Chapter XXVIII (1)

A VERY FEW REMARKS WITH REFERENCE TO THE DELUGE.

To account for offering a few remarks on a subject so important and difficult as that of the Deluge, I beg to say that reflections, arising out of facts witnessed during the Beagle’s voyage, have occasioned them; and, as results of that expedition, it has appeared to me that they are neither irrelevant to the narrative, nor likely to be altogether uninteresting to young men in the navy.

I suffered much anxiety in former years from a disposition to doubt, if not disbelieve, the inspired History written by Moses. I knew so little of that record, or of the intimate manner in which the Old Testament is connected with the New, that I fancied some events there related might be mythological or fabulous, while I sincerely believed the truth of others; a wavering between opinions, which could only be productive of an unsettled, and therefore unhappy, state of mind. Some young men, I am well aware, are in a similar condition, while many others are content to set aside all reflection, and do as the world does; or rather, as those do among whom they generally live. Natural affection and respect for good parents, relations, and elders, never can lead a young man astray; but there is, perhaps, no guide more fallible or dangerous than the common custom of those inexperienced persons who associate together, chiefly for lack of fixed occupation; and whose principal object is to drive away self-examination, or prolonged thought, by a continual succession of idle amusement, or vivid excitement.

Wholesome and necessary as amusement and recreation are, both for mind and body, every one knows how insipid, even painful their excess becomes; and external evidence shows but too plainly where the happiness, the blessings, and the comfort men might enjoy, have by themselves been slighted, or destroyed, from forgetting the line between using, and abusing; and by turning a deaf ear to the reflection that they are but ‘tenants at will.’

Much of my own uneasiness was caused by reading works written by men of Voltaire’s school; and by those of geologists who contradict, by implication, if not in plain terms, the authenticity of the Scriptures; before I had any acquaintance with the volume which they so incautiously impugn. For geology, as a useful branch of science,[1] I have as high a respect as for any other young branch of the tree of knowledge, which has yet to undergo the trial of experience; and no doubt exists in my own breast that every such additional branch, if proved by time to be sound and healthy, will contribute its share of nourishment and vigour to the tree which sprung from an immortal root. For men who, like myself formerly, are willingly ignorant of the Bible, and doubt its divine inspiration, I can only have one feeling--sincere sorrow.

Few have time, as well as inclination, to go far into both sides of any question; but truth can hardly be drawn out of the well unless some exertion be made, in examining each argument, or in selecting a well-tried and experienced guide. It is idle to say, as I have heard asserted, that such works as those above-mentioned do little harm; experience proves the contrary; of which I am made painfully aware, not only by my own conscience, but by conversation with friends.

While led away by sceptical ideas, and knowing extremely little of the Bible, one of my remarks to a friend, on crossing vast plains composed of rolled stones bedded in diluvial detritus some hundred feet in depth, was “this could never have been effected by a forty days’ flood,”--an expression plainly indicative of the turn of mind, and ignorance of Scripture. I was quite willing to disbelieve what I thought to be the Mosaic account, upon the evidence of a hasty glance, though knowing next to nothing of the record I doubted:--and I mention this particularly, because I have conversed with persons fond of geology, yet knowing no more of the Bible than I knew at that time. Thus much I feel it necessary to say, in accounting for my own approach to a subject in which all men feel deeply interested; and which has therefore been so well treated of, that these remarks would be useless, were it not that they may reach the eyes of young sailors, who have not always access to works of authority.

The Mosaic account of the Creation is so intimately connected with that of the Deluge that I must ask my young reader (whom alone I presume to address on this subject) to turn to the first chapter of Genesis, and refer to a few verses with me. We soon find a remarkable fact, which shows to my mind that the knowledge of Moses was super-human: his declaration in an early age that light was created before the sun and moon, which must till then have appeared to be the sources of light. In the fourth verse it is stated that “God divided the light from the darkness.” This may have been effected by a rotation of the earth on its axis, turning each side in succession to the light; otherwise, had the earth remained stationary, light must have been destroyed to admit darkness, and there must have been repeated creations of light. The light was called day--“and the evening and the morning were the first day.” Of course there could have been no morning previous to the creation of light; and the first portion of time, consonant to our present expressions, would have been that which elapsed between light and darkness, or evening. The length of a day being determined by the rotation of the earth on its axis; turning round once, so as to make an evening and a morning to each spot on the globe; the time occupied by that rotation is a natural object of interest. In the 12th verse it is said that grass, herbs, and trees, were brought forth; in the 14th and 16th, that lights were made to divide the day from the night; and that the greater light was to rule the day. It is known that neither trees, herbs, nor grass can exist long without the light and heat of the sun, therefore the rotation of the earth between the third day, when vegetation was produced, and the fourth, could not have been very different, in velocity, from its present rotation. Some men, of rare abilities, have thought that the “days” of creation were indefinite periods, notwithstanding the statement in verse 14, which affirms that the lights in the firmament of heaven were to divide the day from the night; and to “be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.” In this one verse do we not see that the day was less than a year (signs and seasons, days and years); for had the day there meant been more than a year would not the words have been differently placed, namely--signs and seasons, years and days? Can we think that day means one space of time in the former part, and another space of time in the latter part of that one verse? Another indication that the word day, used in the first chapter of Genesis, does not mean a period much, if at all, longer than our present day, is--that it is spoken of as alternating with night. Although the word day is used in other chapters of the Bible, even so soon as the 4th verse of the 2d chapter of Genesis, to express a period, or space of time longer than our present day, the word night is never so applied:--hence, as the earth turns uniformly on its axis, and, so far as we can reason from analogy, must have turned uniformly, while turning at all, the word night in the 5th verse interprets the length of a day.

Some have laid stress upon the declaration that a thousand years are with the Lord as one day:--but what is the context?[2] To lengthen the day to a thousand years, on account of this and a similar expression, is not more reasonable than it would be to reduce it to a night-watch. What is a watch in the night when passed?--next to nothing:--so are a thousand years with the Almighty. These considerations tend to show how, without Chaldee or Hebrew learning, a man, with a common English education, may convince himself of a fact which has lately been so much controverted.[3]

Partly referring to such indefinite periods as we have been discussing,--and partly to reasoning unaided by revelation,--some geologists have said that there were successive creations, at intervals of vast duration. They have imagined an age in which only the ‘so-called’ lowest orders of animated creatures existed,[4] an age of fishes, an age of reptiles, an age of mammalia, and an age in which man appeared: statements which have obtained much attention. Fossil fishes and shell mollusca[5] have been found in coal measures, and in subjacent formations:--how could this have happened if vegetables had been produced first; then swept away and converted into coal, and that afterwards the lower orders of animals had appeared? We know that the fossil plants of the coal formations are similar in structure to vegetables now growing on the earth, which cannot flourish without warmth, and the light of the sun. Vegetation was produced on the third day, the sun on the fourth. If the third day was an age, how was the vegetable world nourished? But anomalies such as these appear to be endless in most geological theories: I will leave them for the present and continue my course.

In the 16th verse it is said that “God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, the lesser light to rule the night: the stars also;” that is, he made the stars also.

It is not stated here that the Almighty made all the stars at that time; nor can I, after consulting very able men, find any passage of such an import. That all the stars dependant upon, or connected with, our solar system, namely, the planets and their satellites, were then created, seems to be evident from the fact of their revolving round our sun; but farther than this, it is not thought necessary (may we not presume) for man to know; therefore it is not revealed to us. In the ancient book of Job, the creation of the world is thus alluded to. “Who laid the corner stone thereof, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.”[6] But the earth was finished, and vegetation produced, before the creation of stars mentioned in Gen. i. 16; therefore, unless the ‘corner-stone’ alludes to man, it may be inferred that there were stars in existence besides those made on the fourth day. Of course, the ‘singing of the stars’ is a figurative expression; but as we do not meet with any similar metaphor in the Bible, unconnected with some object that we know exists; we may infer that stars existed when the allegorical, or mystical corner-stone was thus laid.[7]

In verses 29 and 30, the food for man and beast is mentioned, and with reference to the Deluge this should be borne in mind. It may be said that the teeth of some animals are so formed as to be fit only for grazing, or browzing; that beasts of prey have teeth adapted to tearing and gnawing; and that man requires meat; but we must remember that dogs and wild beasts thrive upon a vegetable diet, and that some men never touch meat, even in the present state of the world: very different probably from its condition before the flood, as may be concluded from the inferior duration of human life.

The 2d and 3d verses of chap. ii. recall to mind the wonderful fact that the seventh day has been a marked division of time from the earliest period of historical record.[8]

It is now well known that all nations, and almost all tribes of the human race, preserve traditions of a great flood in which nearly all men were destroyed:[9] and it is also established as a fact, that nearly all parts of the earth, hitherto examined, bear witness to their having been at some time covered by the ocean. Instead of ascribing these effects to the universal deluge, many geologists say that the earth is in a continual, though gradual state of change; that in consequence of this general mobility, places now far above the sea were once beneath it; that districts, or countries, may have been inundated in one quarter, and other regions elsewhere, but that an universal deluge never could have happened. This is implied plainly enough, if not asserted, in several geological works.

In the Beagle’s examination of the southern parts of South America, I had opportunities of observing immense tracts of land composed, solely, of fossil shells, bones, and an earth which looked like dried sandy mud:--extensive ranges of country where no solid rock could be found, only rolled or shingle stones, embedded to a great depth in earth, exactly like that described above;--and a wide district, at least fifty miles across, covered with lava of which the surface was nearly horizontal. (San José, San Julian, Santa Cruz.)

I brought to England many specimens of these shells, which, although taken from within a few feet of the surface of the land, were found to have been pressed together, crushed, and penetrated by mud, in a manner that never could have been caused by the weight of earth then lying above them, because, though solid, it could neither have mashed the shells, nor worked into their inmost recesses. It seems evident to me that those shells have undergone enormous pressure beneath an ocean, when they were surrounded with mud.[10] But previous to such pressure, the shells must have grown naturally somewhere:--certainly not at the bottom of an ocean; because they are shells of a comparatively delicate structure which are usually found within a few feet of low water; some at least of the number being identical with living species.

If the square miles of solid land in which those myriads of shells are now embedded, had been upheaved (as geologists say), either gradually, or rapidly, shells could not be found there in their present confused and compressed state. Had the land sunk down many thousand feet with shells upon it, they might have been covered with mud, and on being afterwards upheaved again they would have appeared embedded regularly where they grew, in a matrix which, with the pressure of a superincumbent ocean, might have flattened and penetrated them: but they would not have been torn away from their roots, rolled, broken, mashed, and mixed in endless confusion, similarly to those now in my possession.

There is also another consideration: geologists who contend for the central heat of the earth assert that substances subjected to great pressure under the sea become altered: hence, in conformity with their theory, these shells could not have been long buried under a deep ocean, and afterwards raised in their pristine state. So little changed are these shells, except in form, that they appear as if they had been heaped together and squeezed in mud within a few years from the present time.

One remarkable place, easy of access, where any person can inspect these shelly remains, is Port San Julian. There, cliffs, from ten to a hundred feet high, are composed of nothing but such earth and fossils; and as those dug from the very tops of the cliffs are just as much compressed as those at any other part, it follows that they were acted upon by an immense weight not now existing. From this one simple fact may be deduced the conclusions--that Patagonia was once under the sea; that the sea grew deeper over the land in a tumultuous manner, rushing to and fro, tearing up and heaping together shells which once grew regularly or in beds: that the depth of water afterwards became so great as to squeeze or mass the earth and shells together by its enormous pressure; and that after being so forced down, the cohesion of the mass became sufficient to resist the separating power of other waves, during the subsidence of that ocean which had overwhelmed the land. If it be shewn that Patagonia was under a deep sea, not in consequence of the land having sunk, but because of the water having risen, it will follow as a necessary consequence that every other portion of the globe must have been flooded to a nearly equal height, at the same time; since the tendency to equilibrium in fluids would prevent any one part of an ocean from rising much above any other part, unless sustained at a greater elevation by external force; such as the attraction of the moon, or sun; or a strong wind; or momentum derived from their agency. Hence therefore, if Patagonia was covered to a great depth, all the world was covered to a great depth; and from those shells alone my own mind is convinced, (independent of the Scripture) that this earth has undergone an universal deluge.

The immense fields of lava, spoken of in a preceding page (633), and which to an ordinary observer appear to be horizontal, are spread almost evenly over such an extent of country, that the only probable conclusion seems to be, that the lava was ejected while a deep sea covered the earth, and that tidal oscillations,[11] combined with immense pressure, spread and smoothed it, while in a rapidly cooling though viscous state, over the surface of the land.

The vast quantity of shingle, or rounded stones of all sizes, may be accounted for in a manner unconnected with that of water acting upon a shore; though doubtless a great proportion of the shingle we see has been rounded in that manner. Melted stone, thrown out of a volcano, and propelled through water with great velocity, might be rounded and cooled as shot are when dropped into water from a tower. In modern volcanoes we observe that some matter is thrown into the air, while other, and the greater quantity, runs over the edges of a crater, overflowing the adjacent tracts of land.

Proceeding to the west coast of South America, we find that near Concepcion there are beds of marine shells at a great height above the level of the sea. These, say geologists, were once under the ocean, but, in consequence of the gradual upheaval of the land, are now far above it. They are closely compressed together, and some are broken, though of a very solid and durable nature; and being near the surface of the land are covered with only a thin stratum of earth. They are massed together in a manner totally different from any in which they could have grown, therefore the argument used in Patagonia is again applicable here. But in addition to this, there is another fact deserving attention: namely, that there are similar beds of similar shells, (identical with living species) about, or rather below the level of the present ocean, and at some distance from it.[12]

In crossing the Cordillera of the Andes Mr. Darwin found petrified trees, embedded in sandstone, six or seven thousand feet above the level of the sea: and at twelve or thirteen thousand feet above the sea level he found fossil sea-shells, limestone, sandstone, and a conglomerate in which were pebbles of the “rock with shells.” Above the sandstone in which the petrified trees were found, is “a great bed, apparently about one thousand feet thick, of black augitic lava; and over this there are at least five grand alternations of such rocks, and aqueous sedimentary deposits, amounting in thickness to several thousand feet.”[13] These wonderful alternations of the consequences of fire and flood, are, to me, indubitable proofs of that tremendous catastrophe which alone could have caused them;--of that awful combination of water and volcanic agency which is shadowed forth to our minds by the expression “the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.”

The upheaval of the island of Santa Maria has been quoted by geologists, from my statement; and it will be interesting to learn whether that island has remained at its new elevation, or whether, like the shore at Talcahuano,[14] it has sunk down again. If the coast in that neighbourhood has been gradually rising, it is strange that old Penco Castle should still stand so low (p. 421).

In Mr. Lyell’s Elements of Geology,[15] he mentions Mr. Darwin having found, near Callao, “at the altitude of eighty-five feet above the sea, pieces of cotton thread, plaited rush, and the head of a stalk of Indian corn, all of which had evidently been imbedded with the shells” (marine). “At the same height on the neighbouring mainland, he found other signs corroborating the opinion that the ancient bed of the sea had there also been uplifted eighty-five feet, since the region was first peopled by the Peruvian race.” The neighbourhood of Lima has suffered from immense waves caused by earthquakes, and the relics found among the shells may have been scattered by one of those waves. The bed of shells may have been disturbed by the earthquake and its consequences, the ground may have been rent, and afterwards closed again, or the opening may have been filled up by loose earth and anything lying on it, as has taken place at Concepcion. That the country near Callao, or Lima, has not been upheaved, to any sensible amount, since the last great earthquake, which was accompanied by a wave that swept over and destroyed Callao, is evident from the present position of a pillar erected soon after that event to mark the place to which the waves advanced inland.[16] This pillar now stands so low, that waves, such as those which ruined Talcahuano, would inevitably reach its base; again destroying the whole of Callao, still situated on a flat, very few feet above the sea, near where old Callao stood.

I have now mentioned the principal facts connected with the Beagle’s voyage, which I am desirous of noticing with reference to the Deluge. Want of space prevents my adding others: I have hardly room left to lay before my young readers some general considerations, arising partly out of these facts, which I hope may interest--perhaps be useful to them.

When one thinks of the Deluge, questions arise, such as “where did the water come from to make the flood; and where did it go to after the many months it is said to have covered the earth?” To the first the simplest answer is “from the place whence the earth and its oceans came:”--the whole being greater than its part, it may be inferred that the source which supplied the whole could easily supply an inferior part:--and, to the second question,--“part turned into earth, by combination with metallic bases; part absorbed by, and now held in the earth; and part evaporated.”[17] We know nothing of the state of the earth, or atmosphere surrounding it, before the Flood; therefore it is idle and unphilosophical to reason on it, without a fact to rely on. We do not know whether it moved in the same orbit; or turned on its axis in a precisely similar manner;--whether it had then huge masses of ice near the poles;--or whether the moon was nearer to it, or farther off. Believers in the Bible know, however, that the life of man was very much longer than it now is, a singular fact, which seems to indicate some difference in atmosphere, or food, or in some other physical influence. It is not so probable that the constitution of man was very different (because we see that human peculiarities are transmitted from father to son), as it is to suppose that there was a difference in the region where he existed. It is easy to settle such speculations by the reflection--“It was the will of Him who is Almighty;” but as in most cases we see that secondary causes are employed to work out His will, we may imagine that the extraordinary prolongation of man’s existence was effected by such means.

Connected with these questions respecting the additional quantity of water is the reflection that the amount must have been very great. This may be placed in another light. Sir John Herschel says,[18] “On a globe of sixteen inches in diameter such a mountain (five miles high) would be represented by a protuberance of no more than one hundredth part of an inch, which is about the thickness of ordinary drawing paper. Now as there is no entire continent, or even any very extensive tract of land, known, whose general elevation above the sea is any thing like half this quantity, it follows, that if we would construct a correct model of our earth, with its seas, continents, and mountains, on a globe sixteen inches in diameter, the whole of the land, with the exception of a few prominent points and ridges, must be comprised on it within the thickness of thin writing paper; and the highest hills would be represented by the smallest visible grains of sand.”--Such being the case, a coat of varnish would represent the diluvial addition of water; and how small an addition to the mass does it appear!

Let us now refer briefly to the recorded account of the Flood. Without recapitulating dates and events, I will at once advert to the ark:--an immense vessel,[19] constructed of very durable wood,[20] and well stored with vegetable provision for all that it contained. Some cavillers have objected to the heterogeneous mixture of animals embarked; on the ground that they could not have been assembled; and would have destroyed one another. We may reply: He who made, could surely manage. But, without direct miraculous interposition (though we should never forget that man is a miracle, that this world is a miracle, that the universe is a miracle), imagine the effect that would be produced on the animal creation by the approach of such a war of elements. Do we not now find animals terrified by an earthquake--birds shunning the scene of violence,--dogs running out of a town,[21] and rats forsaking a sinking ship? What overcoming terror would possess the animated beings on an island, if it were found to be rapidly sinking while worse than tropical torrents, aggregated water-spouts, thunder and lightning, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions united to dismay, if not to paralyse, the stoutest human heart: yet such probably would be but a faint similitude of the real deluge. Those who have themselves witnessed the war of elements, in some regions of our globe, are perhaps more able to conceive an idea, however inadequate, of such a time, than persons who have scarcely travelled beyond Europe, or made more than ordinary sea voyages. Happily for man, hurricanes or typhoons occur but rarely: earthquakes, on a great scale; their overwhelming waves; and devastating eruptions of volcanoes, still less often. That the approach of a general calamity would have affected animals, what we now see leads us to infer, and that many would have fled to the ark, is only in accordance with the wonderful instinct they are gifted with for self-preservation. Proud man would, in all probability, have despised the huge construction of Noah, and laughed to scorn the idea that the mountains could be covered, even when he saw the waters rising. Thither, in his moral blindness, he would have fled, with numbers of animals that were excluded from the ark, or did not go to it; for we do not see all animals, even of one kind, equally instinctive. As the creatures approached the ark, might it not have been easy to admit some, perhaps the young and the small, while the old and the large were excluded?[22] As we do not know what was the connection or partition of land, before the deluge; how the creatures were distributed; or, what was the difference of climate between one region and another; we cannot say that any particular kind could not have been near the ark because of crossing the sea, or having far to travel.

There is abundant proof that animals have changed their habits, shape, coat, colour, or size, in consequence of migration, or transportation to different climates; therefore we cannot tell, from what is now seen, what alterations have taken place since their second dispersion.

Many able men[23] have pointed out how water penetrating to metallic bases, may cause volcanic eruptions; how matter thrown up, and materials torn or washed off the earth may have combined, mechanically as well as chemically; how gases may have assisted the transformations: how creatures may have been instantaneously overwhelmed, or gradually entombed; how lime may have been one among many powerful agents; how seeds, and spawn, and the germs of insects may have been preserved; and why, among such multitudes of fossil remains as we now find, only in a few places are there remains of man incontrovertibly fossil.[24]

Still there are some points but lightly touched, or unnoticed, by any person whose works bearing particularly on this subject I have yet seen. One is the rapidity with which certain substances combine under water, and form stone; such, for instance,[25] as those used in Roman cement:--another is the possibility of fragile substances, such as shells, small creatures, leaves, corallines, branches, &c., being enveloped in a muddy matrix, while floating at various depths, according to their specific gravities; and the precipitation (chemically speaking) or consolidation, or simple deposition of such cohering masses.[26]

The similarity of coal to asphalte inclines one to suspect an identity of origin; and that coal, in a fluid state, enveloped quantities of vegetable matter--was for some time agitated by the continual tides and tidal currents of the diluvial ocean, and afterwards hardened by cooling, by pressure, or by chemical change; if not by all three. We find the impressions of leaves, stems, and branches--and even large woody trunks embedded in coal: but that the matrix, in which the leaves were enveloped and subjected to pressure, was not triturated vegetable matter is probable, because the casts of delicate vegetable substances found in it show few, if any, signs of friction or maceration. The impressions are as beautifully perfect as those of shells in fossils where the shell itself has disappeared. Might we not as well say that limestone was formed out of decomposed or pulverised shells, as assert that coal was formed out of the luxuriant herbage, the ferns and the palms, of a former state of the world?

Asphalte is at first buoyant; that trees and other vegetable productions are so I need not remark; but coal sinks in water, and asphalte may be altered chemically so as to sink like coal. Experiments on the asphalte of the famous lake at Trinidad have proved that there is so very close an analogy between that substance and coal, that a gas, exactly resembling coal gas, and burning equally well; a bituminous oil; a substance like coal-tar; and a residuum, similar to coke; result from its distillation.

Electricity may have been a powerful agent in crystallization; in the rapid deposition of strata;[27] in the formation of mineral veins;[28] in earthquakes and volcanoes; in the formation or decomposition of water; and in other ways of which we are yet, and perhaps ever shall be, totally ignorant.

Successive strata may have been rapidly deposited by tidal oscillations and currents, aiding chemical or mechanical combinations.

The depth to which bodies would sink in an ocean several miles deep has not been proved, and there is reason to think that it is much less than people generally imagine. An eminent man has said that a knowledge of “the depression of the bed of the ocean below the surface, over all its extent, is attainable (with whatever difficulty and however slowly) by direct sounding;”[29] and, in consequence of a conversation on this subject with him in 1836, he wrote to me, suggesting a mode which might be tried. I consulted with a friend as to the possibility of success, and his letter,[30] taken in connection with the facts related by Scoresby;[31] with what has been found by those who have sounded to great depths; and with my own practical experience in sounding--has induced me to think that man never will reach the lowest depths of the deepest oceans by any method his ingenuity may contrive;--because the water increases in density with the depth, in a ratio perhaps more than arithmetical. Every seaman knows that in sounding at great depths very heavy leads must be used with ordinary lines, or very thin lines with ordinary leads; the object being the same--that of overcoming the augmenting buoyancy of the line by a weight unusually heavy. But line, such as is used for sounding, is not buoyant at the surface of the sea; a coil of it thrown overboard sinks directly. Then what is it that causes any weight attached to a sounding-line to sink slower and more slowly, after the first few hundred fathoms, the deeper it penetrates; if not the increased resistance to sinking, found by the weight and line? “Friction, caused by passing through the water,” I may be told. Can that friction be compared with the augmented tendency to sink that would be given by the continually increasing weight of line, if the water did not increase in density?

The pressure of the column of water over any weight, after it has been sunk some hundred fathoms, is shown by the time and exertion required to haul it up again. The operation of sounding in very deep water, with any considerable weight, occupies several hours, and a great number of men. That water is elastic has been proved by Canton’s experiments as well as others: but there are familiar illustrations of this fact visible in ricochet shot, in ‘ducks and drakes,’ in the splashing of water, and in the rebounding of rain-drops from water. Being elastic, and the lower strata being under enormous pressure, it follows that those strata of water must be more dense than the body above them. No one doubts that the lower regions of the atmosphere are denser than the higher; yet air is but a rarer and much more elastic fluid than water. That which takes place in air, to a great extent, may be expected to occur in a very diminished degree with water. If it were not so, why should stones be blown up, casks violently burst, or rocks suddenly torn asunder by the application of the principle usually described as the hydrostatic paradox? If the water were not highly compressed before the explosion takes place, would there not be a gradual yielding, a tearing asunder by degrees, instead of a sudden and violent bursting?

The object of this digression is to show that although bodies which are not buoyant may sink to a considerable depth, it does not follow that they must sink to the bottom. Each separate thing may sink a certain distance, in proportion to its specific gravity, and there remain. The greatest depths ever reached by heavy weights, attached to lines, do not exceed a mile and a-half; a small distance, probably, compared with the depth of the diluvial flood.

Although metals, stone, rock, or coal may have sunk deeply in the waters, other substances, such as earth, mud, bones, animal and human remains, &c., may have been held at various depths until decomposed by water; or combined and consolidated by volcanic gases, or electric currents. In this manner the preservation of delicate corallines, shells, skeletons of animals, &c., may be accounted for. Suspended in water, surrounded by earth in a dissolved state, combined by chemical agency, deposited on land, and consolidated by pressure, by volcanic or by latent heat, they may have become fossils. Thick skinned animals may have floated longest, because their hides would have buoyed them up for a greater length of time,[32] hence their remains should be found near, or upon the surface of the ground, in some cases water-worn, in others uninjured, according as they had been strewed among shingle, or deposited in a yielding mass. That bones were not rolled about much among the stones in which they are found,[33] is evident from the fact that bones, if so rolled among them, would soon be ground to powder. It is clear that, however much the bones may have been water-worn before deposition on land, both they, and the adjacent shingle, must have been deposited there nearly about the same time.

Tripoli stone, and other substances composed chiefly, if not entirely, of microscopic insects, may have been formed by the accumulation and cohesion of myriads of such minute creatures, swept together off the land, like swarms of locusts, aggregated by the rolling of the waves, agglutinated, deposited on the land, and afterwards heavily compressed. Or they may have been insects bred in water; such as those which Mr. Darwin calculated to amount to “one hundred thousand in a square inch of surface;” while the sea was streaked with them for a great distance.[34] Microscopic objects such as these may have been killed by some gas rising from a volcano beneath; then drawn together by mutual attraction, rolled over and over, and landed among other recent compositions. In what other way could such a mass of these animalcules be heaped together?

There are also effects of existing causes which authors have only mentioned by name, in reference to the Deluge, without explaining that the effects alluded to would have been enormously increased at that time;--I mean the tides.--In the Appendix to this volume is a short statement of the manner in which tides may act--upon the principles of the ocean oscillating in its bed; and of tides being caused, partly by the water being elevated by the moon and sun, partly by a westward momentum given to it by their attraction, and partly by the oscillation caused by the return of the fluid after being elevated. If this globe were covered with water to the height of a few miles above the present level of the ocean, three more particular effects would take place: an enormous pressure upon the previously existing ocean, and on all low land; a diminished gravity in the uppermost waters, resulting from their removal from the earth’s centre; and immense tides, in consequence of the increased depth of the mass, the diminished weight of the upper fluid, and the augmentation of the moon’s attraction. As the waters increased on the earth, the tides would also increase, and vast waves would rush against the sides of the mountains, stripping off all lighter covering, and blowing up,[35] or tearing down, enormous masses of rock. Similar effects would take place as the diluvial ocean decreased, until it became bounded by its proper limits. Such oscillations I conceive to be alluded to by the words “going and returning,”[36] and by the expression, “they go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys;”[37] which exactly describes the rushing of enormous waves against high land. When a wave strikes against a rock, it dashes up every projection that opposes it; but--its impetus at an end--down the water runs again through cavities and hollows: such, on a grand scale, would be the effect of a diluvial wave urged against a mountain side.

In such a war of waters, earth, and fire; a buoyant, closed-in vessel--without masts, rudder, or external ‘hamper’ to hold wind, or catch a sea--might have floated uninjured; and the fewer openings, of any description, in her cover, or sides, the better for her security. Seeing nothing of the conflict around might have diminished the excessive terror which must have been felt by those that were within, except the confiding Chief. We do not find that the largest or highest ‘swell’ injures a good ‘sea-boat,’ when in deep water, and far from land: the foaming ‘breakers’ alone destroy. But, after all, such conjectures as these are vain, we cannot now know how far miraculous interposition extended--how far secondary causes were employed.

The landing of the ark on a mountain of middle height appears remarkable; because the climate of the highest, on which we might naturally suppose the ark rested, did we not know to the contrary, might have been insupportable during the time that Noah waited for the recess of the waters.[38] Reasoning from existing circumstances, the temperature of the surface of the ocean would have been nearly that of the contiguous air: but after the waters had receded, high mountain tops would have gradually acquired their present frozen state.

Here the reflection arises--when did icebergs begin to appear? Was not the climate equable and temperate all over the world for some time after the Deluge, in consequence of the slow drying and warming of tropical regions, and gradual formation of ice near the poles? Such a condition of climate would have favoured the distribution of animals. Those who oppose the idea that animals migrated to various quarters of the globe, surely do not reflect that the swallow, the wild swan, the wild goose, the wild horse, the Norway rat, and numerous other creatures, now migrate periodically in search of food or a better climate. Similar instinct may have taught animals to wander then, till they reached the places suited to them;[39] and there the same instinct would retain them. Want of proper food, or climate; or the attacks of enemies,[40] may have destroyed stragglers who did not migrate; therefore, when we find no kangaroos in Europe, it is no proof that kangaroos did not once exist there. Elks are now found in North America--we know they were formerly in Europe--is that race here now? During the first few hundred years after the flood, extraordinary changes may have taken place in the geography of the world, in consequence of the drying and altering of various portions; also from the effects of volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, occasioned perhaps by electric action on newly-exposed land, as well as by other causes. Many places, now islands, may have been united to a continent for a considerable period after the deluge; much land may have sunk down, much may have risen up, in various parts of the world. Such changes are said to be going on even now, though on a small scale (Lyell, Darwin, &c.); what may they not have been during the first few centuries after the flood? Volcanic eruptions, such as those of the Galapagos, Andes, Etna, Auvergne, Indian Islands, &c., were then perhaps in such activity as they have never shown since.

What the division in the earth was, in the days of Peleg, does not distinctly appear: but it could only have been a separation from the true faith; a partition of territory among men; or some mighty convulsion, some rending or contraction, as it were, of the earth, which was so general as to have occasioned a marked and unqualified record, as of an event well known to all.

Many philosophers think that the world has a central region of surpassing heat, and that the greater part of the interior of the globe is in a state of incandescence, if not of fusion. That small portion which they call the crust of the earth is supposed to be the only cooled part; and they differ merely as to the degree of fluidity in the central region. I take it for granted that they have duly estimated the moon’s tendency to cause tides in a fluid mass, within her influence:--if there were no crust, of course she would cause such an effect, but a well hardened case, we must suppose, can resist any such movement in the central fluid mass. Upon the principle of the arch, it would be easier to imagine resistance to pressure from without than from within; but the case or crust of our globe must be so solid that it neither yields nor vibrates to an internal expansive force.

This theory, however, is unsupported by any satisfactory evidence. Men of character and attainments have advocated it, although resting on conjecture: but when we look back along the roll of history, and discover so few philosophers who have not greatly erred, although famed in their day, it is natural to pause, and not acquiesce hastily in mere human assertion unsubstantiated by proof. Boring the ground, or examining the temperature of the bottom of a deep mine, affords no estimate for that of the central regions:--Sir John Herschel says,[41] that “the deepest mine existing does not penetrate half a mile below the surface; a scratch or pinhole duly representing it on the surface of such a globe, (sixteen inches in diameter), would be imperceptible without a magnifier.” As our globe is about eight thousand miles in diameter, and external influence may be supposed to penetrate some distance, we can draw but unsatisfactory conclusions from experiments at depths not nearly so great even as that to which the ocean descends, and made chiefly in temperate or cold climates.

Having no pretension to more knowledge than any observant seaman may acquire in the course of a few years active employment afloat, it would be as vain as presumptuous in me, were I to offer any conjecture about the central mass of the earth. Perhaps, at a future day, when the nature of aerolites; the agency of electricity; and of electric communication through the superficial, if not through the interior regions of the globe, are better known, other opinions, respecting this wonderful world which we inhabit, may be formed by philosophers.

I have now fulfilled my intention of endeavouring to be useful, in however small a degree, to young persons of my own profession. If the few remarks laid before them, in this and the preceding chapter, at all increase their interest in the subjects spoken of; and tend, even in the least, to warn them against assenting hastily to new theories--while they induce a closer examination into the Record of truth--my object in writing them will be fully attained.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] By which word I mean ‘Knowledge,’ in its most comprehensive signification.

[2] “A thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”--Ps. xc. ver. 4.

[3] I may, however, here remark to my young sailor friends, that the Jews, who perform their worship in Hebrew, and are naturally at least as much interested in the Old Testament as any people, use and prefer our authorised English translation.

[4] In classing one order of creatures above or below others, we may perhaps consider them as they appear to our apprehension, in comparison with others, but we must beware of thinking them more or less imperfect. Every creature is perfectly adapted to the condition and locality for which it is designed, and absolutely perfect (speaking generally). Some that are intended to live in the dark; or some that are to exist under pressure; may at first sight appear to us imperfect; perhaps shapeless, unsightly objects: but, after examination into their natural history, our hasty remark is succeeded by expressions of astonishment at such wonderful arrangements of Providence as are shewn--even in the most shapeless sea slug.

Multitudes of creatures exist now, especially in the sea, quite as apparently imperfect as those of the so called lowest order of animated creation, whose impressions are found in solid rocks. There may also be animals in deep waters that could not exist except under pressure.

[5] Rhind, Keith, Lyell, &c.

[6] Job. xxxviii. 6, 7.

[7] Much must depend upon the limit attached to the meaning of the word Heaven in the 1st Chapter of Genesis, and Heavens in the 2nd; viewed in connection with verses 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, and 20 of Chap. i.; 1, 4, of Chap. ii.; verses 5, 7, 10, 13 of 2 Peter iii.; and very many other passages; not omitting the Lord’s prayer.

[8] We find it ordained in Gen. ii. 3; alluded to by Noah, chap. viii. ver. 10, 12; and afterwards observed regularly, down to the present time.

[9] Sharon Turner, Harcourt, &c.

[10] On this subject, the pressure of an ocean, Mr. Lyell remarks, (Elements of Geology, 1838, pp. 7, 8, 9.) “When sand and mud sink to the bottom of a deep sea the particles are not pressed down by the enormous weight of the incumbent ocean; for the water, which becomes mingled with the sand and mud, resists pressure with a force equal to that of the column of fluid above.” “Nevertheless if the materials of a stratum remain in a yielding state, and do not set or solidify, they will be gradually squeezed down by the weight of other materials successively heaped upon them, just as soft clay or loose sand on which a house is built may give way. By such downward pressure particles of clay, sand, and marl may become packed into a smaller space, and be made to cohere together permanently.”

“But the action of heat at various depths is probably the most powerful of all causes in hardening sedimentary strata.”

In reflecting upon these passages it appears to me that Mr. Lyell has supposed what may not always take place in a deep sea, namely--that sand and mud sink to the bottom.

Whenever particles of sand and mud are at the bottom, they must be lower than contiguous particles of water, or they could not be at the bottom; therefore those particles of sand and mud have water above, while resting upon some other substance below. Pressure there can be none, excepting of some earthy particles upon others, while the specific gravity of the sand and mud exceeds that of the displaced fluid. But, if the depth of water be increased, and its specific gravity at the bottom augmented, the sand and mud at the bottom must rise, if they do not cohere together, and to the surface on which they lie; in which case the increasing weight and density of water would tend to compress and make them cohere still more.

The smaller kinds of sea shells are very little heavier than sea-water. This would prevent their being carried by the action of the sea to great depths, even if it were possible for them to be so rolled over rocks, sand, or mud, in which they would stick, or be buried, before they had been moved many miles from the place where they grew. These two considerations may help to account for the fact that seamen do not find impressions of shells, on the ‘arming’ of the lead, when sounding in very deep water, at a considerable distance from any shore where they grow. Sea-shells, I need hardly remark, grow only in comparatively shallow water. The specific gravity of oyster shell, when dead, is about twice that of sea-water (2092, 1028). Most other shells are much lighter, and but few at all heavier than the oyster.

Before ending this note I must remark that the horizontal movement of water near the bottom, though gentle, may tend to press together and smooth any loose sand, mud that sinks, oazy clay, or fragments of shells, before many of their particles travel far. Water in rapid motion is known to hold sand as well as mud in suspension, but not shells, unless the current is very strong. To such a constant agitation of the sea, oscillating gently with each tide, we may perhaps ascribe the comparatively level and smoothened state of the bed of the ocean, where it has hitherto been sounded. Excepting near irregular, rocky land, one finds, generally speaking, no ravines, no vallies, no abrupt transitions in the bottom of the sea. For miles together there is an almost equal or gradually altering depth of water: and little similarity can be traced between the contour of the bed of a sea and the neighbouring dry land, until you are near the shore, where the sea acts differently, and irregular bottom is as frequent as it is usually dangerous for shipping.

[11] See remarks on tides in the Appendix.

[12] Pages 421, 2, 3.

[13] Mr. Darwin’s letters to Professor Henslow: printed for the Cambridge Philosophical Society--1835.

[14] See pages 420-1.

[15] 1838, pp. 295-6.

[16] In 1746.

[17] Electricity may have acted a prominent part in these changes.

[18] Treatise on Astronomy, Cabinet Cyclopædia, page 22.

[19] Sharon Turner, Harcourt, Burnett, &c.

[20] Some of our English ships have lasted more than a century.

[21] Concepcion and Talcahuano, pp. 403, 5.