CREATION.

Formation of the worlds.

— 2. Formation of living beings. — 3. Peopling of the Earth. Adam. — 4. Diversity of the human races. — 5. Plurality of the worlds. — 6. Considerations and biblical concordances concerning Creation.

Formation of the worlds.

The Universe comprises the infinity of the worlds that we see and of those we do not see, all animate and inanimate beings, all the heavenly bodies that move in space, as well as the fluids that fill it.

Was the Universe created, or does it exist from all eternity, like God?

“It is beyond doubt that it could not have made itself, 2 and if it existed, like God, from all eternity, it would not be the work of God.”

Reason tells us that it is not possible that the Universe made itself, and that, since it cannot be the work of chance either, it must be the work of God.

How did God create the Universe?

“To use a current expression, I will say: by His Will.

Nothing characterizes that omnipotent will better than these beautiful words of Genesis — God said: Let there be light, and light was made.”

Can we know the manner in which the worlds were formed?

“All that can be said on this matter, and that you can understand, is that the worlds are formed by the condensation of the matter disseminated in space.”

Are comets, as is now thought, a beginning of the condensation of matter, worlds in the process of formation?

“That is correct; it is absurd, however, to believe in their influence. I refer to the influence commonly attributed to them, for all celestial bodies influence in some way certain physical phenomena.”

Can a completely formed world disappear, and the matter that composes it be again disseminated in Space?

“Yes, God renews the worlds, as He renews living beings.”

Can the length of time that the formation of the worlds lasts be known: that of the Earth, for example?

“I can tell you nothing in this regard, because only the Creator knows it, and very mad will he be who pretends to know it, or to know how many centuries that formation lasts.”

Formation of living beings.

When did the Earth begin to be peopled?

“In the beginning all was chaos; the elements were in confusion. Little by little each thing took its place. Then appeared the living beings appropriate to the state of the globe.”

Whence came the living beings to the Earth?

“The Earth contained their germs, which awaited a favorable moment to develop.

The organic principles gathered together, once the action of the force that kept them apart ceased, and they formed the germs of all living beings.

These germs remained in a latent state of inertia, like the chrysalis and the seeds of plants, until the moment propitious to the emergence of each species; 4 the beings of each of these then came together and multiplied.”

Where were the organic elements before the formation of the Earth?

“They were, so to speak, in a state of fluid, in space, among the Spirits, or on other planets, awaiting the creation of the Earth to begin a new existence on a new globe.”

Chemistry shows us the molecules of inorganic bodies uniting to form crystals of a constant regularity, according to each species, provided they are found under the precise conditions. The least disturbance of these conditions suffices to prevent the union of the elements, or, at least, to obstruct the regular arrangement that constitutes the crystal.

Why should the same not happen with the organic elements? For years germs of plants and animals are preserved that develop only at a certain temperature and in an appropriate medium. Grains of wheat have been seen to germinate after centuries. There is, then, in these germs a latent principle of vitality, which merely awaits a favorable circumstance to develop.

What occurs daily before our eyes, why could it not have occurred from the origin of the terrestrial globe? Does the formation of living beings, emerging from chaos by the very force of Nature, diminish in any way the greatness of God?

Far from it: it corresponds better to the idea we form of His power, exercising itself over the infinity of the worlds by means of eternal laws. This theory does not resolve, it is true, the question of the origin of the vital elements; but God has His mysteries and has set limits to our investigations.

Are there still beings that are born spontaneously?

“Yes, but the primitive germ already existed in a latent state.

You are every day witnesses of this phenomenon.

Do the tissues of the human body and that of animals not enclose the germs of a multitude of worms that only await, in order to come forth, the putrid fermentation that is necessary to their existence? It is a minuscule world that slumbers and is created.”

Was the human species found among the organic elements contained in the terrestrial globe?

“Yes, and it came in its time. This is what gave rise to its being said that man was formed from the slime of the earth.”

Can we know the epoch of the appearance of man and of the other living beings on the Earth?

“No; all your calculations are chimerical.”

If the germ of the human species was found among the organic elements of the globe, why are men not formed spontaneously, as at the origin of the ages?

“The principle of things is in the secrets of God; 2 nevertheless, it may be said that men, once spread over the Earth, absorbed within themselves the elements necessary to their own formation, in order to transmit them according to the laws of reproduction. The same occurred with the different species of living beings.”

Peopling of the Earth. Adam.

Did the human species begin with a single man?

“No; he whom you call Adam was not the first, nor the only one to people the Earth.”

Can we know in what epoch Adam lived?

“More or less in that which you assign to him: about 4,000 years before Christ.”

The man whose tradition has been preserved under the name of Adam was one of those who survived, in a certain region, some of the great cataclysms that at various epochs convulsed the surface of the globe, and he became the stock of one of the races that currently people it.

The laws of Nature are opposed to the progress of Humanity, attested long before Christ, having been accomplished in a few centuries, as would have happened if man had not existed on the Earth except from the epoch indicated for the existence of Adam.

Many, with more reason, consider Adam a myth or an allegory that personifies the first ages of the world. Diversity of the human races.

Whence come the physical and moral differences that distinguish the human races on the Earth?

“From climate, from life, and from customs. There happens here what happens with two children of the same mother who, brought up far from one another and in different ways, will in no way resemble each other, as regards the moral.”

Did man appear at many points of the globe?

“Yes, and at various epochs, which also constitutes one of the causes of the diversity of the races. Then, men dispersing themselves over diverse climates and the men of one race allying themselves with those of others, new types were formed.”

a — Do these differences constitute distinct species?

“Certainly not; all are of the same family. Are the multiple varieties of a single fruit a reason for them to cease to form a single species?”

Because the human species does not proceed from a single individual, should men cease to regard themselves as brothers?

“All men are brothers in God, because they are animated by the Spirit and tend toward the same end. You are always inclined to take words in their literal signification.”

Plurality of the worlds.

Are all the globes that move in space inhabited?

“Yes, and earthly man is far from being, as he supposes, the first in intelligence, in goodness, and in perfection. Nevertheless, there are men who take themselves for very strong spirits and who imagine that to this tiny globe belongs the privilege of containing rational beings. Pride and vanity! They judge that God created the Universe for them alone.”

God peopled the worlds with living beings, all these beings concurring toward the final objective of Providence. To believe that they exist only on the planet we inhabit would be to doubt the wisdom of God, who made nothing useless; 3 surely, to those worlds He must have given a more serious destination than that of recreating our sight. Besides, there is nothing, neither in the position nor in the volume, nor in the physical constitution of the Earth, that could induce the supposition that it enjoys the privilege of being inhabited, to the exclusion of so many thousands of millions of similar worlds.

Is the physical constitution of the different globes the same?

“No; in no way do they resemble one another.”

The physical constitution of the worlds not being one and the same for all, does it follow that the beings that inhabit them have different organizations?

“Without doubt, in the same way that on yours the fishes are made to live in water and the birds in the air.”

Will the worlds farthest from the Sun be deprived of light and heat, because that star shows itself to them only with the appearance of a star?

“Do you think, then, that there are no other sources of light and heat besides the sun, and do you take no account of the electricity which, in certain worlds, plays a role that you do not know and far more important than that which falls to it to play on the Earth?

Moreover, did we not say that all beings are not made of the same matter as you others and with organs of a conformation identical to yours.”

The conditions of existence of the beings that inhabit the different worlds must be suited to the medium in which it falls to them to live. If we had never seen fishes, we would not understand that there could be beings that lived within water. Thus it happens with respect to the other worlds, which without doubt contain elements that we do not know.

Do we not see on the Earth the long polar nights illuminated by the electricity of the aurora borealis? What is impossible in electricity being, in some worlds, more abundant than on the Earth and playing in them a function of a general order, whose effects we cannot understand? It may well happen, therefore, that those worlds carry within themselves the sources of heat and light necessary to their inhabitants. Considerations and biblical concordances concerning Creation.

Peoples have formed very divergent ideas concerning Creation, according to the lights they possessed. Supported by Science, reason has recognized the implausibility of some of those theories. The one that the Spirits present confirms the opinion long shared by the most enlightened men.

The objection that can be made to it is that of being in contradiction with the text of the sacred books. But a serious examination will show that this contradiction is more apparent than real and that it arises from the interpretation given to what often had only an allegorical sense.

The question of whether Adam, as the first man, was the exclusive origin of Humanity is not the only one in regard to which religious beliefs have had to be modified. The movement of the Earth seemed, at a certain epoch, so in opposition to the sacred letters, that there was no kind of persecution for which that theory did not serve as a pretext, and yet the Earth turns, in spite of the anathemas, and no one today can contest it, without injury to his own reason.

The Bible also says that the world was created in six days, and it places the epoch of its creation at four thousand years, more or less, before the Christian era. Previously, the Earth did not exist; it was drawn from nothing: the text is formal; 5 here, however, is positive science, inexorable science, proving the contrary. The history of the formation of the terrestrial globe is written in irrecusable characters in the fossil world, and it is proved that the six days of creation indicate as many periods, each of, perhaps, many hundreds of thousands of years.

This is not a system, a doctrine, an isolated opinion; it is a fact as certain as that of the movement of the Earth and which Theology cannot refuse to admit, which evidently demonstrates the error into which one is liable to fall by taking literally the expressions of a frequently figurative language.

Should one conclude from this that the Bible is an error? No; the conclusion to be drawn is that men were mistaken in interpreting it.

Excavating the archives of the Earth, Science has discovered in what order the living beings appeared on its surface, an order that agrees with what Genesis says, there being only to be noted the difference that this work, instead of being executed miraculously by God in a few hours, was accomplished, always by His will, but in conformity with the law of the forces of Nature, in a few million years.

Did God thereby become lesser and less powerful? Did His work lose in sublimity, for not having the prestige of instantaneousness? Undoubtedly not. One would have to form a very mean idea of the Divinity, not to recognize His omnipotence in the eternal laws that He established to govern the worlds.

Science, far from belittling the divine work, shows it to us under a more grandiose aspect and more in accord with the notions we have of the power and majesty of God, for the very reason that it was effected without derogation of the laws of Nature.

In agreement, on this point, with Moses, Science places man last in the order of the creation of living beings. Moses, however, indicates, as that of the universal flood, the year 1654 of the formation of the world, whereas Geology points out to us the great cataclysm as anterior to the appearance of man, considering that, until today, no trace of his presence has been found in the primitive strata, nor of that of animals of equal category, from the physical point of view. Nevertheless, nothing proves that this is impossible. Many discoveries have already raised doubts in this regard. It may happen that, from one moment to another, the material certainty of the anteriority of the human race may be acquired, and then it will be recognized that, in this respect, as in so many others, the biblical text contains a figure.

The question is to know whether the geological cataclysm is the same one that Noah witnessed. Now, the time necessary for the formation of the fossil strata does not allow them to be confused, and once vestiges of the existence of man before the great catastrophe are found, it will be proved either that Adam was not the first man, or that his creation is lost in the night of the ages. Against evidence no reasonings are possible; it will be necessary to accept this fact, as the movement of the Earth and the six periods of Creation were accepted.

The existence of man before the geological flood is still, in effect, hypothetical. Here, however, is something that is less so. Admitting that man appeared for the first time on the Earth 4,000 years before Christ and that, 1650 years later, the whole human race was destroyed, with the exception of a single family, it results that the peopling of the Earth dates only from Noah, that is: from 2350 years before our era.

Now, when the Hebrews emigrated to Egypt, in the eighteenth century, they found that country very populous and already quite advanced in civilization. History proves that, at that epoch, the Indies and other countries were also flourishing, without even taking into account the chronology of certain peoples, which goes back to a much more distant epoch.

It would have been necessary, in that case, that from the twenty-fourth to the eighteenth century, that is, that in a space of 600 years, not only could the posterity of a single man have peopled all the immense countries then known, supposing that the others were not, but also that, in that short lapse of time, the human species could have risen from the absolute ignorance of the primitive state to the highest degree of intellectual development, which is contrary to all anthropological laws.

The diversity of the races corroborates, equally, this opinion. Climate and customs produce, it is true, modifications in the physical character; it is known, however, how far the influence of these causes can go. Nevertheless, physiological examination demonstrates that there are, among certain races, constitutional differences more profound than those that climate is capable of determining. The crossing of the races gives rise to the intermediate types. It tends to efface the extreme characters, but does not create them; it merely produces varieties. Now, in order for there to have been a crossing of races, it was necessary that there should be distinct races. How, however, is the existence of them to be explained, attributing to them a common origin and, above all, one so little distant? How is it to be admitted that, in a few centuries, some descendants of Noah were transformed to the point of producing the Ethiopian race, for example?

Such a metamorphosis is as little admissible as the hypothesis of a common origin for the wolf and the lamb, for the elephant and the aphid, for the bird and the fish. Once again: nothing can prevail against the evidence of the facts.

Everything, on the contrary, is explained, by admitting: that the existence of man is anterior to the epoch at which it is commonly claimed that it began; that the origins are diverse; 19 that Adam, living six thousand years ago, peopled a region still uninhabited; 20 that the flood of Noah was a partial catastrophe, confused with the geological cataclysm; 21 and by attending, finally, to the allegorical form peculiar to the oriental style, a form that we encounter in the sacred books of all peoples.

This makes us see how prudent it is not to brand frivolously as false doctrines that may, sooner or later, like so many others, belie those who combat them. Religious ideas, far from losing anything, are aggrandized, walking abreast with Science. This is the only means of not presenting a vulnerable side to scepticism.