Omphalos.

by Philip Henry Gosse.

PREFACE.

"You have not allowed for the wind, Hubert," said Locksley, in "Ivanhoe;" "or that had been a better shot."

I remember, when I was in Newfoundland, some five-and-twenty years ago, the disastrous wreck of the brig _Elizabeth_, which belonged to the firm in which I was a clerk. The master had made a good observation the day before, which had determined his lat.i.tude some miles north of Cape St.

Francis. A thick fog coming on, he sailed boldly by compa.s.s, knowing that, according to his lat.i.tude, he could well weather that promontory.

But lo! about midnight the ship plunged right against the cliffs of Ferryland, thirty miles to the south, crushing in her bows to the windla.s.s; and presently went down, the crew barely saving their lives.

The captain _had not allowed for the polar current_, which was setting, like a sluice, to the southward, between the Grand Bank and the land.

When it was satisfactorily ascertained that the heavenly body, now known as Ura.n.u.s, was a planet, its normal path was soon laid down according to the recognised law of gravitation. But it would not take this path.

There were deviations and anomalies in its observed course, which could in nowise be referred to the operation of any known principle.

Astronomers were sorely puzzled to explain the irregularities, and to reconcile facts with laws. Various hypotheses were proposed: some denied the facts; that is, the observed places of the planet, boldly a.s.suming that the observers had been in error: others suggested that perhaps the physical laws, which had been supposed to govern the whole celestial machinery, did not reach so far as Ura.n.u.s's...o...b..t. The secret is now known: _they had not allowed for the disturbances produced by Neptune_.

In each of these cases the conclusions were legitimately deduced from the recognised premises. Hubert's skilled eye had calculated the distance; his experience had taught him the requisite angle at which to shoot, the exact amount of force necessary, and every other element proper to insure the desired result, _except one_. There was an element which he had overlooked; and it spoiled his calculations. _He had forgotten the wind._

The master of the ill-fated brig had calculated his lat.i.tude correctly; he knew the rate of his vessel's speed; the compa.s.s had showed him the parallel on which to steer. These premises ought to have secured a safe conclusion; and so they would, but for an unrecognised power that vitiated all; he was not aware of the silent and secret current, that was every hour setting him to the south of his supposed lat.i.tude.

The path of Ura.n.u.s had been calculated by the astronomers with scrupulous care, and every known element of disturbance had been considered; not by one, but by many. But for the fact that the planet had been previously seen in positions quite inconsistent with such a path, it would have been set down as beyond controversy correct.

Stubborn fact, however, would not give way; and hence the dilemma, till Le Verrier suggested the unseen antagonist.

I venture to suggest in the following pages an element, hitherto overlooked, which disturbs the conclusions of geologists respecting the antiquity of the earth. Their calculations are sound on the recognised premises; _but they have not allowed for the Law of Prochronism in Creation_.

The enunciation of this principle will lie in a nut-sh.e.l.l; the reader will find it at p.124; or p.347. All the rest of the book is ill.u.s.tration.

I do not claim originality for the thought which I have here endeavoured to work out. It was suggested to me by a Tract, which I met with some dozen years ago, or more; the t.i.tle of which I have forgotten: I am pretty sure it was anonymous, but it was published by Campbell, of 1, Warwick Square. Whether it is still in print I do not know; I never saw another copy. If the author is alive, and if he should happen to cast his eye on this volume, he will doubtless recognise his own bantling, and accept this my acknowledgment.

The germ of the argument, however, I have found, since these pages were written, in "The Mineral and Mosaical Geologies," of Granville Penn (1822). The state of physical science when he wrote did not enable him to press the argument to a demonstration, as I have endeavoured to do; for he could not refer to structural peculiarities as sensible records of past processes, _inseparable from newly created organisms_.

I would not be considered as an opponent of geologists; but rather as a co-searcher with them after that which they value as highly as I do, TRUTH. The path which I have pursued has led me to a conclusion at variance with theirs. I have a right to expect that it be weighed; let it not be imputed to vanity if I hope that it may be accepted.

But what I much more ardently desire is, that the thousands of thinking persons, who are scarcely satisfied with the extant reconciliations of Scriptural statements and Geological deductions,--who are silenced but not convinced,--may find, in the principle set forth in this volume, a stable resting-place. I have written it in the constant prayer that the G.o.d of Truth will deign so to use it; and if He do, to Him be all the glory!

P. H. G.

MARYCHURCH, TORQUAY,

_October, 1857_.

I.

THE CAUSE.

"Is there not a cause?"--1 SAM. xvii. 29.

An eminent philosopher has observed that "nothing can be more common or frequent than to appeal to the evidence of the senses as the most unerring test of physical effects. It is by the organs of sense, and by these alone, that we can acquire any knowledge of the qualities of external objects, and of their mutual effects when brought to act one upon another, whether mechanically, physically, or chemically; and it might, therefore, not unreasonably be supposed, that what is called the evidence of the senses must be admitted to be conclusive, as to all the phenomena developed by such reciprocal action.

"Nevertheless, the fallacies are numberless into which those are led who take what they consider the immediate results of sensible impressions, without submitting them to the severe control and disciplined a.n.a.lysis of the understanding."[1]

If this verdict is confessedly true with regard to many observations which we make on things immediately present to our senses, much more likely is it to be true with respect to conclusions which are not "the immediate results of sensible impressions," but are merely deduced by a process of reasoning from such impressions. And if the direct evidence of our senses is to be received with a prudent reserve, because of this possibility of error, even when we have no evidence of an opposing character, still more necessary is the exercise of caution in judging of facts a.s.sumed to have occurred at a period far removed from our own experience, and which stand in contradiction (at least apparent, _prima facie_, contradiction) to credible historic testimony. Nay, the caveat acquires a greatly intensified force, when the testimony with which the a.s.sumed facts are, or seem to be, at variance, is no less a testimony than His who ordained the "facts," who made the objects of investigation; the testimony of the Creator of all things; the testimony of Him who is, from eternity to eternity, "[Greek: HO APSEUDeS THEOS]"!

I hope I shall not be deemed censorious in stating my fear that those who cultivate the physical sciences are not always sufficiently mindful of the "_Humanum est errare_." What we have investigated with no little labour and patience, what we have seen with our eyes many many times, in many aspects, and under many circ.u.mstances, we naturally believe firmly; and we are very p.r.o.ne to attach the same a.s.surance of certainty to the inferences we have, _bona fide_, and with scrupulous care to eliminate error, deduced from our observations, as to the observations themselves; and we are apt to forget that some element of error may have crept into our actual investigations, and still more probably into our deductions.

Even if our observations be so simple, so patent, so numerous, as _almost_ to preclude the possibility of mistake in them, and our process of reasoning from them be without a flaw, still we may have overlooked a principle, which, though perhaps not very obvious, ought to enter into the investigation, and which, if recognised, would greatly modify our conclusions.

In this volume I venture to suggest such a principle to the consideration of geologists. It will not be denied that Geology is a science that stands peculiarly in need of being cultivated with that salutary self-distrust that I have above alluded to. Though a strong and healthy child, it is as yet but an infant. The objects on which its senses have been exercised, its [Greek: ta blepomena], are indeed plain enough and numerous enough, when once discovered; but the inferences drawn from them, its [Greek: bebaia], find their sphere in the most venerably remote antiquity,--an antiquity mensurable not by years or centuries, but by _secula seculorum_. And the dicta, which its votaries rest on as cert.i.tudes, are at variance with the simple literal sense of the words of G.o.d.

I am not a.s.suming here that the Inspired Word has been rightly read; I merely say that the plain straightforward meaning, the meaning that lies manifestly on the face of the pa.s.sages in question, is in opposition with the conclusions which geologists have formed, as to the antiquity and the genesis of the globe on which we live.

Perhaps the simple, superficial sense of the Word is not the correct one; but it is at least that which its readers, learned and unlearned, had been generally content with before; and which would, I suppose, scarcely have been questioned, but for what appeared the exigencies of geological facts.

Now while there are, unhappily, not a few infidels, professed or concealed, who eagerly seize on any apparent discrepancy between the works and the Word of G.o.d, in order that they may invalidate the truth of the latter, there are, especially in this country, many names of the highest rank in physical (and, among other branches, in geological) science, to whom the veracity of G.o.d is as dear as life. They cannot bear to see it impugned; they know that it cannot be overthrown; they are a.s.sured that He who gave the Word, and He who made the worlds, is One Jehovah, who cannot be inconsistent with Himself. But they cannot shut their eyes to the startling fact, that the records which _seem_ legibly written on His created works do flatly contradict the statements which _seem_ to be plainly expressed in His word.

Here is a dilemma. A most painful one to the reverent mind! And many reverent minds have laboured hard and long to escape from it. It is unfair and dishonest to cla.s.s our men of science with the infidel and atheist. They did not rejoice in the dilemma; they saw it at first dimly, and hoped to avoid it.[2] At first they believed that the mighty processes which are recorded on the "everlasting mountains" might not only be harmonized with, but might afford beautiful and convincing demonstrations of Holy Scripture. They thought that the deluge of Noah would explain the stratification, and the antediluvian era account for the organic fossils.

As the "stone book" was further read, this mode of explanation appeared to many untenable; and they retracted their adherence to it. To a mind rightly const.i.tuted, Truth is above every thing: there is no such thing as a pious fraud; the very idea is an impious lie: G.o.d is light, and in Him is no darkness at all; and that religion which can be maintained only by dissembling or denying truth, cannot proceed from "Him that is Holy, Him that is True," but from him who "is a liar, and the father of it."

Many upright and ardent cultivators of the young science felt that truth would be compromised by a persistence in those explanations which had hitherto pa.s.sed current. The discrepancy between the readings in Science and the hitherto unchallenged readings in Scripture, became manifest.

Partisans began to array themselves on either side; some, jealous for the honour of G.o.d, knew little of science, and rushed into the field ill-prepared for the conflict; some, jealous for science, but little conversant with Scripture, and caring less for it, were willing to throw overboard its authority altogether: others, who knew that the writings were from the same Hand, knew therefore that there must be some way of reconciling them, and set themselves to find it out.

Have they succeeded? If I thought so, I would not publish this book.

Many, I doubt not, have been convinced by each of the schemes by which the discrepant statements have been sought to be harmonized. Each of them has had sufficient plausibility to convince its propounder; and, probably, others too. And some of them have attained a large measure of public confidence. Yet if any one of them is true, it certainly has not commanded universal a.s.sent. Let us examine how far they agree among themselves, who propose to reconcile Scripture and Science, "the Mosaic and the Mineral Geologies."

And first, it is, perhaps, right to represent the opinions of those who stand by the literal acceptation of the Divine Word. There have been some, indeed, who refuse to entertain the question of reconciliation, taking the high ground that, as the Word of G.o.d is and must be true, it is impious to set any evidence in compet.i.tion with it. I cannot but say, my sympathies are far more with these than with those who, at the opposite pole of the argument, would make scientific deduction paramount, and make the Word go to the wall. But, then, we ought to be quite sure that we have got the very Word of G.o.d; and, so far from being impious, it seems highly proper and right, when conflicting evidence appears to flow out of what is indubitably G.o.d's _work_, to examine afresh the witnesses on both sides, that we may not make either testify what it does not.

Those good men who merely _denounce_ Geology and geologists, I do not quote. There are the facts, "written and engraven in stones," and that by the finger of G.o.d. How can they be accounted for?

Some have recourse to the a.s.sumption that the natural processes by which changes in the earth's surface are now going on, may have operated in antediluvian times with a rapidity and power of which we can form little conception from what we are cognisant of. The Rev. J. Mellor Brown takes this ground, adducing the a.n.a.logies of steam-power and electricity, as effecting in a few moments or hours, what formerly would have required several days or weeks to accomplish.

"G.o.d's most tremendous agencies may have been employed in the beginning of his works. If, for instance, it should be conceded that the granitic or basaltic strata were once in a state of fusion, there is no reason why we should not call in the aid of supposition to produce a _rapid_ refrigeration. We may surround the globe with an atmosphere (not as yet warmed by the rays of the newly kindled sun) more intensely cold than that of Saturn. The degree of cold may have been such as to cool down the liquid granite and basalt in a few hours, and render it congenial to animal and vegetable life; while the gelid air around the globe may have been mollified by the abstracted caloric."[3]

A writer in Blackwood (xli. 181; xlii. 690), in like manner, adheres to the literal sense of Genesis and the Decalogue, and alludes to "the great agencies--the magnetic, electrical, and ethereal influences--probably instrumental in all the phenomena of nature," as being far more powerful than is generally suspected.

Mr. Macbrair--who does not, however, appear, from the amount of his acquaintance with science, competent to judge of the physical evidence--supposes stratification to have proceeded with immense rapidity, because limestone is now deposited in some waters at the rate of six inches per annum. Because a ma.s.s of timber, ten miles in length, was collected in the Mississippi, in thirty-eight years, he considers that a "capital coal field" might be formed in a single century.

Alluvial strata are mud lavas ejected from volcanoes. The whole difficulty of fossil remains is got rid of by ignoring the distinctions of species, and a.s.suming that the ancient animals and the recent ones are identical. The Pterodactyle and the Plesiosaurus he does not allude to.[4]

According to Dr. Ure,--"The demiurgic week ... is manifestly composed of six working days like our own, and a day of rest, each of equal length, and, therefore, containing an evening and a morning, measured by the rotation of the earth round its axis.... Neither reason nor revelation will justify us in extending the origin of the material system beyond six thousand years from our own days. The world then received its substance, form, and motions from the volition of the Omnipotent."

His theory of the stratification extends over the whole antediluvian era. He supposes that successive irruptions of the central heat broke up the primitive strata and deposited the secondary and tertiary. "The basaltic or trap phenomena lead to the conclusion that such upheavings and subversions were not confined to one epoch of the antediluvian world, but that, coeval with its birth, they pervaded the whole period of its duration.... The Deluge--that universal transflux of the ocean--was the last and greatest of these terraqueous convulsions."[5]

Another cla.s.s of this school of interpreters refers the stratification of the earth, either to the deluge alone, or to that convulsion conjoined with the one which is considered to have taken place on the third day of the Mosaic narrative. Perhaps the most eminent writer of this cla.s.s is Mr. Granville Penn, whose opinions may be thus condensed.