God Manifest/Part 2/Chapter 2 Section 2

by Oliver Prescott Hiller

SECTION II.

NOXIOUS ANIMALS, PLANTS, AND MINERALS.

It has ever been considered a strange and mysterious fact, that there should exist, in the creation of a God of goodness, things of a hurtful and destructive nature, injurious and often fatal to man,—such as ferocious beasts, noxious vermin, and poisonous plants and minerals. It does indeed seem strange, that there should be found, scattered amongst the useful and beautiful things of God's charming creation, existences not only unpleasing and ugly, but useless and venomous: that beneath the pretty flowers should lurk the deadly serpent; that among rich groves, where all the air is balm, should stalk the fierce lion, or couch the bloodthirsty tiger, ready to spring upon the passing traveler; that under the soft light of the midnight moon, the tameless hyæna should wander howling for his prey, casting on the grass his ugly shadow as he goes. It does seem strange, that, with the growing corn, there should be given also the worm at the root; that, with the garnered corn, there should be vermin to devour it; that our pleasant slumbers should be disturbed by annoying and dark-loving insects, and that with the music of our dreams should be mingled the dull song of the mosquito, ere he alights to worry and awake us. It does seem strange, that in our morning walk in the fields or ramble through the woods, we should be exposed to scratches from thorns, or to poison from the hemlock or the fox-glove; that, at home, the deadly arsenic, lying on the shelf, should tempt the unwary by its seemingly innocent, but murderous, whiteness; and lastly, that the very air we breathe should be sometimes pestiferous, filled with poisonous gases or noxious vapors, dangerous to the health, destructive to the very life, of man.

These things do, indeed, appear at first sight strange and mysterious. But they are not more strange than the existence of painful disease, in its thousand horrid shapes; not more mysterious, than the sufferings of infancy, or the prevalence of the cholera or the plague; nor, indeed, more wonderful than the existence of moral evil itself, the great "spring of all man's woes." But in the preceding Section, we have endeavoured to show that the existence of disease and consequent bodily suffering does not, when rightly viewed, impugn the goodness of the Creator,—for that it is not His work, but man's, being the legitimate effect of moral disease or sin. So, again, in the previous Chapter, we sought to make it plain, that the existence of moral evil, with all its direful consequences, is not, when seen in its true light, a disproof of the Divine Goodness, but an actual confirmation of it. For, as was shown, it was the goodness and love of the Creator which induced Him to make man a free agent, instead of a mere machine or automaton,—for thus alone could man be capable of receiving truly human and heavenly happiness: but that free agency implied the power of turning away from God and so of perverting the proper order of his nature,—which, man, abusing his liberty, unhappily did, and so brought himself into moral disorder, or, in other words, into evil and sin. So, then, the existence of moral evil is a proof of man's free-agency,—and free-agency is, as before said, a proof of God's goodness, for it was intended for man's highest happiness. And moreover, in spite of the sin and suffering that have hitherto resulted from this freedom abused, yet the existence of such freedom, (without which man would not be man,) has already been the source of exquisite happiness to millions of human beings, and will yet be to infinite millions more, in the lapse of coming ages. Thus, will not only the goodness, but the wisdom, of God, in creating man as He did, receive at length its ample confirmation.

Now, it will be our purpose, in the present Section, to show that the existence of these noxious and baneful things in nature, whether of the animal, vegetable, or mineral kingdom, is not to be ascribed directly to the Divine Being, any more than pain and disease are to be ascribed to Him; but that these, like all other physical evils, sprung originally from moral evil in man.

The first argument in support of this position, will be drawn from reason,—the second, from Revelation. That the good Creator could not have been the originator of these destructive, evil, and abominable things in nature, such as furious and corpse-eating hyænas, filthy vermin, and devastating locusts, in the animal kingdom, nor of the useless and poisonous things in the vegetable and mineral kingdoms,—may be concluded on the same ground as that He could not have been the author of moral evil,—namely, that it implies a contradiction. From the same fountain, as already remarked, cannot proceed both sweet and bitter waters. Blessing and cursing cannot go forth from the same mouth; doing good and doing harm cannot proceed from the same hand: in a word, good and evil cannot be derived from the same source. For, if good and evil could proceed from the same source, then there must be two opposite things existing together in the same being, which is impossible, because opposites tend either to neutralize or destroy each other. Such a being would be in a state of essential distraction: indeed, he would not be a being, he would not be a unit, a whole,—for a whole is composed of many harmonious parts; but such a supposed compound, being composed of opposites, could certainly have no peace nor happiness, nor could he perform any use, nor create or accomplish anything; for he would destroy with the one hand, what he made with the other. Who will say that God, the Creator of this beautiful universe, is such a Being? No! in God good and evil cannot both exist; and if both do not exist in Him, then both cannot proceed from Him, for that only can proceed from a being, which has a source in the being. Then it follows, that goodness alone exists in God, and consequently goodness alone can proceed from God; and therefore everything evil and hurtful, vile and abominable, all that is contrary to man's happiness (which is the great object of the Divine goodness), must be from some other source than God.

But it may perhaps be said, that the things in nature, which are commonly called noxious, are still not altogether useless,―that they effect some uses in the Divine economy. Filthy insects, for instance, it is argued, are useful in consuming carcases and other corrupt things, which otherwise would vitiate the air. So, many minerals, which to man in a healthy state are poisonous, are yet useful as medicines in time of disease. But, in answer to these suggestions, it is to be observed, first, that, as shown in the previous Section, had man not sinned, there would have been no disease, and thus no need of medicinal drugs. It is a beautiful arrangement, indeed, of Divine Providence, that since evil does exist, it should be in a manner its own cure; that one material form or effect of moral evil should be made the instrument of removing another, probably a kindred one: thus far, at least, the homœopathic principle would seem to be founded in truth. As to the consumption of things in a corrupt state by insects and other filthy animals, there appears to be observable the same or a similar law, namely, that like cures like,—and also the working of a similar good Providence, turning bad things to the best account. The effecting of these few and comparatively trifling uses, however, is not sufficient to account for the creation or existence of such animals; for the same ends could be obtained at a much less expense of comfort. The farmer, for instance, would very readily be at the pains of burying all the carcases that might be found on his land, if he could be spared the discomfort and loss caused him by noxious insects and destructive worms. Besides, it is, after all, only a very small portion of these noxious things that can be turned to any use whatever. What is the use performed by the tiger and the panther? what is the use effected by the locusts,—which come in armies, and, crossing a country, consume every green thing off the face of the ground? No! we must not expect to escape from the difficulty in this manner;—we shall find but little satisfaction or success in seeking to account for the existence of the innumerable noxious and destructive things in the three kingdoms of nature, by supposing that, after all, they are not noxious, but useful,—not evil, but in some mysterious way beneficent and good. No! the real truth is, that these things are not good in any proper sense of the term. The question then recurs, how came they into existence?

Before undertaking to answer this question on positive grounds, we will make a few farther remarks on the negative side of the subject,—adducing, at the same time, the testimony of Revelation. We have already sought to show, by a brief course of a priori reasoning, that the author and originator of things hurtful and destructive to man, could not be God; that they must have had some other origin. This view we will now seek to confirm, by adducing the plain declarations of Scripture. In the account of the work of creation, in the first Chapter of Genesis, we find, after the description of each portion of the work, the words, "and God saw that it was good;" and at the close of the whole, is the emphatic language, "and God saw everything that He had made, and behold it was very good." Now, keeping this fact in mind, can we suppose that among the existences of the completed and perfected world, so described, there were such things as abominable alligators, rapacious wolves, and fierce leopards and bears? Are these "good" and "very good?" Can any one suppose that such creatures stalked and crouched, growled and howled in the groves of Eden? Can any one suppose that man in his state of innocence was infested with rats and mice, tarantulas and scorpions? that venomous spiders wove their webs across Adam's window (if he had one), or that ugly, double-bodied wasps flew about his door? that Eve, when she stepped forth into the fresh morning air, to look at her favorite rose, found its leaves covered with vile insects feeding on its life, and caterpillars crawling on its stalk? and, while attentively examining the mishap, with the first tear in her eye,—that she should be suddenly startled by the rattle of a venomous snake in the grass, or the growl of a panther among the trees behind her? or that, when she proceeded to make her toilet at nature's mirror, the limpid lake, she should be saluted by the upraised head of a crocodile, extending his long jaws towards her? Can any one presume, that when the loving pair lay down to their peaceful slumbers, they were kept awake by the hooting of owls, or, if you choose, lulled by the croaking of frogs in the neighbouring waters? We can believe none of these things: they are quite incredible: the mind rejects such conceptions with horror and disgust. Our fancy frees those scenes of beauty and innocence from all such objects. This shows us, that such things have no harmony with the mind of man in a good state,—that they have no correspondence with heavenly, much less with Divine, order.―consequently, that they could not have constituted any part of the creation, when first produced in perfect order from the Divine Mind. We feel altogether assured that these things are not "very good," nor good in any degree, and that therefore they could not have been among those objects of the completed world, which were all blessed and pronounced "very good."

But—this view being assented to, as certainly highly reasonable, and consonant with all our instinctive notions of beauty and order,—the question will at once be asked, whence, then, did these things come into existence—when and how? We will first reply in regard to the time when, and afterwards consider the manner how.

As to the time at which these noxious things, animate and inanimate, came into being,—we think the period can be fixed with precision, namely, at or soon after the Fall—when man departed from his state of integrity, and fell into sin. Of this we have a pretty distinct intimation in the Scripture narrative. Immediately upon man being found guilty, and convicted of a violation of the Divine commands,—it was declared to him, "Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee,"^[1] Now here we find it denounced or foretold to him, that, in consequence of his sin, the very nature of the ground would be in a manner changed, which is implied in the word "cursed," and that it would bring forth certain things impliedly bad or at least useless, which did not exist before—namely, "thorns and thistles." This is sufficient to establish the principle, that, as a consequence of sin on the part of man, certain things, useless and noxious, came into existence, which did not exist before. The particular things here named are thorns and thistles; but if some things of the vegetable kingdom were thus now first produced, we may by a fair analogy conclude that other things of a similar character, useless and noxious, were then also first produced. And the same analogy may, without impropriety, be extended to the other kingdoms of nature, the mineral and the animal. For if the nature of the ground or earth were thus in a manner changed, as above remarked, then the substances which are in the ground or soil, and of which it is in great part composed, namely, mineral particles, must have undergone a change also; in fact, minerals are the basis of vegetables, and it would be hardly supposable, therefore, that new vegetable products could exist, without a modification in the quality of the substances from which they spring. As to the animal kingdom, it is expressly said that in it, or at least in one individual of it, a change in character was produced: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Here we have the first intimation of anything coming into existence, of a character hostile and hurtful to man—"thou shalt bruise his heel." The serpent indeed existed before, but it was harmless— for though called "subtle," there is no proof that it was hostile to man; but now both a disposition and a faculty of hurting man were to enter into it. We may thence conclude that poisonous and deadly serpents then first began to exist. And if such animals then first came into existence, we may not unreasonably conclude that other noxious and destructive species in the animal kingdom then, also, or afterwards, began to be. Indeed, we must so conclude, if we keep in mind that all things existent before man's sin,—all things as originally created,—were "good and very good."

This view will be confirmed in our minds, if we call to recollection the prophecy that, at a future happy day,—when innocence and peace shall return once more to take up their abode in the hearts of men,—when an Eden, as it were, shall once more be seen on the earth, and the whole world, indeed, shall be a "watered garden,"—then fierce animals will no more exist; or if the forms and names of such animals remain, their character and nature will be changed: "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed: their young ones shall lie down together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain. For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea."^[2] Now here, we see it plainly declared, that when a state shall come, in which "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord," in other words, when man shall universally know, revere, and obey his Maker, then fierce and destructive animals will no more exist, but all things in the animal creation will be in harmony with each other and with man; or if the forms of such animals remain, their natures, at least, will be quite changed, and they will exist only in a state of complete tameness and subjection. Now, may it not with strict justice be argued,—nay, may it not with certainty be concluded, that, if in a future good and innocent state of mankind in a future Eden, such a state of things will exist,—then, in the original innocent state of mankind, in the former Eden, a similar state of things did exist, and that no fierce or noxious animals were in being. Or if the forms of such animals were in existence, their nature was entirely different, their dispositions harmless. As, however, we cannot well conceive the object of giving a creature organs which could be of no use to him,—as for instance, claws that were not to tear, or incisor-teeth that were not to cut,—we must presume, that if such animals did exist, their forms and endowments must have been very different from what they now are, so that though their general appearance might be similar, they would hardly be the same animals that now bear those names. In fact, the more rational presumption would be, that they did not exist at all, nor come into existence until the fall of man; and that then, when sin first came into the world, new evil dispositions in man put themselves forth in nature, clothed with new material forms; and that then for the first time the fox, the hyæna, and the wolf made their appearance amongst the beautiful things of God's creation. This view receives further confirmation from another prophecy, which we find. in the Scriptures: "No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon; it shall not be found there."^[3] Connecting this passage with the one before quoted, which pictures the wolf and the lamb lying down together,—it may be concluded, that in a future happy state of the world, when "the wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad, and the desert shall blossom as the rose,"^[4] then fierce animals shall lose their noxious character, and sink into a state of tameness and powerlessness to harm, and then at length shall pass away altogether from the earth. Thus, as they had no existence before man sinned, so shall they cease to exist, when his state of sin shall be ended.

Here, however, perhaps, we shall be met by a geological objection. Do not the facts of geological science, it may be asked, seem to show that noxious things existed in the earth before man sinned? that carnivorous animals were in existence, ages, indeed, before man came into being at all? How is this to be accounted for?

Let us examine this point. That carnivorous animals existed in the early geological periods, and long before the earth was rendered fit for the habitation of man, is unquestionable. This is proved indirectly by a variety of circumstances, but it is also substantiated by very direct proof. "In some members of the Secondary class of strata," says Dr. Pye Smith, "are found the skeletons of gigantic lizard-formed animals, with their stomachs remaining under their ribs, and those stomachs still retaining the more solid relics of their food, among which are fish-scales and bits of bone." This fact, therefore, seems ascertained clearly enough. But what is the inference to be drawn from it? Both Pye Smith and Dr. Buckland take much pains, and we think successfully, to show—that this fact is no proof of want of benevolence or goodness on the part of the Creator, but the contrary. They show that this provision—namely, that animals should be sustained by feeding on other animals,—was in the first place an absolute necessity, particularly in regard to fish and other sea-animals; that otherwise, in a short period, the sea would be over-stocked, the whole ocean would be filled, for, as as is well known, so rapid is the multiplication of fishes, that a single individual will deposit in one season, not less than millions of eggs or spawn.^[5] Suppose, then, that each of these eggs, becoming a full-grown fish, should in its turn, deposit its millions yearly, it may easily be calculated that, in no very long course of time, the waters of the sea would be absolutely filled and choked up with fish. What other consequence could follow, than that they must die the painful death of starvation; besides, perhaps, deluging the land with the out-crowded waters. But by the provision that one species constitute the food of another, these calamities are presented; and each race enjoying its little time of existence, then gives way to a succeeding one, and so a perpetual change goes on, new beings continually coming into life, and receiving their share of the pleasures of existence and the bounties of the Creator—besides, also, performing the service of affording sustenance to man.^[6]

Thus, then, the necessity for the existence of some carnivorous animals, that is to say, of such as feed not upon vegetable but upon animal matter, is plain. But it is to be asked, does the mere quality of carnivorousness necessarily imply an evil, cruel, or malicious disposition in the animal? It certainly does not: and this is a very important distinction: all or most fierce and cruel animals are indeed carnivorous, but all carnivorous animals are not therefore fierce. The whale, for instance, as is well known, is a very gentle and

harmless animal; yet he devours whole shoals of herrings at a time, and, as he swims leisurely along, engulphs vast quantities of these and other fish in his capacious maw. And, as above shown, he performs a service in so doing, as well as nourishes himself. Nor otherwise, indeed, could he and many other species of fish exist; for there is not in the sea a sufficient quantity of vegetable matter for all or any large proportion of the fish that inhabit it.

On land, however, there is not the same necessity for animals being carnivorous; both because there is in general a sufficiency of vegetable food, and also because land animals do not multiply in any such degree as fishes do. Consequently, we find that most, if not all, the fossil land animals were not carnivorous, but herbivorous, feeding upon roots, herbs, and leaves of trees. This was the case with the enormous deinotherium, megatherium, mastodon, and similar gigantic animals that existed in the ages before man. These, like the elephant now, were, without question, herbivorous,—gentle and harmless creatures, that quietly fed on the productions of the earth, and roamed the solitary wilds, enjoying existence, but doing no harm to each other or to their neighbors. There is no satisfactory proof, we conceive, of the existence, before man, of what are properly called noxious animals; namely, such as are destructive to man and to his property, such as are manifestly of fierce, cruel, malicious dispositions, as wolves, tigers, panthers, hyænas, and the like: or of destructive and filthy insects and vermin, such as rats, mice, locusts, scorpions, and others of a similar nature. Remains of any such, we believe, have not been found in the rocks of any eras, which are certainly and unquestionably antecedent to the existence of man upon the earth. Indeed, they are hot found, in general, imbedded in rocks at all, but usually in caverns, under a deposite of stalagmite earth, that is, calcareous matter formed by droppings from the roof above: such fossiliferous caverns have been met with in Bavaria, France, England, and North America. "In general," says Richardson^[7], "they contain the bones and teeth of bears, tigers, hyænas,—also of elephants, mastodons, and various herbivera on which they preyed. The organic remains are usually found imbedded in a deposite of stalagmite earth, which forms the flooring of the cave." Not unfrequently, moreover, human remains have been found mixed with these. "Frequent discoveries," says Dr. Buckland^[8], "have been made of human bones and rude works of art, in natural caverns, sometimes enclosed in stalactite, at others in beds of earthy materials, which are interspersed with bones of extinct species of quadrupeds."—"Several accounts have been published, within the last few years, of human remains discovered in the caverns in France and the province of Liege, which are described as being of the same antiquity with the bones of hyænas, and other extinct quadrupeds, that accompany them." This writer, however, it should be added, is disposed to attribute the circumstance of human bones being found in such situations, not to their having been cotemporary with the animals amongst the remains of which they are found commingled, but simply to their having been buried there in an after-time. For such a supposition, however, no satisfactory scientific reason is assigned: it is merely alleged that any other view of the case would be difficult to be reconciled with the "received chronology." But can this be considered a sound argument? Is it philosophical to be biased in our view of physical facts by any received theory or system whatsoever? Let every fact stand firmly on its own feet, without either seeking support from, or permitting itself to be overthrown by, any hypothesis, or any rule of construction drawn from other sources.

We have no fear that the Word and the Works of God will or can come into collision with each other. It is impossible, when both are rightly interpreted and thoroughly understood. For God is a One, a Divine and Perfect One. And the Truth, consequently which proceeds from Him and is His image,—whether existing in word or in deed, whether written in words with the finger of God on tables of stone, or written with the same finger, in works, on the great rocky tablets of the earth,—is one and the same, and forms a harmonious whole. Truth expressed in words, and Truth expressed in facts (both being derived from God) cannot be supposed to contradict each other, that would be to make God contradict himself—which is impossible, He being a consistent One Truth written is, in fact, but a declaration or description of Truth done, that is, of truth that exists actually, whether in God Himself or in His created works. The book merely describes the fact. If God wrote the book (or if it were written by His direction), and if God also made the fact, then the two, having both proceeded from Him, must agree; because they were both derived from the same Mind, which having no contradiction in itself, can have none in its derivations. Or, to speak less abstractly, no statement in the Word of God (understood in its true sense) can contradict any fact in the works of God, or in God Himself, because God's Word was written for the sole purpose of declaring or making known to man truths,—which are, essentially, facts existing either in God Himself and His own Divine Nature, or else existing in man and his mind and soul, or lastly existing in the inferior parts of creation. It is true, indeed, that the main purpose of the inspired Word, was to inform us concerning the two former of these three classes of subjects, namely, concerning God Himself and His Divine Nature and Character, and concerning man, his soul and eternal state. The Divine Word was not intended to be a book of natural history, nor a mere record of physical facts. These were left,—purposely it would seem,—for man's reason and spirit of investigation to employ and delight itself with. The Holy Scripture had higher purposes in view: it was given to instruct man in the things relating to his immortal soul and eternal happiness. In the course of this instruction, therefore, keeping its high object in view, and being obliged to express itself in language suited to man's common ideas of things, it does not hesitate to make use of terms descriptive of natural things not always as they physically are, but as they appear to be. This comes sufficiently near to the physical fact, to accomplish the end in view. Thus it speaks of the sun as rising and setting, although the sun does not, as we know, scientifically speaking, rise or set, but appears to do so; simply in consequence of the earth's turning on its axis. It is a truth, however, that it appears to do so,—it is a truth to the sense, and therefore it may be called a sensual truth. The same principle holds good in all other like cases. We are not, therefore, to look into the Bible, expecting to find a scientifically exact record of physical facts; for to give such facts was not the object of the Sacred Volume. And it is plain to see that it could not have accomplished this object, without sacrificing its higher and proper one. Had the Bible declared in so many words,—what science declares,—that the sun does not really rise and set, would people in ignorant ages have believed for a moment a book which contradicted their very senses? They would have pronounced it unworthy of credit, and have cast it away altogether.

For want of taking this reasonable view of Scripture interpretation, the whole difficulty between Galileo and the Inquisition arose. Science told Galileo that the sun did not move: the Inquisition said, "you contradict the Holy Scripture, for it speaks of the sun's rising and setting, of its moving and standing still. Your assertion, therefore, is a blasphemy against God's Holy Word, and you must retract or suffer."

The same language, or similar, is too apt to be used in our own day,—the point in dispute, merely, is changed. It is now indeed admitted to be a scientific fact, that the sun does not actually rise or set; and so far, the Bible is acknowledged not to be, as it was not intended to be, the standard of scientific truth. But when other analogous statements in regard to physical matters are found, which are discovered or suspected to be irreconcileable with faets,—instead of at once admitting the same just principle of interpretation, it is too often found necessary to fight the old battle between science and Scripture over again. This has just been done, in reference to the account of the six days of creation, as opposed to the facts of geology;—and we know what a severe struggle it was. Truth, however, has at length won the victory; and it is now generally admitted, that whatever interpretation we are to put upon the Mosaic account of the creation of the earth in six days, it certainly cannot be taken in its literal acceptation. A similar struggle is still going on in regard to the narrative of the Deluge,—as to whether it can be supposed to have been an actual flood of waters covering the whole earth,—or whether, as according to Dr. Pye Smith's theory, it should be considered as only a partial or local inundation merely,—or whether, in fact, it is rather to be received in an allegorical sense, as a flood of sin and wickedness.

So, now, the subject of Biblical Chronology has been of late years brought under examination; for it has been found difficult to reconcile the chronology commonly received, with certain pretty well ascertained facts in regard to the antiquity of the human race. "If," says Kitto, "we are to date from the Noachian Deluge, it is evident that such considerations [certain views before presented] with regard to the antiquity of the human race, must at least claim our serious attention, in connection with the Scripture narrative. As to the data simply, the great discrepancy in the chronology of the patriarchs between the existing Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the Septuagint versions, has, with many, tended to throw doubts upon all the computations alike, as more or less corrupted or interpolated. Again, there are circumstances connected with the early history of several nations which have appeared to some writers to demand a still greater extension of time. The Jesuit missionaries in China were so strongly impressed with the proofs of high antiquity evinced in the records of that people, that they applied to the pope for a dispensation to adopt the Septuagint chronology [which allows about 700 years longer] instead of that of the Vulgate, and even confessed that this would not be sufficiently consistent with the antiquity they felt obliged to assign to the Chinese history. The Jesuit Mailla enters most into detail on the subject, especially as connected with their early inventions in the arts. Other writers have dwelt upon the various remains indicating a spread of population and a degree of civilisation,—at periods too early to be consistent with any received chronology,—among the Egyptians, Mexicans, Hindoos, and other nations, and the probability of many of those arts of which they exhibit traces, having been originally derived from a still more ancient, and widely-spread, and highly civilized people in Central Asia. Some interesting remarks on this subject will be found in a Paper "On the History of Magnetical Discovery," by T. S. Davies, Esq., F.R.S., inserted in the British Annual for 1827, p. 264. This able writer argues much from the unequal progress made in civilization and the arts of life under different conditions of national existence, and contends that in the earliest stages that progress must have been incalculably slow, and that the chronology, consequently, must be almost indefinitely enlarged."^[9]

In view, now, of these facts and considerations, what course does it become the liberal-minded theologian, and the firm believer in the Divinity of the Scriptures, to pursue? Shall he proceed after the manner of the Inquisition in its dealings with Galileo, pronounce such writers and enquirers guilty of blasphemy or infidelity, and demand that they retract, under the penalty of excommunication? or shall he do as was done in too many cases by the opponents of the first geologists,—accuse them of infidelity and opposition to the inspired Word of God, because they ventured to adduce the facts of science in regard to the antiquity of the globe? No! we conceive that such a course would be neither wise, just, nor Christian. It would not be just or Christian, because it would not be doing to our neighbor as we should like to have him do to us; and it would probably be a violation of the commandment, "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Neither would it be a wise course, or an effectual one. Facts, as often remarked, are "stubborn things." Truth, whether spiritual or scientific, is mighty, and will in the end prevail There would be danger of being found fighting against certain truth, in attempting to defend what, after all, may be considered as only one interpretation of truth. And when, in the end, the real facts of the case become established in the minds of men, the obloquy of opposition to them is apt to fall on the defenders of Revelation, and thence, though unjustly, on the cause which they espouse. Thus, too often, has the cause of Revealed Religion been injured by vindicators who were more zealous than wise.

Nol! there is no need of fear or anxiety; Divine Truth will protect itself: it is defended by the shield of the Almighty, it rests immovably on the Rock of Ages. It may be said of the Revealed Word, as it is affirmed of the City of God,—"God is in the midst of her, she shall not be moved: God shall help her and that right early."^[10] Observe, that these questions merely affect the interpretation of Scripture: they do not touch the inspired Word itself. "If," justly remarks Dr. Hitchcock,—"geology, or any other science, proves to us that we have not fairly understood the meaning of Scripture, it merely illustrates, but does not oppose Revelation."^[11] The Word of God stands on an immovable basis, and on one quite independent of all such considerations. These few obscure places have no more effect on the general light of the Divine Word, than motes in the sunbeams, or the spots on the sun itself, affect the light and warmth of that luminary. It is not for its few statements of natural or physical truth, that we chiefly value the Bible, but for its inexhaustible and saving spiritual truth. And this truth stands and shines quite apart from and independently of those records of natural facts. The Holy Word is given as a "lamp to our feet, and a light to our path,"—not to guide us downward through the earth, but upward to heaven; not to teach geology, geography, or natural history, but to teach that truth which shall save the soul; not to reveal the structure of the globe under our feet or the nature of the outward world, but to make known to us the structure and constitutions of our own hearts and minds, the nature and worth of the inner world, and the character of the God who made it. While then we have this great light shining to us out of the Word of God, we need care little for the lesser lights; let them shine or let them be obscured,—our spiritual sun beams on for ever.

To return, now, from this digression—we would repeat the conviction, that the view which has been presented, namely, that there was no existence of noxious, fierce, and malignant animals before the creation and fall of man, remains uncontradicted by any certain facts of geology. The remains of such animals, as before shown, are found only in the latest strata, or in caverns under a deposite of stalagmite earth, and there, not unfrequently, mixed with human remains. Indeed it seems to be a fact generally admitted by geologists, that the present races of animals are, for the most part, no older than man. "It may be proper to observe," says Dr. Pye Smith, "that it is only in the newest and latest kinds of formation, that any remains of man and his cotemporary animals are to be found."^[12] "Geology decides," says Dr. Hitchcock^[13], "that the species now living, since they are not found in the rocks any lower down than man is (with a few exceptions), could not have been cotemporaneous with those in the rocks, but must have been created when man was." The view, indeed, that fierce and noxious animals had no existence before the fall of man, is not a new: one. "It is a common supposition," says Pye Smith,—in examining the question whether there was any death before sin—'that in the interval between their creation and the fall of man, animals were gentle and fed solely upon vegetable productions. Some have proposed the hypothesis that the carnivorous tribes were not created till after the fall, or even after the deluge. This hypothesis seems to lessen the difficulty, but it overlooks the fact that the grasses, leaves, seeds, and fruits, which are the food of the herbivorous races, swarm with insect life. The supposition that the carnivorous animals could at any time have fed upon vegetables, cannot be entertained for a moment, except it were by a person quite ignorant of the anatomical structure of those animals. Their bones and muscles, their teeth, claws, stomachs, and intestines, demonstrate that they were created to be nourished solely by animal food."^[14] This last remark agrees with the suggestion before made, that if what are now fierce animals did exist before the fall, they must have been very different both in nature and structure from what they now are—so different indeed as to be hardly recognizable as the same animals; and we therefore expressed it as a more rational belief, that they did not exist at all. Upon Dr. Smith's objection to the second hypothesis, that, while it lessens the difficulty, "it overlooks the fact that the grasses, leaves, seeds, and fruits, which are the food of the herbivorous races, swarm with insect life"—we would make the comment, that the writer himself overlooks the view that those insects themselves had no existence at that time—that these are to be classed among the noxious vermin which had no being till man brought sin into the world. Loathsome and destructive insects could not, as already remarked, have existed in Eden;—it is impossible that they could have been among the things which the Creator pronounced "good" and "very good."

No! we. hold the conviction—and it is a view sustained, we think, both by Revelation and reason, and uncontradicted by science—that noxious, destructive, and malignant things in nature, whether in the animal, vegetable, or mineral kingdom, were not created in the beginning, but are effects consequent upon, and derived from, the existence of moral evil in man. How,—it will now be asked—could such effects be produced? It is not impossible to see how they might be produced, if we go back to first principles. What in fact Is the material world, but an outbirth from the spiritual world? And what is the spiritual world, but an outbirth or derivation from the Divine Mind? Creation is, properly speaking, production,—a sending forth, as it were, by the Infinite God, of indefinitely various forms and existences from Himself. Now, in the Divine Mind, there is nothing but what is good and beautiful: consequently in the spiritual and material worlds derived from Him, there could have been nothing, at first, but what was good, beautiful, and useful. In the spiritual world, the world of mind, there were all sweet and innocent affections, and, derived from these, all bright and elegant thoughts—beautiful and sparkling ideas, which would shine and glitter in the light of heaven, just as atmospheric coruscations, beautiful flowers, and gems, glow and sparkle in the light of the natural world. The latter, indeed, may be considered as actual effects of, and derivations from, the former. Plato said, not less truly, perhaps, than prettily,—"If there were no pure hearts, there would be no white lilies." There exists, throughout, the closest and completest analogy between the world of matter and the world of mind. And this, for the simple reason, that the world of matter is derived from the world of mind or the spiritual world. The connection between them is just the relation that exists between effects and their causes. Is it not so? Observe the work of an artist—a sculptor, for instance. He is moulding beautiful forms:—like Canova, he is modeling a "Venus;"—or like Powers, a "Greek Slave," or an "Eve;"—or like Michael Angelo he is planning the dome of a great St. Peter's. Now, must not the form exist in the artist's mind, before it can exist in the clay or marble? And when the material statue stands complete, is it any thing more than an outbirth from the idea in the artist's mind,—anything more than a copy, as it were in stone of the figure previously existing in the moulder's thought? Did it not exist, then, in spirit, before it existed in matter? Did not that statue stand, a delicate form, among the thousand beautiful things in the inner world of the sculptor's mind, before it came forth to view? And did not God's all-piercing Eye see it there existent, long before it was beheld by man? Nay, angels, perhaps, who see with the fine eyes of the spirit, may have been allowed to behold that figure in the gallery of the artist's imagination, long before it stood in the gallery at Florence or at Rome—the gaze of an admiring throng.

We thus may see that the works of an artist, or of an artizan of any kind, are, truly and correctly speaking, productions—forms brought forth from ideal objects previously existing in the mind of the workman. In such cases, then, plainly the material thing exists but as an effect from the spiritual thing. Now, we have only to extend the analogy, and to apply this great law to the workings of the Divine Artist, to form a general idea of the nature of creation. And this we may do reverently and without presumption. For is it not a law of His own instituting, that we apply,—a law that we find in His works? Is it not expressly declared, that man is formed "in God's image, after His likeness"—so that the laws of man's mind are analogous, though in a finite and infinitely inferior degree, to those of the Divie Mind? If this be so, then from the views just presented it may be seen that all created existences, whether in the material or in the spiritual world, are but out-births, productions from the mind of the Creator,—thus that the created universe is, truly, as it is so often called, a mirror of its Divine and benevolent Maker; wherein can be seen,—not indeed in thieir full glory and perfectness, but in distant and dimly reflected images and forms,—the wondrous loveliness and goodness, beauty and brightness, richness, abundance, and magnificence of the Divine attributes.

If this be so, then will be plainly seen the truth of the view, that in the creation as originally derived from God, there could have been nothing that was not beautiful and useful: it was all "good, and very good." For there was no source from which anything of an opposite character could exist—all things existent being from the Divine, and the Divine itself being altogether good. No ravenous beast—no "laughing hyæna," laughing like the night-fiends over lost souls—could have had a being fro Him: no filthy vermin, no poisonous plants, or deadly drugs could have derived existence from such a Source.

Whence, then, did they exist? Here certainly they are: whence and how did they come? This problem, we believe, may be solved. In the chapter on the origen of moral evil, it was shown, that man, by means of the faculties of reason or rationality and moral liberty, (with which, as man, he was necessarily endowed) had the power of modifying his own thoughts and feelings,—the power, if he chose, of turning them away or drawing them down from heaven to earth, from God to self, and thus of perverting them. Hence originated self-love; whence came pride and a consequent self-dependence, and denial of God,—and thence sprang all other evils. Thus man, though he could not create, had the power to modify, which is a quasi creation; he had power to produce a change in the moral world. Now it has been just shown, that the physical or material world is but an out-birth from the moral or spiritual world, the world of mind;—that the latter is a world of causes, while the former is but a world of effects. All things, consequently, in the physical world, being produced from the Divine through the intermediate spiritual world,—while they in general image the Divine Creator, also in particular correspond or bear analogy to their respectful causes or immediate producing powers in the spiritual or moral world. If then a change be produced in the moral worlds—plainly, a change will follow in the physical or material world. If, as Plato says, from pure hearts or affections exist white lilies,—if the beautiful and useful things in the vegetable and also in the animal and mineral creation spring from and thus represent lovely and benevolent thoughts and feelings,—then, manifestly, when perverted, bad, and ugly ideas and dispositions were, by an abuse of man's freedom, produced in the moral world, corresponding ugly, monstrous, and hurtful things would be produced in the material world, as effects from their causes. Hence would originate noxious, poisonous, and destructive existences, in all the three kingdoms of nature.

Now, that this is not a mere fancy, a pleasant conceit,—but that it has its foundation in truth, and is based on the connection that exists between the inner and outer, the spiritual and physical, worlds,—may be clearly shown from the Book of Divine Revelation. Throughout the inspired volume, physical existences, as is well known, are constantly employed as types or symbols of moral existences, of thoughts and qualities both good and bad, in the mind of man. Thus the lamb is the emblem of innocence, while the wolf is the the emblem of cruelty, and the fox of cunning; "Go tell that fox^[15]," said our Lord, speaking of Herod,—describing him, thus, by the animal which represented his distinguishing quality. So the dove is the emblem of faith or truth; hence, at our Saviour's baptism, a dove was seen, as representative of the Holy Spirit, or Divine Truth with its regenerating power. On the other hand, birds of night, such as owls and bats, are named in Scripture, as typical of a state of mental darkness, a state of falsity derived from evil. "There shall the great owl make her nest, and lay and hatch and gather under her shadow; there shall the vultures also be gathered, every one with her mate."t^[16] Here the desolate state of the Church is described, when truth has perished. So useless and poisonous insects and venomous serpents are distinctly spoken of as typical of man's evils of heart, thus: "None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. They hatch cocatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.^[17] In like manner the various plagues of frogs, lice, flies, and locusts, brought upon the Egyptians, were doubtless indicative of the various forms and degrees of their sin and hardness of heart, in disobeying the Divine command, and remaining obstinate in their purpose not to let the Israelites go. In proof of this, in the Apocalypse, unclean spirits are directly compared to frogs, and seem indeed to have appeared to the vision of the Revelator in the form of frogs: "And I saw," he says, "three unclean spirits, like frogs, come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet."^[18]

These passages seems plainly to indicate that ferocious, venomous, and unclean things in the animal kingdom are emblematic of fierce dispositions and vile propensities in the mind of man; and that there is a correspondence or analogy between them. But this analogy is not confined to the animal kingdom; it extends also to the vegetable and the mineral. Thus, to adduce once more the instance already dwelt upon,—thorns and thistles are spoken of not only as typical of evil in man, but the production of them is mentioned as the direct consequence of man's falling into evil: "Cursed is the ground for thy sake; thorns also and thistles it shall bring forth to thee."^[19] So, afterwards, under the Jewish dispensation, we find, from the records of Scripture, that when the children of Israel lived according to the Divine commandments, the earth gave forth its increase, and, in like manner, the flocks and herds; and that when they lived contrary to the commandments, the earth was barren, and, as it is declared, accursed; instead of crops, it produced thorns and briers,—the flocks and herds miscarried, and wild beasts broke in. Here we perceive physical evils directly and immediately flowing from moral evils as effects from their causes: a striking proof of the truth we are seeking to establish—that fierce animals and noxious plants actually had their origin in the bad passions and disordered moral condition of man. How far this may be the case, also, at the present day, it is not; easy to say; but, perhaps, both the famines and pestilences that occasionally prevail among nations, have a closer connection with the moral state of the people, than is commonly imagined.

Tares, or useless and noxious weeds, are directly compared in Scripture to the wicked, as in the parable of the "tares of the field."^[20] The Lord, in His explanation of that parable, says "the tares are the children of the wicked one; and the enemy that sowed them is the devil;" by this comparison plainly intimating that useless and noxious things in the vegetable kingdom are from an evil origin, and thus are not from the good Creator, and consequently could not have existed in the beginning, but are effects flowing from evil in the moral world. So, when a promise or prophecy is made of a future restoration of the world to a state of innocence and peace, it is said, "Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir-tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle-tree."^[21] Now, if the thorn and the brier were "good," and thus were among the things originally created, which were all good,—why should they be spoken of as things to be destroyed or supplanted? Have not all things that are good a place and a use in the Lord's creation,—and a distinct place where they interfere with no other thing? But these are spoken of as being opposite to what is good and useful in the vegetable kingdom, and as necessary to be removed or destroyed. But, it may be said—"these material objects are only mentioned figuratively, to represent qualities in man's mind—as signifying that evil thoughts and desires are to be removed, and that good ones are to take their place—not that the literal brier and myrtle- tree are meant." Grant it; but why should good things in nature be used as types of evil things in the mind? If the thorn and the brier be good and a part of the original and beautiful order of creation, with what propriety can they be taken as emblems of what is evil and disorderly in the mind of man? This would be a most unfit use of figures. No! it is because such things in nature are truly emblematic of evil things in man, that they are adduced and made mention of in the Sacred Scriptures. And they are emblematic of such things in man,—because they really flow and proceed from them as effects from their causes. As the whole material world is an out-birth from the whole spiritual or moral world, so each and every object in the former must be derived from some principle or affection in the latter. The myrtle is an emblem of peace and love, only because it exists originally from what is peaceful and lovely in the world of mind; as, in like manner, all that is good and lovely in the mind of man is derived from Him who is Goodness and Love itself, and who is the "Prinee of Peace." Thus does the whole created universe, spiritual and material, image the Divine Creator; and it images Him, because it is derived from Him; the effect mirrors the cause.

But, on the other hand, as there is nothing evil or hurtful in the Divine nature, it is plain that such things in the material world as are noxious and destructive, have no prototype in Him. They can not, consequently, have been derived from the primary Cause of all things, but from a secondary cause—namely, from evil existences in the moral world or mind, of man. Now, it has been elsewhere shown, that moral evil is not the creation of God, but is the work of man; that it came into existence through the perversion of the order of man's moral nature; which, man, by the freedom necessarily given to him as man, had the power to pervert, and which by an abuse of that freedom he did pervert. Thus evil, in fact, is a perversion of the mental faculties—distortion, so to speak, of the spiritual substances and forms, which constitute the mind. These ugly and fierce mental existences flowing forth into nature, and putting on correspondent material forms, presented to view those noxious and hateful things, animal and vegetable, and mineral also, which astonish and shock us, when beheld in the midst of God's beautiful creation. Then first appeared the deadly cobra, dragging his slimy length noiselessly amongst the flowers. Then first came forth the fierce hyæena, skulking through the dark, as if ashamed to shew his hateful form in God's fair sun-light. Then screeched the owl and the night-hawk, in gloomy and desolate places. Then first were produced and hatched those "cockatrice-eggs," of which the Scripture speaks, "breaking forth into vipers." Then, too, loathsome insects began to move, and to crawl, and to spread their ugly wings, and to break the sweet stillness of nature with their odious hum. Thorns, too, and briers sprung from the soil, and the stinging-nettle; while the "deadly nightshade," with its large leaves, fair purple flower, and sweet berries, stood, like sin, offering its pleasant but poisoned feast to the passerby. All these noxious and noisome things in the natural world must have had their origin in correspondent evil qualities in the moral world. Hence, as God is not the author of evil, so neither is He the author of such things in nature as do evil to man. God is essential Goodness and Truth: hence from Him nought can be derived that is not useful and beautiful; for goodness is the soul of usefulness, and truth is the essence of beauty. Hence we draw the conclusion, that noxious things in nature, whether animal, mineral, or vegetable, are—like evil itself—not God's work, but man's: they are effects and derivations from man's evil thoughts and affections; whence it follows that man, not God, is chargeable with the existence of such things.

In confirmation of what we have thus reasoned out, we will conclude this section with the following striking passage from the writings of Swedenborg: "None of the noxious things that exist on earth are from the Lord, but are all from hell. But before this can be seen, something must be premised concerning heaven, and hell. In heaven, appear all those things which are called good uses: in hell, appear all those which are called evil uses, or noxious things, such as wild beasts of all kinds, serpents, dragons, crocodiles, tigers, wolves, foxes, swine, owls of different kinds, bats, rats and mice, frogs, locusts, spiders, and noxious insects of many kinds; also hemlock and aconite, and all kinds of poison, as well in herbs as in earths: in a word, all things which do harm, and kill men. Such things in the hells appear to the life, just, like those on earth. It is said that they appear there, but still they are not there as they are on the earth, for they are mere correspondences of evil lusts, which present themselves before others in such forms.—Now it is influx from hell which produces similar things on earth, in places where there are such matters as correspond,—such as cadaverous, putrid, excrementitious and similar matters. Hence, in places where these are, noxious herbs and animalculæ are produced; and, in the torrid zone, like things of larger size, as serpents, crocodiles, scorpions, mice, and others. For, when affections and lusts, which in themselves are spiritual, meet with homogeneous or corresponding things on earth, there is a spiritual principle which furnishes a soul, and a material which furnishes a body, and in everything spiritual there is an endeavor to clothe itself with a body. That the hells are around man, and therefore contiguous to the earth, is because the spiritual world is not in space, but is where there is a corresponding affection. But, it may be added, while noxious animals and vegetables thus originate by immediate influx from hell, yet at the same time they are also propagated mediately afterwards by eggs, seed, or grafts: the one position does not disprove the other.

"Thus, then, it may be seen, that noxious things in nature did not have their origin from the Lord, nor were they created from the beginning, but that they are from hell."^[22]

---

1. Genesis iii. 17, 18.
2. Isaiah xi. 6—9.
3. Isaiah xxxv. 9.
4. Isaiah xxxv. 1.
5. "It is asserted of the herring," says a writer, "that, if suffered to multiply unmolested, and its offspring undiminished, during the space of twenty years, it would show a progeny many times greater in bulk than the whole earth;—that a single codfish will produce at a birth, if they [the eggs] escape depredation, a number equal to that of the inhabitants of England. The flounder is said to produce above a million at a time; and a mackerel not less than 500,000."—Book of Nature Laid Open, by the Rev. W. Button, A.M.
6. See Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise, chap. xiii—Pye Smith's Geology amd Scripture, Supplementary Note, A.
7. Geology for Beginners chap. IX.
8. Bridgewater Treatise, chap. XI.
9. Kitto's Biblical Cyclæpedia, article "Deluge".
10. Psalm xlvi. 5.
11. Religion of Geology, Lecture I.
12. Geology and Scripture, Supplementary Note, A.
13. Religion of Geology, Lecture II.
14. Geology and Scripture, Supplementary Note, A.
15. Luke xiii. 32.
16. Isaiah xxxiv.15.
17. Isaiah lix. 4, 5.
18. Revelation, xvi. 18.
19. Genesis iii. 17, 18.
20. Matt. xiii.
21. Isaiah lv. 13.
22. Divine Love and Wisdom, n. 336—348.