his people suffered severely amid the snows and masses of ice in so rarefied an atmosphere, and returned without accomplishing their purpose. But in 1829 the ascent was effected by Dr. Parrot, who has published an account of
would be produced, by which the ark would be borne away, in a southerly and then a western direction. To bring it back into such a situation as would correspond to its grounding in Armenia, or any part of Asia, it must first circumnavigate the globe.” p. 159.
ris enterprise, in a work entitled, “ Reise zum Ararat;" and, in 1834, he mountain was again scaled by M. Antonomoff, in order to vindiate the reputation of Dr. Parrot, whose veracity was doubted by the Armenian ecclesiastics, and the American missionaries, Smith and Dwight. Such are the natural difficulties, however, in the way, that we must regard the descent of the mountain, by the family of Noah, and large land animals, as perfi ctly impossible, without supernatural assistance. But, after all, what evidence is there to suppose that the ark rested here? The inspired narrative merely informs us that it grounded - upon the mountains of Ararat," obviously the name of a region, and not of one particular mountain, according to its modern use. All the ancient Greek interpreters, as Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, render en Ararat by the word Armenia; the Vulgate likewise has “ Montes Armenia” and “ Terra Armeniorum;" and, as indicative of a region, the name occurs in the prophecy of Jeremiab:
“ Lift up a standard in the land;
Sound a trumpet among the nations;
Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz."--c. li. v, 27. We shall probably be correct if we regard Ararat and Armenia as pointing out the same district in which the ark unquestionably rested ; but on what particular mountain there is no evidence beyond tradition. The Chaldee paraphrast renders my by the term Cardu, referring to the Gordyæan or Carduchian mountains, a chain separating Armenia from the ancient Assyria; and Chaldee tradition refers to this locality as the spot to which the ark was borne, as the following passage in the ancient fragments of Berosus testifies : Tou de autov τουτου κατακλασθεντος εν τη Αρμενια ετι μερος τι αυτου εν τοις Κορκυpawy opeol ons Apyevlaç dauevelr—"The vessel being thus stranded in Armenia, some part of it yet remains in the Corcyræan mountains in Armenia.” The same tradition was received by a Father in the christian church ; for Epiphanius writes : “ After the deluge, Noah's ark having settled in the mountains of Ararat, between the Armenians and the Cordyæans, rested on a mountain called Lubar;" and, in another place he observes, “even to our own times, the remains of the ark are shown in the country of the Cordyæans.” * In allusion to this tradition, there is a mountain in Kurdistan, called Macis, “ the mother of the world,” and another called Mount Judi Sver, at the foot of which there is a village named Karya Thāminin öngö walios, “the village of Eighty;" the Kurds having an opinion that eighty persons were preserved in the ark, instead of eight. Farther westward still, along the chain of Taurus, the scene of the ark's final resting place has been removed, by tradition ; for the Sybil sings :
Εστί δέ τις Φρυγίης επί ήπειροιο μελαίνης
“On the frontiers of black Phrygia rises a lofty mountain called Ara. rat;" and the Phrygian city of Apamea had on its medals commemorative notices of the deluge. Upon the whole we may conclude, that no argument can be brought against the universality of the deluge, founded upon the impossibility of descent from the summit of the modern Ararat, while no argument can be brought against Dr. Smith's opinion of a partial deluge, founded upon its height, because no certain evidence is possessed that it was the mountain upon wbich the ark grounded.
3. The third objection to the popular opinion advanced- the age of certain existing trees reaching back to an era prior to the Noachian flood, and the impossibility of their surviving if submerged in its waters -- will, we doubt not, excite the surprise and incredulity of many readers. A method has however been long known to scientific men of ascertaining the age of old trees with a tolerable degree of certainty: the only point of importance being the correctness of the observations. Thus, in exogenous trees, the number of concentric zones observed in a transverse section of their stems, gives the measure of their duration, provided the section is made near the root. M. De Candolle has computed the average increase of the yew to be about one line, or the twelfth of an inch in diameter, yearly; and applying this rate to the four most celebrated yew-trees in Great Britain, he estimates their respective ages at 1214, 1287, 2558, and 2880 years. The first of these estimates refers to a yew at Fountain's Abbey in Yorkshire; and we have the testimony of history that it was in existence 700 years ago, and must have been then of considerable magnitude, it being recorded that the monks took shelter under it during the erection of that building. But this antiquity is nothing to that which De Candolle assigns to the boabab of Senegal and the taxodium of Mexico: he gives a table in his Physiologie Végétale in which he estimates a taxodium at from 4000 to 6000 years, and a boabab at 5150 years, in 1757 ; and these calculations have met with general assent from Professor Henslow of Cambridge, and our most celebrated English botanists. Now the question occurs, whether the premises upon which these calculations are made are correct; for, if so, then is the conclusion certain, that no deluge could have buried beneath its waters the spot where a boabab or a taxodium so ancient is now growing; because a land animal could as well live in a state of submersion as a dicotyledonous tree. The premises are denied by Mr. Rbind of Edinburgh, in his book on the * Age of the Earth," and Dr. Smith quotes his words in the appendix to his Lectures; and, evidently astonished at the denial, he is at the pains to assure his readers in a note, that the quotation he introduces is correct; a fact to which we can vouch, having Mr. Rhind's book before us. Then, if the premises be admitted, as we believe they must be, upon the testimony of all competent vegetable physiologists, the question recurs, whether the observations have been accurate; and knowing how M. De Candolle mistook Adanson about the boabab in the Isles de la Madeleine ; that nice and severe scrutiny is required in ascertaining the number and distances of the several zones; and that the actual experimentalists liave been comparatively few; we are clearly of opinion that additional testimony is wanting, before the esti