┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ The Table of Contents has been modified by the Transcriber │
│ to agree with the text. │
│ │
│ The original text shows quotations within quotations set │
│ off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been │
│ changed to single quotes for improved readability. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ Bold text: --> =text=. │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a number in │
│ brackets [2] and have been accumulated in a single section │
│ at the end of the text. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are identified in the text by a ♦ symbol, │
│ and are accumulated in a single section at the end of the │
│ book. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
THE PENTATEUCH,
IN ITS
PROGRESSIVE REVELATIONS OF GOD TO MEN.
DESIGNED FOR BOTH PASTORS AND PEOPLE.
BY REV. HENRY COWLES, D.D.
“Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can
I unless some man should guide me?”――ACTS VIII: 30, 31.
NEW YORK:
D. APPLETON & CO.,
549 AND 551 BROADWAY.
1874.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1873, by
REV. HENRY COWLES, D.D.,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C.
PREFACE.
MY reasons for treating the Pentateuch topically rather than textually
will be obvious. Criticism on the original text is rarely needed. There
is seldom the least occasion to aid the reader in following the line
of thought or the course of argument. The demand here is rather for
the discussion and due presentation of the great themes of the book.
My plan has therefore aimed to meet this demand, discussing these
themes _critically_ so far as seemed necessary either because of their
intrinsic nature or because of popular objections or misconceptions;
and always _practically_ so far forth as to show the important moral
bearings of these themes as revelations of God to man. It has been,
however, my purpose to explain all the difficult, doubtful, or
controverted passages.
The modern objections to Genesis, more or less related to true science,
have been brought under special examination because they are at present
eliciting so much public attention. Let all real truth be welcomed and
held in honor, whether revealed in the works of God or in his word. It
is _knowledge of God_ that we seek; some of which we learn through his
works of creation or of providence; more through his revealed word. It
behooves us to dismiss all apprehensions lest these diverse forms of
divine revelation may come into real conflict, and equally, all fear
lest the Bible should be compelled to recede as Science advances.
The points of contact between sacred and profane history and
antiquities have been carefully examined, both for their own intrinsic
interest and for the incidental confirmation which they bring to the
sacred volume.
As will appear in the Introduction I have had an eye somewhat to the
idea of _progress_ in these successive steps of divine revelation――yet
with an aim not so much to prove a point disputed as to illustrate
a fact sometimes overlooked; hoping thus to heighten the reader’s
interest.
This wonderful grouping of those events of the earliest ages of
time, given us of God through the masterly hand of Moses, is for every
reason worthy of profoundest study. In the humble hope that these pages
may serve to obviate old difficulties; suggest new aspects of truth;
inspire fresh zeal in this study; and enhance the spiritual profit of
every reader――this volume is submitted to the Christian public.
HENRY COWLES.
OBERLIN, O., October, 1873.
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION, p. 1.
CHAPTER I.
CREATION, p. 9.
Naturally the first fact revealed; Its moral lessons, 9;
The origin of this record and the manner of its revelation to
men, 12;
Nature and the supernatural, 13;
Theories on the origin of life, 14;
The sense of the word “day” in Gen. 1: 16; Argued
(1) From the laws of language, 17;
(2) From the narrative itself, 18;
Objection from the law of the Sabbath, 21;
(3) From Geological facts and their bearings on the question,
22;
Prominent points of harmony between Genesis and Geology,
25;
(4) Does “Create” (Gen. 1: 1) refer to the original production
of matter? 26;
(5) The relation of v. 1 to v. 2, and to the rest of the
chapter, 29;
(6) The work of the fourth day, 31;
(7) The sense of the record as to the _origin of life_,
vegetable and animal, 32;
(8) On God’s “making man in his own image,” 33;
(9) The relation of Gen. 2: 4–25 to Gen. 1, 35;
(10) Invariability of “_kind_” in the vegetable and animal
kingdoms, 37;
The theory of Mr. Darwin, 38;
The issue between Darwin and Moses, 38;
Darwin’s five main arguments, 39;
Brief replies, 40;
Objections bearing generally against Darwin’s scheme, 43;
(1) It requires almost infinite time back of the
earliest traces or possibilities of life, 43;
(2) Requires what Nature does not give――a close
succession of animal races, differing but
infinitesimally from each other, 43;
(3) His argument is essentially _materialistic_ and is
therefore false, 45;
(4) It ignores man’s intellectual and moral nature, 46;
(5) It ignores or overrides the law of nature by which
hybrids are infertile, 46;
(6) This scheme is in many points revolting to the
common sense of mankind, 46;
(7) It is ♦reckless of the authority of revelation, 48.
CHAPTER II.
THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN, 49;
Two main questions:
1. Is the human family older than Adam? 49;
(1) The argument for man’s high antiquity,
From traces of his skeleton, 50;
From his tools and works, 51;
(2) From the traditions and chronologies of the old
nations, 59.
CHAPTER III.
HEBREW CHRONOLOGY, 60;
2. How far back was Adam? 60;
From birth of Christ back to the founding of Solomon’s
Temple, 60;
First disputed period――that of the Judges, 60;
Second disputed period――that of the sojourn in Egypt, 62;
Third disputed period――between Terah and Abraham, 64;
Fourth disputed period――from the creation to the flood, 66;
Fifth disputed period――from the flood to the call of
Abraham, 68.
CHAPTER IV.
ANTIQUITY OF MAN RESUMED, 72;
On the Antiquity of Egypt, 72;
The date of Menes, its first king, and of the pyramids, 74;
Unity of the human race: Were there races of pre-Adamic
men, now extinct? 75;
Are the present living races descendants of the same first
pair? 75.
CHAPTER V.
THE SABBATH, 77;
As old as Eden; made for man as a race.
CHAPTER VI.
THE EVENTS OF EDEN, 81;
I. Is the description of man’s fall symbolic or historic? 81;
II. The moral trial, 84;
III. The temptation, 87;
IV. The fall, 88;
The curse; the first installment of the penalty for
transgression, 89;
The first promise, 90.
CHAPTER VII.
FROM THE FALL TO THE FLOOD, 92;
1. Notes on special passages;
Gen. 4: 1, “I have gotten a man――the Lord,” 92;
Gen. 4: 6, 7――words of the Lord to Cain, 92;
Gen. 4: 23, 24, the song of Lamech, 92;
2. Abel’s offering and the origin of sacrifices, 93;
3. The great moral lessons of the antediluvian age, 95.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE FLOOD, 99;
Its moral causes, 99;
Its physical causes, 101;
Was this flood universal? 102;
As to the earth’s surface, 102
As to its population, 104;
Traditions of a great deluge, 105.
CHAPTER IX.
FROM THE FLOOD TO THE CALL OF ABRAHAM, 107;
1. The law against murder and its death-penalty, 107;
2. The prophecy of Noah, 108;
3. The genealogy of the historic nations, 110;
4. Babel and the confusion of tongues, 112.
CHAPTER X.
ABRAHAM, 114;
His personal history; the divine purposes in the new system
inaugurated with him; Concentration of moral forces; a more
definite _covenant_ between God and his people; Utilizing
the family relation, 116;
Developing a great example of the obedience of faith, 120;
In leaving his country at God’s call, 120;
In waiting long but hopefully for his one son of promise, 120;
In obeying the command to offer this son a sacrifice, 120;
God’s revelations to Abraham _progressive_, 122;
The missionary idea in this system――blessings to all the
nations, 125;
The Messiah included in these promises, 126;
Sodom and Gomorrah, 128;
The angel of the Lord, 130.
CHAPTER XI.
THE PATRIARCHS, ISAAC, JACOB, JOSEPH, 132;
Isaac, 132;
Jacob, 133;
At Bethel, 133;
At Mahanaim, 137;
The struggle of prayer; The points and grounds of this
conflict; The law of prevailing prayer, 140;
Jacob and Joseph, 143;
Developments of personal character, 144;
Joseph in Egypt, 146;
The hand of God in this history:
Seen in the sufferings of the innocent, 155;
Seen in overruling sin for good, 158;
The purposes of God in locating Israel in Egypt, 160;
Ancient Egyptian history and life confirms Moses, 162;
Special passages considered:
Going down into Sheol, Gen. 37: 35, 166;
Jacob’s benedictions upon his sons, Gen. 49, 168;
The Scepter of Judah, Gen. 49: 10, 169;
The less readable portions of Genesis, 171;
Close of Genesis, 172.
CHAPTER XII.
EXODUS 173;
The oppression, 173;
Moses, 175;
His great mission, 179;
The ten plagues, 185:
These plagues supernatural, 187;
Several of them specially adapted to Egypt, 189;
The case of the magicians, 190;
The shape of the demand upon Pharaoh to let the people go, 193;
The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, 194;
History of the case, 194;
What is said of God’s purpose in it, 203;
Light on this case from God’s revealed character, 204.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE PASSOVER, 205;
Consecration of all first-born, 207;
The long route to Canaan, 209;
The march and the pursuit, 210;
The guiding pillar of cloud and of fire, 211;
The locality of the Red Sea crossing, 215.
CHAPTER XIV.
THE HISTORIC CONNECTIONS OF MOSES WITH PHARAOH AND EGYPT, 216.
♦CHAPTER XV.
THE EVENTS NEAR AND AT SINAI, 222;
The manna, 222;
Rephidim; water by miracle, 225;
The battle with Amalek, 229;
Jethro, 230;
The Scenes at Sinai, 232;
The national covenant; The giving of the law, 232;
The moral law, given from Sinai, 236;
To be distinguished from “the statutes and judgments,” 236;
The commandments considered severally;
1. 238;
2. 239;
3. 241;
4. 241;
5. 243;
6–9. 243;
10. 245;
Progress in the revelations of God to man, 246.
CHAPTER XVI.
THE HEBREW THEOCRACY, 251;
The supreme power, 251;
The powers of Jehovah’s Vicegerent, 253;
The General Assembly and their Elders, 254;
The scope afforded for self-government, democracy, 255;
The fundamental principles of this system, 258;
Its union of Church and State, 259;
Its principles and usages in regard to war, with notice of the
war-commission against the doomed Canaanites, 261;
The grant of Canaan, and the command to extirpate the
Canaanites, 262.
CHAPTER XVII.
THE CIVIL INSTITUTES OF MOSES, OR THE HEBREW CODE OF CIVIL LAW,
270;
General view of it, 270;
Analysis of the crimes condemned, 273;
Crimes against God:
Idolatry, 273;
Perjury, 274;
Presumptuous sins, 275;
Violations of the Sabbath, 276;
Blasphemy, 276;
Magic arts, 276;
Crimes against parents and rulers, 279;
Crimes against person and life, _i. e._ crimes of blood, 280;
Cities of refuge, 282;
Murder by unknown hands, 284;
Crimes against chastity, 285;
Statutes to protect rights of property, 286;
Statutes against usury, 288;
Statutes for the relief of the poor, 289;
Crimes against reputation, 292.
CHAPTER XVIII.
CIVIL INSTITUTES OF MOSES CONTINUED;
Hebrew servitude, 294;
Man-stealing, 294;
No rendition of fugitives, 295;
Severe personal injuries entitled to freedom, 295;
Periodical emancipation, 296;
Religious privileges of servants, 298;
The slavery that existed before Moses, 299;
The condition of Israel in bondage in Egypt, 299;
The Jubilee, 300;
Its bearing upon foreign servants, 301;
Meaning of “bond-servant,” 302;
Servants of foreign birth, 302;
Judicial Procedure, 304;
Judges, 304;
The seat of justice, 305;
The processes of prosecution, 305;
Advocates, 305;
Of witnesses, 305;
Punishments, 306;
Fines, 306;
Sin and trespass offerings, 307;
Stripes, 307;
Excommunication, 308;
Modes of capital punishment, 308;
Disgrace after death, 308;
Judicial procedure and punishment summary, 308;
Statutes without penalties, 309;
Two Historic Questions, 311;
How far is this system indebted to Egypt? 311;
How far have the best civil codes of the most civilized
nations been indebted to this Hebrew code? 314;
Progressive revelations of God in this code, 319.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE RELIGIOUS SYSTEM OF THE HEBREWS, 321;
Classification of sacrifices, 322;
Choice of animals for sacrifice, 323;
The scenes of sacrifice, 324;
The significance of sacrifices, 325;
Of the portion taken as food, 326;
Special sacrifices, 327;
Sacred times and seasons, 327;
The Morning and Evening Sacrifice, 327;
The Sacrifices for the Sabbath, 328;
The sacrifices at each new moon, 328;
The three great festivals, 328;
The Passover, 328;
The Feast of Pentecost, 328;
The Feast of Tabernacles, 329;
The great day of Atonement, 331;
Sacred Edifices and Apparatus, 334;
The Sacred Orders, 335;
Present value of the Mosaic ritual, 336;
Its lessons on the blood of atonement, 338;
That these lessons are steps of _progress_ in the revelation
of God to men, 340.
CHAPTER XX.
HISTORIC EVENTS OF HEBREW HISTORY FROM SINAI TO THE JORDAN, 342;
The golden calf, 342;
The intercession of Moses, 343;
The Lord reveals his name and glory, 346;
Incidents connected with this idol-worship, 350;
Lessons from Moses on prayer, 353;
Taberah and Kibroth-hataavah, 354;
Miriam and Aaron envious of Moses, 355;
Kadesh-barnea and the unbelieving spies, 356;
Rebellion of Korah and his company, 360;
The fiery serpent and the brazen one, 363;
Balak and Balaam, 364;
Balaam’s prophecies, 367;
His prayer, 368.
CHAPTER XXI.
ON THE LAST FOUR BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH, 375;
Their _method_ and _subject-matter_, 375;
Leviticus, 376;
Numbers, 376;
Deuteronomy, 377;
Deut. 12–26, 378;
The prophet like Moses, 380;
The blessings and the curses, 383;
The last words of Moses, 384;
The Song of Moses, 386;
Moses blesses the tribes, Deut. 33, 394;
Death and character of Moses, 401;
The Mosaic system and the future life, 403;
Progressive developments of truth and of God, 412.
Advertisements, 415
INTRODUCTION.
THE REVELATIONS OF GOD TO MEN PROGRESSIVE.
IT is supposable that God might have made his entire written revelation
of himself to men _at once_, through one inspired prophet and one only;
in one definite locality (Eden or Jerusalem), and all brought within a
twelve-month. But he did not deem this the wisest way. He preferred to
speak at considerable intervals of time――through a long succession of
“holy men of old;” “at sundry times and in diverse manners” (Heb. i: 1).
Among the choice results of this progressive method we may name the
following: (1.) That by means of it God made large and admirable use of
_history_. This was revealing himself to men, not simply by his _words_
but by his _works_. In ways which men could not well mistake, he was
thus able to manifest himself as the God of nations; also as the God
of families; and not least, as the God of individual men. It was vital
to human welfare that he should place himself before men as being
not a heathen Brumha, sunk in unconscious sleep for ages, but as the
All-seeing, ever-active One, exercising a real government over men,
ruling in equity and yet with loving-kindness; ever present amid all
their activities and impressing himself upon the thought and the heart
of the race. In this line of policy how admirably did he give promises
to his servants to inspire their faith in himself; then prove that
faith through years and ages of trial and delay; but at last confirm
his word by its signal fulfillment! By what other method could He so
effectually reveal himself as a _personal God_――the personal Friend
of his trustful children――evermore worthy of their supreme confidence,
whether they could or could not see at once all the reasons of his
ways?
His providential rule over nations as such found in this method ample
scope for the fullest illustration. The record of this ruling in the
ministrations of prosperity and adversity; in the rise and the ruin
of great nations through the lapse of the world’s early centuries,
constitute a marvelously rich portion of this progressive revelation of
God to man.――――A Bible made up of words from God without any _deeds_ of
God would be open to dangerous misunderstanding and thus might in great
measure fail of its purpose. At best it would be tame and unimpressive
compared with the method God has chosen of revealing himself largely
in actual works at innumerable points along the ages for more than four
thousand years.
(2.) Again; no small gain accrued from the large number and various
qualities of the holy men through whom God spake. The personal blessing
to themselves was too rich to be limited to any one man. Rather let it
be shared by many scores of men, standing forth before their respective
generations age after age from Adam down to him of Patmos.――――We may
also note the large range of diversity in their personal character
and in their endowments as authors. How varied were the circumstances
of their lives and the moral trials which were the refiner’s fire to
their spiritual life! How abundantly by this means did their personal
experiences illustrate the ways of God with those who come nearest
to him in the fullness of heart communion! How many chapters are thus
provided of the most reliable most varied and easily applied Christian
experience!
By means of the diversity of inspired writers, the Bible is enriched
with the charms of a large variety in style, as well as in the
experiences of the Christian life. Among all the sacred penmen, no
two minds are cast in the same mold. Poetry, eloquence, imagination,
logic, sublimity, pathos――in what endless combinations do we find
these gifts apportioned and manifested! How should we admire the wisdom
which chose out men of gifts so diversified, and then adopted a method
of inspiration which left each writer’s mind to the unrestrained
development of its own peculiar genius.
(3.) Yet farther; the progressive historical method of making up the
Bible opened the door widely for miracles and prophecy. The occasions
for miracles were multiplied. They could be introduced naturally where
manifold and not single results should accrue. In this way there was
no need to manufacture opportunities for miraculous interposition.
Abundant occasions arose to demand them, when consequently they had
a most thrilling effect. We may see this in the scenes of the Exodus,
the conquest of Canaan, the rescue of Hezekiah and his people.
So also of prophecy. It asks for _time_. On the supposition that
the fulfillment is to appear in the Scriptures, an interval of some
duration must come between the utterance and the fulfillment. It was
also wise that prophecy should subserve the superadded purpose of
spiritual comfort to God’s people during the ages between comparative
darkness and forth-breaking light. In fact it gave to God’s people the
first single beams of morning twilight, bearing the grateful assurance
that the Sun of Righteousness would surely rise on the nations in the
fullness of gospel times.
(4.) Still again; by this method of making up inspired history it
is placed side by side with profane history and the most ancient
monuments of the race, and thus invites investigation on the point
of its truthfulness. Is this progressive history of God’s ways toward
men confirmed by whatever reliable history of the same period has come
down to us through other sources? This point well deserves and richly
rewards a careful examination.
(5.) Moreover, it is to be presumed that God would commence his
revelation of himself to our race in the very infancy of their
existence. The Bible shows us that he did. Assuming that at this point
they had every thing to learn, we ought to expect that their first
Bible lessons would turn their thought to the great truths of _natural
religion_――the manifestations of God in his _works of creation and
providence_. In harmony with this reasonable expectation, we read――“In
the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In that opening
chapter of revelation, God said, “Let there be light,” and it was;
also “a firmament” above, and it was; “Let the dry land appear,” and it
appeared; “let there be light-bearers in the heavens,” and they shine
forth; let grass and herbs grow; let creatures live in the waters, in
the air, and on the dry land, and it was so; and finally, “let us make
_man_,” far unlike all the rest――“in our own image and likeness”――and
god-like man sprang into being. So onward the narrative witnesses to
the ever-present hand of God in the mists, the rains, and the teeming
vegetation of the new-made world. God, the great Author of nature; God
in nature and evermore over all nature, was the first lesson recorded
in God’s revelation of himself to men.
In natural order, the next lesson like this, is _God in
providence_――God administering the agencies of earthly good or ill,
making his presence manifest among his intelligent and moral offspring,
and even “coming down to see” (as the early record has it) what men
were doing and whether the cry coming up to him told truthfully of the
guilty violence perpetrated by man upon his fellows. This idea――God
ruling over the race in righteous retribution for their good or
evil deeds――was obviously one of the first great moral lessons to be
illustrated, enforced, impressed. So vital is this conviction to the
ends of a moral government that it should not surprise us if the actual
administration of present rewards and punishments in the common course
of human life in this world should be made far more prominent and
palpable in the early than in the later ages of the race, so much so as
to force itself upon the dullest eyes and compel the attention of the
most stupid and reluctant observers.――――Such (we shall have occasion
to notice) was unquestionably the divine policy throughout the earlier
stages of human history, abundantly apparent in the records of the
Bible. In later times, the exigencies of a system of probation, and
especially the importance of giving large scope to _faith_, after
sufficient evidence has been afforded, served to impose narrower limits
upon present retribution, reserving the larger share to the perfect
adjustments of the great future. In the earlier stages of human history,
it would obviously be vital to give men sufficient demonstration that
God _does rule_, and therefore is to be believed when he threatens to
punish either here or hereafter, and consequently is evermore to be
_feared_ as the certain avenger of crime. Hence the imperative need
in those early ages of such manifestations of God’s justice as would
impress the _fear_ of his name. With our eye open to the native pride
of depraved souls and to their appalling tendency to disown God and bid
him “depart” and not trouble them with his “ways,” it will not surprise
us that God should shape his earliest agencies of providence to inspire
fear rather than love. It needs but the least thought to see that this
policy was a simple necessity――the most obvious dictate of wisdom.
In this point revelation might naturally be _progressive_, advancing as
soon as was safe and wise from manifestations inspiring fear to those
which would reveal his love.
The doctrine of divine providence in regard to the sufferings of good
men――one of the hardest problems of human life――might be expected to
unfold itself gradually. It would be quite too much for the infancy of
human thought and knowledge to grasp this problem and master all its
intricacies. Hence the scope for a gradual unfolding (as we may see)
all the way from the discussions in Job and the Psalms to the clearer
light which shines in the epistle to the Hebrews, as also in Peter and
Paul. This beautiful illustration of progress in divine revelation will
well reward attention in its place.
(6.) On the supposition that God’s scheme for the recovery of our
lost race contemplated some atonement for sin――a provision in its very
nature and relations toward both God and man exceedingly delicate and
critical――it is at least presumable beforehand that God would bring
out this idea _with great care_――with the wisest precaution against
misconception, and not improbably with some foregoing illustrations
of its significance and of its intended application. Precisely this
we see in the great sacrificial system of the Mosaic economy. We only
put essentially the same idea into other and more general terms when
we say that a protracted course of successive revelations provides
for making an antecedent economy pave the way for a subsequent one――a
first revelation preparatory to a second――one set of ideas imprinted
and impressed upon the human mind, made conducive to other and higher
revelations yet to follow. The wisdom of such progressions can not fail
to impress itself upon all thoughtful minds.――――Thus God’s revelations
of himself from age to age were adjusted to the advance in spiritual
development which he had provided for in the human mind. As training
and culture developed higher capacities, new lessons were in order and
higher attainments were made. “Whoso is wise and will observe these
things, even they shall understand” the loving-kindness and matchless
wisdom of the Lord.
To forestall misapprehensions (possible and sometimes actual), let
it be noted that progress in the revealed science of God by no means
supersedes what has gone before. Naturally it only serves to place old
truths in new and richer light. No one fact affirmed concerning God
in the earlier ages is denied in the later. Certain features of his
character may be brought out more prominently in the later lessons, but
there is no unsaying of the things said before. Nothing can conflict
with this axiom of divine science――“I am the Lord; I change not.”
Prominence may be given in the early ages to such manifestations as
impress men with fear and as set forth God’s righteous justice toward
transgressors; while later revelations may disclose more fully the
depths of divine love and compassion. Yet let none infer that God is
less just in the New Testament than in the Old, or that the earlier
policy of God’s throne has been modified to a larger leniency toward
persistent criminals. The men who flippantly talk of throwing aside the
older revelation “as they do an old almanac” mistake most egregiously.
God has written nothing to be thrown aside. The oldest records still
give us lessons of God shining with unfading freshness and undimmed
glory. The statutes binding on Israel in the wilderness and in Canaan
may not be in the same sense binding on our age, but they have not
for this reason become valueless. They made revelations of God then,
truthful and rich; they make revelations of God still which it were
but small indication of wisdom or good sense to ignore.
CHAPTER I.
CREATION.
FITLY the written word of God to the race begins with the _creation_.
In every reflecting mind the first inquiry must be this: Whence am I?
Whence came my being――this wonderful existence; these active powers?
It must be that I am indebted for all these gifts to some higher Being;
how earnestly then do I ask――_To whom?_――――No other question can claim
priority to this. Every thing in its nature and relations gives it
precedence above all other questions. Inasmuch as my reason affirms
to me that I owe my existence to some great Maker, I feel that I must
know Him and must know my responsibilities to Him. I need to learn also
how the further question――my future destiny――may link itself with my
relations to Him who brought me into being.
Of secondary yet similar interest are the corresponding questions as
to the world we live in. Who made it? Does its Maker hold it under his
own control? Does He still operate its forces and wield its agencies?
Have I any obligations and duties toward Him who made the earth and all
that is therein? Verily I must assume that if there be a God, at once
Creator and Upholder of the earth and Father of his rational offspring,
his written word will hasten to throw light on the otherwise dark minds
of his children――will let them know that “in the beginning God made the
heavens and the earth” and man.
The _moral lessons_ of this great fact――God our Creator――are forcibly
brought out in later scriptures. Listen to the Psalmist: “O come, let
us sing unto the Lord ... for he is a great God and a great King above
all gods. In his hands are the deep places of the earth; the strength
of the hills is his also. The sea is his and he made it, and his hands
formed the dry land. O come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel
before the Lord our Maker, for he is our God and we are the people of
his pasture and the sheep of his hand.” (Ps. 95: 1–7.) Note also the
blended sublimity and beauty of David’s appeal: “Praise the Lord; sing
unto him a new song, for the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord.
By the word of the Lord were the heavens made and all the host of them
by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together
as an heap; he layeth up the depth in store-houses. Let all the earth
fear the Lord; let the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him,
for he spake and it was: he commanded, and it stood fast.” (Ps. 33:
1–9.) Still higher if possible rises the lofty strain of Isaiah when
he would set forth the unequalled power of the great Creator as the
Refuge and Salvation of his trustful children:――“Who hath measured
the waters in the hollow of his hand and meted out heaven with a span,
and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the
mountains in scales and the hills in a balance? To whom then will ye
liken God”? etc. (Isa. 40: 12, 18).――――So when Job had indulged himself
too far in questioning the ways of God in providence, the Lord replied
out of the whirlwind, demanding of him――“Where wert thou when I laid
the foundations of the earth? Declare if thou hast understanding. Who
hath laid the measures thereof if thou knowest――who hath stretched the
line upon it? Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened, or who
laid the corner-stone thereof when the morning stars sang together and
all the sons of God shouted for joy”?... “Canst thou lift up thy voice
to the clouds that abundance of waters may cover thee? Canst thou send
lightnings that they may go and say unto thee, Here are we”? (Job 38:
4–7, 34, 35.)
In that great conflict of ages against idolatry, the one final appeal
was wont to be made to this great fact of God’s Creatorship. We have
examples in Ps. 115: 2–8 and Jer. 10: 1–16 and elsewhere.――――Thus
throughout the sacred word this great fact that God is our Creator,
involving the whole sphere of God in nature, stands as the first
witness to his true divinity, the first proof that in him we live
and have our being――the ground of the first claim upon us for
supreme homage, worship, trust, love and obedience. The first lessons
taught in Eden were taken from this great and open volume of natural
religion. The first lessons which God’s people were to place before
the heathen in their mission work of the early ages were drawn from
the visible worlds and from their testimony to the Great Creator. These
manifestations are the alphabet of God; the point therefore from which
progressive revelations begin.
Noticeably the record of the creation (Gen. 1 and 2) rests not with
simply giving the general statement that God made all things, but
enters somewhat into the particulars, reciting in certain points the
_steps of the process and the order of its details_. First the heavens
and the earth had a beginning and this beginning was _from God_. At
some stage in the process, perhaps the next in order after the heavens
and the earth could be said to be, the earth was chaotic, _i. e._
formless and desolate; then God brought forth light; then to clear the
atmosphere somewhat of mists and vapors, he caused some of its waters
to rise into the expanse, and some to descend to the earth below;
then gathered waters below into seas, leaving portions of the earth’s
surface dry land. Then he brought forth grass and herbage; next, the
light-bearers in the heavens appeared――the sun, moon and stars; then
came into being fish, reptiles and fowl; and on the sixth day land,
animals and man. Thus in six successive periods of time, through steps
of gradation easily traced by the witnessing “sons of God” (Job 38: 7),
the processes of this creative work were finished. The Great Father
would have his first-born unfallen “sons” as well as his later-born and
redeemed children enjoy these works of his creative hand, and therefore
he developed them slowly and in the order of naturally successive steps
that they might see that all was truly “good,” “very good.”
Partly because of advances made within recent times in physical
science, partly because of speculations not always friendly in tone to
the inspired record, and partly because of the intrinsic interest and
importance of the subject, some special points in this narrative demand
very particular attention.
1. _The origin of the written record and the manner of its revelation
to men._
The entire book of Genesis is ascribed to Moses on most valid grounds;
whether as compiler only or as original author, is, therefore, the
first question.――――I do not see how this point can be determined with
absolute certainty. The probabilities in my view favor the supposition
of previously written documents, these probabilities arising, not
to any considerable extent from manifest differences of style in
its various portions, and not at all from diversities in the use
of the names of God, Jehovah and Elohim; but mainly from the strong
presumption that such genealogical records as abound in Genesis,
coupled so largely with numbers, would be put in writing before the
age of Moses. Men who had the knowledge of writing would certainly
appreciate its utility for the preservation of such facts as
these.――――And further; the very use of the word “generations”[1]
(Gen. 2: 4) in the sense of history, and much more still the statement
(Gen. 5: 1), “This is the _book_ of the generations of Adam,” raise
this presumption nearly or quite to a certainty.――――In making up the
historical portions of the Scriptures it seems rational to assume that
the Lord moved “holy men of old” to put in writing such facts falling
under their personal observation and immediate knowledge as he deemed
useful for these sacred records. In some cases the writer might be
(as was Luke) just one remove from the original eye-witnesses, yet
in a position to learn the facts with “perfect understanding” and
“certainty.” We should not doubt the _power_ of God to give to holy
men these historic facts by immediate revelation; but the question is
not one of power, but of wisdom, of divine policy, and of fact. The
divine policy seems to have been (in this case as in miracles) never
to introduce the supernatural, the miraculous, to do what the natural
might accomplish equally well. On this principle inspired men were
moved of God to use their own eyes and minds in writing Scripture
history in all cases when the facts came within their certain knowledge.
There were facts, like these of the creation, which fell under no human
eye, and which therefore do not come under this principle. Some form
of direct revelation from God is, therefore, to be assumed here. Though
the supposition of a revealing angel might find some support from
subsequent prophetic Scriptures, yet a direct revelation from God to
some inspired writer is the more obvious supposition.――――It has been
asked――Was this creation in its processes and announcements shown in a
manner analogous to prophetic vision――the writer then recording in his
own phrase what he saw and heard?――――There being no testimony on this
point from either of the two parties――the divine Revealer or the human
writer――we must leave it undecided. Fortunately it is of no particular
importance to us.――――It is, however, of some importance that we
consider the question whether in this account of the creation we are
to look for statements adjusted to science――not merely to the stage of
its progress in this present year of the nineteenth century, but to the
perfect science of ultimate fact; or, on the other hand, for statements
adapted to the average mind of Hebrew readers in the age of Moses,
written for their comprehension, instruction and spiritual culture. I
answer unhesitatingly, the latter. “All Scripture, given by inspiration
of God, is profitable for doctrine ... and for instruction in
righteousness” (2 Tim. 3: 16), and was of God designed and shaped for
these ends.――――Yet let it be borne in mind; these statements respecting
the processes of creation, being in the sense intended, actually true,
will not conflict with any true science. They may omit processes which
human analysis and research may render probable, passing them as not
germain to the scope of a moral revelation and as not likely to be
intelligible to the masses of mankind.――――Finally――that the assumed
stand-point of view from which these processes of creation are
contemplated is on this earth and not elsewhere in the universe is
certain from the fact that it was written to be read and understood by
men and not by angels. Hence we must expect the facts to be presented
_as they would have appeared to a supposed observer upon our globe_.
2. _What is the true idea of nature, and what the line between nature
and the supernatural?_
A reference to familiar facts will best set forth the case. Thus; it
is in and by nature that at a certain temperature water becomes vapor;
at another temperature, ice; that vapor rises in the atmosphere, water
runs downward, and ice abides under the laws of solids. On the other
hand it is _not_ in nature that water in any of its forms creates
itself. Its elements can not begin to be, save by some power above
nature.――――Again, by nature plants and animals reproduce their kind,
but never can of themselves _begin_ their own existence. Hence some of
the processes brought before us in this record of creation come under
the head of nature; others are as obviously supernatural――from the
immediate hand of God. The work of the second day――the mists of the
atmosphere, in part ascending in vapor, in part precipitated upon the
earth in water――seems to have followed natural law. In the work of the
third, the waters on higher portions of the earth’s surface subsiding
into the seas, follow the law of flowing water. But the original
creation of matter and the beginnings of life, both vegetable and
animal, must have been supernatural――from the immediate fiat of the
Almighty.
This point would scarcely need special definition had not extreme views
been put forth in our times; as (_e. g._) that nature is virtually
a second-rate deity――indebted to God, indeed, for the original gift
of its powers, but thenceforward working those powers independently
of God――made to run without God after he has once wound it up as the
mechanic makes and winds up his watch. But the Scriptures recognize no
such semi-deification of nature. According to their teaching, God still
“_upholds_ all things by the word of his power” (Heb. 1: 3); “By him
all things consist” (Col. 1: 17)――_i. e._, are maintained in their
existence――are held to system and order under natural law. It is
precisely God himself who gives or withholds the rain; who calls to
the lightnings and they answer, “Here we are”――(Job 38: 35); and it
is none the less God who wields these agencies because he does it in
harmony with principles which are just as fixed as he pleases to have
them. Therefore true science will take no exception to the doctrine
that nature is nothing more or less than _God’s established mode of
operation_. We may call these modes of operations “laws” or “powers,”
and may think and speak of them as constituting “Nature;” but if we
come to regard Nature as a maker and a doer, working independently of
God, we have (inadvertently perhaps, but none the less really) ruled
God out of his own universe. Both Scripture and reason hold that “in
him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17: 28.) The broad fact
that God’s intelligent creatures must live in this material world and
be constantly acting upon matter and acted upon by matter, suggests
abundant reasons why God should ordain fixed laws for the changes and
states of all material things. But why should we think of God’s hand as
any the less present in all these changes of material states and forms
because they follow fixed and ascertainable laws? In truth the divine
wisdom is only the more abundantly manifested by means of this reliable
uniformity.
Another doctrine yet more extreme severs all connection between
nature and an intelligent Power above and over her, and thus makes
her _supreme_ in her domain. This is so far Atheism――ruling God out
from at least the entire material universe.――――Yet, again; to make
nature herself intelligent――to ascribe to nature whatever traces of
design appear in her operations, and to hold that nature is herself
the universe, undistinguishable from any higher spiritual power, is
Pantheism.――――It is therefore important to define nature so that her
true relations to the Supreme Intelligence――the very God――Creator
and Lord of the universe――shall be distinctly seen and reverently
recognized.
The advocates of extreme naturalism have labored faithfully to verify
their doctrine by experiment. They have put Nature to task――not to
say torture――to compel her to originate _life_. Pushing their chemical
analysis of those forms of matter in which life is thought specially to
reside, they flatter themselves that they have at last got their hands
on the very elements which, brought together, make life, viz. carbonic
acid, ammonia, and water, chemically combined. To this compound they
give the name, “protoplasm.” They have found, they say, that where life
is there is protoplasm, its home and dwelling-place at least; and that
life never appears lodging in any other home. They can not see that the
presence of life adds any thing to this compound, or that its absence
takes any thing away. Therefore they are sure they have found what
makes life.
Now the skillful chemist in his laboratory has not the least difficulty
in providing himself with carbonic acid, ammonia, and water. Why then
does he not evolve the long-sought-for _life-force_ and prove his
doctrine, past all doubt? Let him bring out new beings, new forms of
life, vegetable or animal or both, in ample diversity, for the range
is unlimited. Let his laboratory push forth into being such troops of
offspring as will forever confound gainsayers and prove that Nature,
properly manipulated, is equal to the production of life-forces in
endless variety and abundance.
Have any modern scientists done this? Not yet. Have they made any
approximation toward it? Mr. Huxley thinks he has come so near to it
that if he could only have at his service the favorable conditions of
the very earliest state of matter, he should succeed. “If it were given
me (says he) to look beyond the abyss of geologically-recorded time
to the still more remote period when the earth was passing through
physical and chemical conditions which it can no more see again than
a man can recall his infancy, _I should expect to be a witness of the
evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter_. That is the
expectation to which analogical reasoning leads me.”[2]――――“Not living
matter evolving living protoplasm” means that matter itself, dead
matter, begets real life. Nature would thus become herself a creator,
exercising the most decisive functions of the Infinite God. Mr. Huxley
can not make Nature do this exploit in the present state of this world
or of the universe; but he fully believes there was a time when he
should have seen it if he had been there! This is his proof of the
new doctrine. He will not presume to “call it any thing but an act
of philosophic faith.”
3. _The sense of the word “day” as used in Gen. I. of the six days of
creation._
To simplify the subject I make the single issue――Is it a period of
twenty-four hours, or a period of special character, indefinitely
long? The latter theory supposes the word to refer here not so much
to _duration_ as to _special character_――the sort of work done and the
changes produced during the period contemplated.
Turning our attention to this latter theory, we raise three leading
inquiries:
(1.) Do the laws of language and, specially, does the usage of the word
“day” permit it?
(2.) Apart from the bearing of geological facts, are there points in
the narrative itself which demand or even favor this sense of the word?
(3.) What are the geological facts bearing on this question, and what
weight may legitimately be accorded to them?
(1.) Beyond all question the word “day” is used abundantly, (and
therefore admits of being used) to denote a period of special
character, with no particular reference to its duration. We have a
case in this immediate connection (Gen. 2: 4), where it is used of the
whole creative period: “In the _day_ that the Lord God made the earth
and the heavens.” Under the same usage we have “the _day_ of the Lord”
(1 Thess. 5: 2) for the day of judgment; “the _day_ of God,” in the
same sense (2 Pet. 3: 12); “the _day_ of salvation” (2 Cor. 6: 2);
“day of redemption” (Eph. 4: 30); a “day of darkness and of gloominess;
a day of clouds and of thick darkness” (Joel 2: 2). “In the day of
prosperity, be joyful; but in the day of adversity, consider” (Eccl.
7: 14). “If thou hadst known in this thy _day_ the things,” etc. (Luke
19: 42). So also Job 19: 25, and John 8: 56, etc.
To set aside this testimony from usage as being inapplicable to the
present case, it has been said――(a.) That here is a succession of days,
“first day,” “second day,” “third day,” etc., and that this requires
the usual sense of days of the week.――――To which the answer is that
here are six special periods succeeding each other――a sufficient
reason for using the word in the peculiar sense of a period of special
character. Each of these periods is distinct from any and all the rest
in the character of the work wrought in it.――――The reason for dividing
the creative work into six periods――“days”――rather than into more or
fewer lies in the divine wisdom as to the best proportion of days of
man’s labor to the one day of his rest, the Sabbath. God’s plan for
his creative work contemplated his own example as suggestive of man’s
Sabbath and was shaped accordingly. This accounts for dividing the work
of creation into six special periods, correlated to God’s day of rest
from creative work.――――(b.) It will also be urged that each of these
days is said to be made up of evening and of morning――“The evening
and the morning were the first day,” etc. But the strength of this
objection comes mainly from mistranslation and consequent misconception
of the original. The precise thought is not that evening and morning
composed or made up one full day; but rather this: There was evening
and there was morning――day one, _i. e._, day number one. There was
darkness and then there was light, indicating one of the great creative
periods.[3]
It is one thing to say――There were alternations of evening and
morning――_i. e._ dark scenes and bright scenes――marking the successive
periods of creation, first, second, third, etc.; and another thing to
affirm that each of these evenings and mornings _made up_ a day. The
point specially affirmed in the two cases, though somewhat analogous,
is not by any means identical.――――Let it be considered moreover, that
while in Hebrew as in English, _night_ and _day_ are often used for the
average twelve-hour duration of darkness and of light respectively in
each twenty-four hours, yet in neither language are the words _evening_
and _morning_ used in this sense, as synonymous with night and day.
Indeed “evening” and “morning” are rather points than periods of time;
certainly do not indicate any definite amount of time――any precise
number of hours; but are used to denote the two great changes――_i. e._
from light to darkness and from darkness to light; in other words,
from day to night and from night to day. Therefore to make evening and
morning added together constitute one day is entirely without warrant
in either Hebrew or English usage and can not be the meaning of these
passages in Genesis.[4]
(2.) _The showing of the narrative itself_, considered apart from the
bearing of geological facts.
(a.) Here vs. 3–5 demand special attention, this first day being the
model one.――――I understand “evening” to be the chaotic state of v. 2,
when “darkness was on the face of the deep,” and “morning” to be that
first “light” which God spake into being. The reason for using these
words――“evening and morning”――in this sense I find in the universal
sentiment of mankind that light is pleasant and darkness is not. This
sentiment is indicated here; “God saw the light that it was good.” The
state of chaos was in contrast with this――dismal, dreary, awakening no
sense of beauty or order; no emotions of joy. The light of day brings
joy, and the freshest and best sensation of it comes with the morning.
Hence these words were fitly and beautifully appropriate to the two
great creative states――first chaos; secondly, light――which together
marked off the first of the six creative days.――――But we can not for
a moment think of this chaotic state as being only twelve hours. We
can not rationally think of the word “evening” applied to it as having
any reference to time, duration. It was an evening only in the sense
of being dark, desolate, any thing but joyous like the morning. The
word “evening” may be chosen rather than night for the sake of a more
perfect antithesis with “morning.”
(b.) Throughout at least the first three of these creative epochs
there was no sun-rising and setting to mark off the ordinary day.
These therefore were not the common human day; but, as Augustine long
ago said, these are the days of God――divine days――measuring off his
great creative periods. God moved through these six great periods by
successive stages of labor and of rest. Beginning with the long evening
of chaos; then advancing to a glorious day of light; then, after a
cessation analogous to man’s rest by night, he proceeded to the work of
the second day――the joyous and beautiful development of the firmament
in the heavens. So onward by stages of repose and of activity, these
figurative evenings and mornings continued through the six successive
epochs of creation.
(c.) In some at least of these creative epochs, the work done demands
more time than twenty-four hours. For example, the gathering of the
waters from under the heavens into one place to constitute the seas
or oceans and leave portions of the earth’s surface dry land. Nothing
short of absolute miracle could effect this in one human day. But
miracle should not be assumed here, the rule of reason and the normal
law of God’s operations being never to work a miracle in a case where
the ordinary course of nature will accomplish the same results equally
well. We must the more surely exclude miracle and assume the action of
natural law only throughout these processes of the creative work
because the very purpose of a protracted rather than an instantaneous
creation looked manifestly to the enlightenment, instruction, interest,
and joy of those “morning stars,” the “sons of God” who beheld the
scene, then “sang together and shouted for joy” (Job 38: 7).――――
The greatness of the work assigned to the fourth day stringently
forbids our compressing it within the limits of one ordinary human day.
Especially is this the case if we understand the verse to speak of the
original creation of these light-bearers――the sun and the moon and the
stars also, and of their adjustment in their spheres for their assigned
work. Think of the vastness of the sun and of the numbers, magnitude,
and immense distances of the stars; and ask how it is possible that the
creation of these bodies could be either instructive or joyful to the
beholding angels if it had been all rushed through within twenty-four
hours of human time.――――This difficulty is in a measure relieved if we
suppose the fourth day’s work to have been, not the original creation
of these heavenly bodies, but only the bringing of them into the
view of a supposed spectator upon the earth――_i. e._ by clearing the
atmosphere so as to make these heavenly bodies visible. The question at
issue between these two constructions of the fourth day’s work must be
examined in its place.――――The amount of creative and other work brought
within the sixth day should be noticed. First, God created all the
land animals; then Adam; then he brought “every beast of the field and
every fowl of the air” to Adam to see what he would call them――which at
least must assume that Adam had attained a somewhat full knowledge of
language, and that he had time enough to study the special character
of each animal so as to give each one its appropriate name, and time
enough also to ascertain that there was not one among them all adapted
to be a “helpmeet” for himself. Then the “deep sleep” of Adam――how long
protracted, the record saith not; and finally the creation of Eve from
one of his ribs――all to come within the sixth day; for the creation of
Eve certainly falls within this day, being a part of the creative work,
and accomplished, therefore, before God’s seventh day of rest from all
his work began. These labors of the sixth day, moreover, were precisely
such as should not be rushed through in haste. The importance, not to
say solemnity, of these transactions and the special interest they must
be supposed to awaken in the first-born “sons of God” most stringently
preclude precipitate haste. It is not easy to see how Moses or his
intelligent readers of the early time could have supposed all this to
have transpired within the twelve hours of light in a human day.――――We
may say, moreover, in regard to each and all of these six creative
periods that if the holy angels were indeed spectators of these scenes
and if God adjusted his methods of creation to the capacities of these
pupils――these admiring students of his glorious works――then surely
we must not think of his compressing them within the period of six
human days. Divine days they certainly must have been, sufficiently
protracted to afford finite minds scope for intelligent study, adoring
contemplation, and as the Bible indicates, most rapturous shouts of joy.
Against the theory of indefinitely long periods, it is objected that
_the law of the Sabbath demands the usual sense of the word “day.”_
The record in Gen. 2: 2, 3, is――“On the seventh day God ended his work
which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work
which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it,
because that in it he had rested from all his work which he had created
and made.” The words of the fourth command are――“Six days shalt thou
labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the
Lord thy God, etc.――for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth:
wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”――――The
real argument here rests on the analogy between God’s working and
resting, and man’s labor and rest. In each case the period of labor
is six out of seven; of rest, one in seven. This argument does not
require that God’s six working days and one resting day should be of
twenty-four hours each. If it did, we should be hard pressed to show
that God’s seventh day of rest from creation’s work was a merely human
day from sun to sun. No; it suffices if we make God’s days of creative
energy and of creative rest each and all _divine days_――all alike
periods of indefinite length――all of the same sort; and on the other
hand man’s days of labor and his day of rest, all human days, of the
same sort with each other, from sun to sun. As God’s resting day is
plainly of indefinite length――a period known by its character and not
by its duration, so should his days of creative labor be: not only
so _may_ they be, but so they _ought_ to be according to the analogy
and argument in the case.――――We come therefore to the conclusion that
entirely apart from the demands of geological science, the creative
days must be periods of indefinite length, called “days” with reference
to the peculiar work done in them and to their peculiar character, and
not as being the ordinary human day of twenty-four hours. It may be
admitted, moreover, that the phraseology and the whole shaping of the
narrative in respect to days may have contemplated the institution
of the Sabbath――to be founded as shown above upon the analogy of
God’s labor and rest with man’s permitted labor and enjoined rest in
commemoration of God’s work of creation.
(3.) We are to consider _the geological facts bearing on this point and
the weight legitimately due to them_.
If the point last put has been sustained, it will be seen at the
outset that even should geology make large demands for time, far
beyond the ordinary human day, we shall have no occasion to strain
the laws of interpretation to bring the record into harmony with such
demands.――――We open this inquiry therefore into the facts of geology,
not so much to make out if possible a harmony between them and Genesis
by toning down the facts of science or by toning up the inspired record,
as to show how readily and how beautifully the facts just as they are
(so far as known) accord with the legitimate sense of the sacred record.
Preliminary to the main inquiry before us is the question as to the
primary original state of matter. Was it brought into existence in
its primordial elements――those molecules which not only defy all human
effort at analysis, but which seem to be in their nature the simplest
forms of matter?――――Chemistry has shown that many of the most familiar
substances, long supposed to be simple, are really compound. Were
they brought into existence in the state in which we commonly see
them, or in their ultimate, most simple elements? For example, did
God originally create water, or the two gases (hydrogen and oxygen) of
which it is composed, which were subsequently combined chemically into
water?――――On this point the Scriptures are silent. If Science has any
thing to reveal about it, the field is open to her and she may proceed,
nothing in the sacred Scriptures dissenting or restricting. If she
succeeds in proving or half proving that the first state of matter
was nebulous――a “fire-mist”――gaseous in form, very well. I do not see
that the record of Moses contests this theory. It passes this point
with no dogmatic statements whatever, not even a fact which necessarily
implies either the affirmative or the negative. The record in Genesis
does assume that at the point where the second day’s work begins, the
atmosphere was heavily charged with vapor, and that a part of this
was precipitated upon the earth in water and a part borne upward into
the higher strata of the atmosphere. The third day’s work gathered
the waters then upon the earth’s surface into the ocean beds and left
portions of the land dry. Consequently the state of the atmosphere, and
in general the condition of the waters of our globe were not arranged
at first just as we have them now. So much we are told.
There are yet other preliminary questions.
On the shores of lakes, seas, oceans, we find pebbles rounded and
smooth, mineralogically of the same elements which are found in rock
formations. Were they created in this rounded and worn state, or were
they once portions of these rock strata, but subsequently broken up by
natural agencies and worn by the action of flowing water?
Another case. Coal beds often contain what seem to be whole trees and
huge vegetables (ferns, etc.) apparently charred and converted into
coal. Were they created just as we find them, or were they indeed trees
and vegetables before they became coal?――――Yet another case. The rocks
nearest the surface contain almost universally more or less of what
seem like fossilized plants and animals. They have the form of the
plant or animal in wonderful perfection. Were these fossiliferous
rocks, containing apparent fossils, created as we see them, or were
these fossils once real plants and animals?――――I see no reason whatever
to hesitate over these questions. We can not suppose that God created
these worn and rounded pebbles, these charred trees and ferns, these
prints of animal footsteps――these _fac-similes_ of his creative work
in the vegetable and animal kingdom, for the sake of puzzling or
misleading, or, in plainest words, deceiving his intelligent offspring.
He never could have meant to baffle all scientific inquiry into his
works of creation. Rather we must assume that he lays his works open
to such inquiries, and invites men to study and learn his ways. If this
be admitted, it follows that these stratified and fossil-bearing rocks
open to us a great volume of Pre-Adamic history of our globe, revealing
its processes of rock-formation; to some extent its climatic and
various conditions for the support of life, vegetable and animal, and
for its successive populations of plants and animals.
Grouping comprehensively some geological facts bearing on the
duration of the great creative periods, I note (1.) Vast strata of
rock-formations, widely diverse from each other, too diverse to have
been formed under the same circumstances and conditions of our globe.
Some――the lowest in relative position――appear to have been once in a
state of fusion under intense heat, while others――in general all the
higher rocks――seem to have been deposited under water. Mineralogically,
these rocks differ from each other very widely and also from the fused
rocks.――――(2.) Again, some are manifestly composed of fragments of
pre-existing rocks, broken off and worn by long-continued attrition
and then compacted――known as pudding-stone――the breccias.――――(3.) Yet
again; immense strata of these intermediate and higher rocks contain
fossil organic remains, some of vegetables, others of animals or of
both, and also in very great variety. More marvelous still; they are
found occurring in groups, bearing a well defined relation to each
other, so that one strata of rock contains species of vegetables and
also of animals in a measure adapted to each other, and adjusted to
the condition of the earth’s surface and climate at one and the same
time. Another strata shall contain a different group, to some extent
new and yet not altogether so, but lapping on with some of the earth’s
old inhabitants reproduced, and omitting other species.――――(4.) Again,
immense beds of coal are found, undoubtedly of vegetable origin,
differing somewhat widely from each other as having been formed from
diverse vegetable and forest material, and under various degrees
of heat and pressure. No small amount of time must be given for
the growth and deposition of these mountain piles of tree and
fern.――――The charring of these coal-pits of nature was provided
for in the “fervent heat” of the earth just below the surface,
coupled with pressure brought upon them it would seem by convulsions
and upbreakings, to which the earth’s crust has been many times
subjected.――――(5.) Limestone, largely of animal origin, demands in
like manner time for the growth of the animals whose shelly incasements,
accumulating age after age, have made such ample provision of limestone
and of lime for the use of man.
This list of nature’s facts as the practiced eye reads them from the
crust of our earth does not claim to be exhaustive. If it were all,
however, it would still be amply sufficient to sustain the demand for
long creative periods as opposed to ordinary human days. It should not
be forgotten that this demand, coming forth from the facts developed in
the crust of the earth, falls in most fully with what we have seen to
be the legitimate construction of the Mosaic record.
_Prominent points of harmony between Genesis and Geology._
(1.) Creation was a _gradual process_, spanning from beginning to
end long periods of time. I use the word “creation” to comprehend not
only the original production of matter, but its subsequent changes and
transformations till the earth was fully prepared for the abode of man.
(2.) _The earth was for a considerable time under water._ The record of
Moses is decisive to this point. The current theory in respect to the
formation of most if not all the rocky strata of the earth’s crust is
equally so.
(3.) _There was light on the earth before the appearance of the sun._
Genesis dates the light from the first day; the appearance of the sun,
from the fourth.――――The theory that the primitive state of created
matter was gaseous (or nebulous) provides for this, since it is well
known that the chemical combination of the two gases that form water
(for instance)――a combination produced by electricity, evolves light.
But we are not restricted to this hypothesis to account for light
before the sun was visible. The state of the atmosphere may furnish
all the causes needed. See below, page 32.
(4.) _Vegetables were created before animals._ So Moses, for he locates
the former on the third day; the latter on the fifth and sixth. This
is of course the order of nature since the animals are to subsist on
vegetables. Geology finds vegetables in fossil state below the earliest
animals.
(5.) Among the animal tribes, those of the water are before those of
the land. Genesis gives us fish and reptiles and even fowl before the
mammals――land animals――the former on the fifth day; the latter with
man on the sixth. Geology indorses this order, showing that fish and
reptiles lie in rocks lower and older than quadrupeds.
(6.) Man is last of all. The testimony of the rocks is here at one
with that of Genesis――other animals and the vegetables also, long ages
before man.
Now how has it happened that this record, coming to us through Moses,
harmonizes so wonderfully with the main results of a science yet in
its infancy――almost utterly unknown until the present century? Is it
due to the scientific attainments of Moses? Is it not rather due to
inspiration――“holy men of old”――Moses himself or the fathers before
him――being taught by the same Being who “in the beginning created the
heavens and the earth?” The marvel is that this record should be so
constructed as to present a very intelligible view of the processes of
the six days’ work to the average mind of the race before geological
science was born, and yet when this science begins to develop the
constitution and composition of the earth’s surface, the inspired
record is found to harmonize with these developments in all important
features. So it is wont to happen. Truth rejoices in the light. A
truthful Bible and all true science meet in loving communion, evincing
their common parentage――offspring of the same Infinite Father.
4. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Was this
the original production of matter; or was it only the modification of
pre-existent matter into new forms? (1.) That this was the original
production of matter is probable a priori _because it is true_, and
because it is a truth very important to affirm in this first revelation.
Matter is _not_ eternal and self-existent. Those who intelligently
believe in one Supreme God――an Infinite, Intelligent Spirit, will need
no words wasted to disprove the assumption that matter existed from
eternity, the Author of itself; for this assumption ascribes to matter
the distinctive qualities of God himself.――――It is moreover important
that God should declare himself to be the author of all existing matter
in the universe. This is one of his great and distinctive works――one
which human speculation has been prone to deny him, and which therefore
it is of the utmost consequence that he should affirm. (2.) The passage
(Ps. 90: 2) ascribed to Moses, expressly declares that God existed
“_before the mountains_.” “Before the mountains were brought forth,
even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” Moses did not think
matter to be eternal. He knew and taught that God existed from eternity
and that matter did not. The obvious sense of his words is that God
“brought forth” (_i. e._ into existence) the mountains of this earthly
globe.
(3.) The writer to the Hebrews affirms that this doctrine――God the
original Creator of matter――is accepted _by faith_, _i. e._ upon the
credit of God’s own testimony. “By faith we understand that the worlds
were framed by the word of God so that things which are seen were not
made of things that do appear” (Heb. 11: 3). Not being constructed out
of matter previously apparent, they must have been made by the direct
production of matter not before existing.
(4.) This is the natural and obvious sense of the words and this the
place to affirm this first fact in the work of creation. This is the
point to start with. How came the matter of the universe into being at
all? Whence came this material substance composing the heavens and the
earth? In the beginning God created it.――――It may be said truthfully
that if God had purposed to reveal himself as the Author of matter――the
real Maker of it all――he could have found no words more fitted to his
purpose than these. Hence to deny that this is their sense is the next
thing to denying to God the right or the power to reveal this fact at
all.
(5.) It is objected that the primary sense of the word bara[5] (used
here) is not to bring into existence what had no existence before,
but “to cut, to cut out, to carve” (Gesenius); “to cut, form, fashion”
(Fuerst). But this objection, though plausible to a merely superficial
view, is really of very little force. Usage, not etymological relation,
gives law to language. The etymological, primary sense of _barak_, the
common Hebrew word for _bless_, is to break; then to bend as the knee,
to kneel and to cause one to kneel; and then, perhaps from the custom
of kneeling to receive the patriarchal benediction, or to implore
blessings from God, comes the ultimate and by far the most common
significance――to bless. Usage in every case must determine the most
common and therefore most probable sense; then the context and the
known opinions of the writer come in to aid toward the true sense in
any given instance.
In the Hebrew verb regard must be had to its form, technically
called its “conjugation,” since the sense of the several conjugations
from the same root may vary widely. In this verb (bara) the sense of
Hiphil conjugation is to _fatten_――which is very remote from the sense
of “Kal” and of its passive “Niphal.” In Piel only do we find the
etymological sense to cut, to carve out (five times only) and these
spoken of human operations exclusively (Josh. 17: 15, 18 and Ezek.
23: 47 and 21: 19). But in Kal and its passive Niphal, we find the word
used forty-eight times, and _always of divine operations_――always of
some form of creative work wrought by God himself and never by man.[6]
The testimony therefore from usage is entirely conclusive to the point
that this word in this form of it was specially appropriated to signify
God’s creative acts――the exertion of his creative power.――――There are
two other Hebrew words having the sense to make, to form, [asah and
yatsar], which are sometimes used of God as creating but by far most
often of _man’s_ work in forming and molding material things. Now note
the argument. The Hebrews had these three words for _making_, out of
which one only is used exclusively of God――never of man――as a maker.
Now there is one special sense in which God can make and man can not,
viz. that of bringing into existence what had no existence before.
Over against this, place the fact that their word “bara” is used of
God’s making forty-eight times and of man’s making never, and we must
conclude that they expressed by this word that distinctive power of God
which man never can even approach――viz. the power to _give existence to
matter, to mind and to life_. In passages where this sense of “bara” is
appropriate, there can be no question that it is the real meaning.
5. _The relation of v. 1 to v. 2 and to the rest of the chapter._
Some have maintained that v. 1 is only a statement in general terms
of the contents of the chapter, a heading, stating no particular
fact distinct from what follows.――――Others take it to be one fact in
the series――the first step in the process of the creative work――the
successive steps then following in due order. This latter construction
I accept; and urge in its support,
(1.) That this is the most obvious sense of the words. The word “And”
(v. 2) “_And_ the earth was without form,” etc., must be taken as
_continuing_ the subject――not as _commencing_ it. It should give us
another and succeeding fact, and not be taken to _begin_ a detailed
history.
(2.) This is the natural order of the facts. First, matter must be
brought into existence. Nothing can be done with it, nothing can be
said about it, until it _is_. The first verse therefore is the natural
beginning of the narrative――the first fact to be stated. The second
verse gives naturally the next fact, viz. the condition of this matter
immediately prior to the six days’ creative work upon it. Deferring
the little he has to say upon the “heavens,” he calls our attention to
the earth as being of chief interest to man, and makes this the main
theme of the chapter.――――An observer would have seen the earth mantled
in darkness, its atmosphere laden with murky vapors and dense mists;
the surface (if indeed the waters below could be distinguished from
the waters above) one wide waste of waters, all formless, vast, dismal;
with nothing of order or beauty on which the eye could rest. Above and
upon this shapeless mass the Spirit of God was hovering, or shall we
say _incubating_, for such may be the figure involved in the Hebrew
verb. Moreover it seems to be implied that this action of the creative
Spirit was protracted. The Hebrew participle (used here) expresses
continued action――was brooding over, incubating, this wild, waste,
desolate mass.
Some scientific men suppose they find in this second verse, not
water, but the gaseous matter which ultimately became water and
solid earth. This construction originates in a theory in regard
to the primal form in which the matter of our world came from the
Creator’s hand, which theory may or may not be true, but if true is
too remote from the common mind and too foreign from the scope of
divine revelation to allow us to suppose that God would refer to it
in his revelation.――――Carrying out this scientific theory, some have
held[7] that not only the “waters” of v. 2 but those of vs. 6, 7,
were gases, not waters. The fatal objections to this theory are――that
these “waters” are the same which in vs. 9, 10, are “gathered into
one place” and “called seas;” also that the common people for several
thousand years could not have understood Moses if he had spoken of
gases――certainly could not have understood their common word for
waters to mean gases.――――It is not well to strain and force this simple
narrative to speak so scientifically as to be unintelligible to those
for whom it was primarily written.――――The first state of created matter
may have been gaseous. The record in Genesis has said nothing to forbid
this. It certainly could not come within its province to teach it.
Suffice it that time enough may be found between verses 1 and 2 for a
portion of this gaseous matter to form water――not to say also to form
the more solid portions of this globe.
The connection of v. 2 with v. 1 is such that an indefinitely long
period may have intervened. The first verb of v. 2 implies no close
connection with v. 1. But in v. 3 the form of the first verb――“And
_then_ God said”――does make a close historical connection with v. 2.
6. The work of the fourth day. Were the light-bearers (“lights” in the
sense of luminaries) in the heavens, viz. the sun, moon, and stars also,
“made,” created, on this day, or simply brought forth to the view of a
supposed observer upon the earth?――――The latter theory that they were
not first brought into being then, but only brought into view from the
earth――seems to me most probable, because――(1.) To suppose them created
then would be out of all proportion for one day’s work among the six.
Throughout the other five days’ work a beautiful proportion obtains:
it should therefore be expected in this.――――If it be said that this
consideration draws its great strength from our astronomical knowledge
of those heavenly bodies――much more enlarged than those of the age
of Moses, I answer (a.) Moses, “learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians,” was not altogether a novice in astronomy――(b.) Modern
astronomy is essentially true, not overrating the relative magnitude
of the heavenly bodies; and this record in Genesis comes from one who
knew all the truth.
(2.) If these verses be understood to speak of their original
creation, it would seem to be out of place here between the creation
of vegetables (third day) and of the earliest born animals (the fifth).
But in the sense of bringing these heavenly bodies to view and the sun
into its normal action upon vegetables and upon animal comfort, it is
precisely in place.
(3.) According to the interpretation given to v. 1 (above) the matter
composing these heavenly bodies was brought into existence “in the
beginning” when “God created the heavens” as well as “the earth” and
before the six days’ work began. If so, then the intervening processes
of modification must naturally have been going on from that time until
this fourth day.
(4.) Some expositors and scientists account for the light on the first
day without the sun by means of electricity or other chemical agents;
but it is scarcely possible that Moses and his first readers could
have thought of any thing but the sun as the source of that light,
especially because “God called it Day,” and the darkness alternating
with it then (as ever since the earth began its diurnal revolutions)
“he called Night.” This reference to day and night must naturally carry
every Hebrew mind to the _sun_ as the source of that light and to its
well-known withdrawal at evening as the reason for the darkness and
the night.――――It need not be supposed that the body of the sun was then
visible. The state of the atmosphere might have admitted a portion of
his light and yet not have disclosed his face. In our times we have
seen cloudy, dark days, with no sun visible, yet with a manifest
distinction between day and night.
7. The true sense of the record as to the origin (1) of vegetable
life (vs. 11, 12), and (2) of animal life (vs. 20, 21, 24, 25.)――――The
important words are, “Let the earth bring forth grass” (v. 11); “and
the earth brought forth grass” (v. 12). “Let the waters bring forth
abundantly the moving creature,” etc. (v. 20); “and God created every
living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly”
(v. 21). “Let the earth bring forth the living creature” (v. 24); “and
God made the beast of the earth,” etc. (v. 25).――――Here note that the
_historical statements give the true sense of the imperatives_, and
show plainly that the earth and the waters are not creative but only
sustaining powers, and that they bring forth and sustain only under
the fiat of the Almighty――only _when_ and _as_ God said, Do it. For the
whole tenor of these chapters (Gen. 1 and 2) presents to us God himself
as sole and supreme Creator. In the closest connection with the earth’s
bringing forth the living creature, we are told that _God made_ the
beast of the field. Though the waters brought forth abundantly, yet it
was still God himself who created “every living creature that moveth.”
The agency of the earth in producing grass is presented in a popular
way――the precise, fundamental thought being, that God made the earth
his instrument in bringing forth all things that grow; and in like
manner in sustaining animal life.
If we will, we are at liberty to push our queries and ask not
only _who_ gave life, vegetable and animal, but _how_? In just
_what way_ did he impart that something――be it quality or power or
substance――which we call _life_? and deeper still――What _is_ life? Is
it some subtle form of matter, or only some indefinable force given
to matter; and if this be it, To what special form of matter is it
given? If it be matter, did God sow the tiny germs thereof in the
waters and on the land and leave them to be developed under auspicious
circumstances? Or did he breathe forth from his own infinite life these
life-forces into material things to make plants or animals?――――And
yet again; What was the status of that lump of dead matter (small or
great) at the point when God put into it the life-force and it became
living matter, vegetable or animal? Was the first form of the living
animal the egg, or its microscopic cell; or was it the fully developed
animal, prepared for all life’s functions, and ready to furnish other
life-bearing cells for reproduction? On these points what says the
record? Not much at the utmost. It does seem to assume that Adam began
existence, not an infant in the normally helpless condition of human
birth, but with fully developed powers. Beyond this we look in vain
to the record for light. We only know that the life-force――that subtle
entity which always eludes the most vigilant search――which distances
all the strides of scientific scrutiny――which mocks at chemical
analysis and never comes to our call;――this life-force we simply know
is _from God himself_ and _from God alone_. The original gift of it is
his prerogative and the secret thereof is for evermore with him.
8. In the passage――“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”
(v. 26) there are two special points to be considered:――(a.) In _what
sense_ is man made in the image of God? (b.) The explanation of the
plural pronouns, “_us_” and “_our_”――“Let _us_ make man in _our_ image.”
(a.) Inasmuch as God is a spirit and never to be thought of as having
a corporeal nature――material, tangible to our bodily senses, we are
at once shut off from all reference to man’s physical, corporeal
nature and shut up to his spiritual nature to find in it the points
of this resemblance. Consequently man is made in God’s image as being
gifted like his Maker with intelligence and with capacities for moral
action――beyond comparison the noblest possible elements of being. He
has the sense of moral obligation and the voluntary powers requisite
to fulfill such obligation. He can find his supreme joy in voluntarily
seeking the good of others, even of all other sentient beings, and
in laboring even to the extent of self-sacrifice to promote their
welfare. This is the pre-eminent perfection of God――the very point
ultimately in which man is made in his image, and capable of becoming
more and more Godlike, forever approximating toward his holiness and
blessedness.――――His intellectual powers are only the servants of these
highest and noblest activities of his being.――――(b.) The use of the
plural pronouns――“Let _us_ make, in _our_ image”――has been accounted
for variously. Some would make this plural intensive, corresponding
to the emphatic plural in Hebrew nouns. But there seems to be no
real analogy in the two cases.――――Some make it the plural of dignity
(“pluralis excellentiae”), as an oriental monarch puts forth his edict,
saying “we,” not I. But the great simplicity of this whole narrative
goes against this explanation. Moreover, this usage, so far as it
appears in literature, sacred or profane, is later by many ages than
Moses. Besides, there is no apparent reason why God should assume more
dignity in saying――“Let us make man,” than in saying, Let us make light,
or the sun in the heavens. Indeed, the form of the divine behest――“Let
there be light,” seems to our ideas the more sublime and the more
expressive of God’s supreme dignity.――――I see no explanation of this
plural that is at all satisfactory save that which assumes a reference
to the persons of the Trinity. As one reason for such reference it
may be suggested as certainly not improbable――that the idea of man,
God’s chief work in creation, was coupled with his future history
(all present to the divine mind)――as fallen, yet also as redeemed, and
specially as redeemed _by means of the incarnation of the Son of God in
human flesh_. Supposing this incarnation present to the divine thought,
the significance of this plural would be――Let us proceed to make in our
own image this wonderful being whose nature the eternal Son shall one
day assume――this man who is to bear relations to us so extraordinary,
so wonderful before the angels, so signal before all created minds,
so glorious in its results to the whole moral universe! Have not
_we_――Father, Son and Holy Ghost――a most surpassing interest in the
creation of this being, man!
9. _The relation of Gen. 2: 4–25 to Gen. 1._
Here are two points of some importance to be considered.
(1.) Are the two passages by the same author?
(2.) Do they both speak of the creation of the same first man, _i. e._
the same Adam, or is the Adam of Gen. 2 another and different first
man, brought into being long subsequent to him of Gen. 1: 26–28?
(1.) That the two passages are from different authors has been
maintained on the following grounds.――――(a.) That v. 4――“These are the
generations[8] of the heavens and the earth”――appears like the heading
of a new and distinct portion of history.――――But nothing forbids
that it should be the heading of a new section or chapter of the same
continuous history by the same author, resuming his subject with only
a very comprehensive allusion to the great facts of creation which he
had given in chap. 1, as fully as his plan required. This done he may
proceed to a more full account of the creation of man and the events
of his early history.――――(b.) That the account here differs somewhat
from that in Gen. 1, _e. g._ as to the creation of man, and yet more
especially, the creation of woman.――――But these differences are not
♦discrepancies and are fully accounted for by the scope and design of
this portion, viz. to give the history of the first man and woman in
much more detail.――――(c.) But especially this diversity of authors has
been argued from the different names of God which appear in these two
passages. In chap. 1 and 2: 1–3, the name is simply and exclusively
God (Elohim). In chap. 2: 4–25 and in chap. 3, the name is “the Lord
God” (Jehovah Elohim).――――This difference is indeed a palpable fact,
and has been the theme of an indefinite amount of critical speculation
based for the most part on the utterly groundless assumption that the
same author can not be supposed to have used both these names for God.
Those critics (mostly German) who have flooded their literature with
disquisitions on this subject assume in the outset that none but a
“Jehovist” ever used the name Jehovah, and none but an “Elohist,”
the name Elohim, it being in their view impossible or at least absurd
that the same author should use sometimes one of these names and
sometimes the other――which assumption seems to me supremely arbitrary,
irrational, and uncritical. Authors now use at their option the various
names for God, either for the mere sake of variety, or because in some
connections one seems more euphonious or more significant than another.
Why may not an equal license of choice be accorded to Hebrew writers?
It is unquestionable that the same Hebrew author _does_ use both of
these names for God.――――They made far more account than we of the
various senses of the several names for the Deity. The names Jehovah
and Elohim, were not precisely identical in their suggested ideas,
although both are legitimately used of the one true God. Elohim
suggests that he is the Exalted, Eternal One, the Infinite Creator of
all. This name is therefore specially appropriate in chap. 1. “Jehovah”
conceives of him as the Immutable and ever faithful One, coming into
covenant relation with his people as the Maker and the Fulfiller of
promise. (See remarks on this as God’s memorial name in my Notes on
Hos. 12: 5). Hence as the narrative in Gen. 2 and 3 brings God before
the mind in these special relations to the first human pair and to
the race, this name is here specially appropriate. But lest some
might suppose that this Jehovah is thought of as another God than the
Elohim of chap. 1――the writer uses both names――the Elohim who is also
Jehovah to his rational creature man and especially to all his obedient
trustful people.
(2.) That Gen. 2: 7 relates to the creation of the same first man
as Gen. 1: 26–28, and not of another man ages later, seems to me to
admit of no rational doubt. The inducements to make out two distinct
creations, _i. e._ of two different first men, come from the supposed
proof of the existence of man on the earth ages before the Adam
of antediluvian history. I propose to treat below this question of
_the antiquity of man_. Let it suffice here to say that we must not
mutilate the record or disregard the laws of philology for the sake
of making the sacred narrative conform to theories which are yet
rather assumptions than scientifically proven facts.――――As to the
correspondences and variations in the two narratives of the creation
of man, the first makes prominent his being created in the image of
God: the second assumes this in the fact that God gave him law in Eden;
in the knowledge of the lower animals which his naming them assumes;
in the superior dignity which the Lord’s bringing them before him for
names implies; and in the fact that among them all no helpmeet for
him could be found. His nature ranked far above theirs.――――The earlier
narrative says briefly that God “created them male and female.” The
later one expands this fact much more fully and makes it the foundation
for the law of marriage. The later record treats with the utmost
brevity the main part of the six days’ work and must have been written
with the previous record before the mind, to be a supplementary and
continuative history, designed to bring out prominently the creation of
woman and the scenes of the garden, its moral trial and ultimately its
results.――――The supposition of a different Adam from that of the former
record could never have occurred to the Hebrew mind, and therefore can
not be accepted as the sense of the passage.
10. _Invariability of “kind”_ in the vegetable and animal kingdoms.
The record in Genesis sets forth that God created grass, herb, and
then fruit tree; “each after his kind;” also reptiles, fish, fowl and
land-animals, each “after his kind;” and finally man “in the image
of God.” Over against this the modern theory which bears the name of
Darwin holds that all the animals of our globe “have descended from at
most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser
number;”[9] and moreover, that man has in this respect no pre-eminence
above the beasts, but has descended in the same line with them from
some one of the four or five progenitors of the great animal kingdom.
More still he says in the same connection――“Analogy would lead me one
step further, viz. to the belief that _all animals and plants_ have
descended from some one prototype.”――――These four or five progenitors
of the whole animal kingdom correspond substantially with what Webster
calls the five sub-kingdoms, viz. Vertebrates, Articulates, Mollusks,
Radiates, and Protozoans. The technical classification under these
sub-kingdoms into Classes, Orders, Families, Genera, and Species
becomes of little or no account in any discussion of Darwin’s system,
for his theory of “descent with modifications” is reckless of all
these lines of demarkation, traveling over and through them all without
finding the least obstruction.――――Let it be distinctly understood
therefore that though Mr. Darwin makes frequent use of the word
“species,” and entitles one of his volumes――“_The Origin of Species_,”
yet his theory takes a far wider range than the question whether
“species are variable.” In his view not only are species variable,
intermixing at will and passing from one into another, but genera also
and families and orders and classes――not to say also each of the great
sub-kingdoms of the animal world;[10] even the distinction between
animals and vegetables fades away under his analogical argument. Hence
the issue between Darwin and Moses is relieved of whatever uncertainty
hangs over the dividing line between species and varieties, and may
fitly be limited to these two points; the invariability of “_kind_”
in the sense of Moses in Genesis; and the distinct origination of man.
Under Mr. Darwin’s system “community of descent” and not “some unknown
plan of creation” is “the hidden bond” which unites together all living
existences of our globe. “Looking to some unknown plan of creation”
(in his own words) has prevented the truly scientific classification
and history of the forms of life in our world. The Bible has stood
in the way of the growth of science.――――Under his system the changes
by natural descent from any given parent to its offspring, taken
individually, have been exceedingly small. Hence the theory requires an
indefinitely long time from the point of the original creation of the
four or five primordial forms to the present status of living things,
vegetable and animal, in our world.――――The above remarks will suffice
for a very general introduction to Mr. Darwin’s system.
Wishing to bring this discussion within the narrowest possible limits
and yet do justice to Darwin, to Genesis, and to the truth, I propose
to state briefly his main arguments; then comprehensively my rejoinder
to them severally in their order, and then subjoin some general
considerations bearing upon his entire theory.
1. Darwin holds that by natural law the offspring vary, though slightly,
from the parent, and hence, that, given an indefinitely long time, he
has any desired amount of variation.
2. When animals multiply beyond the means of subsistence, there
ensues a struggle for life in which the strongest and most favored
in circumstances are the victors and survive. This law which he calls
“Natural Selection” (or “the survival of the fittest”) works a gradual
improvement in the race. A twin argument with this comes from “sexual
selection,” the amount of which is that in the case of some at least
of the animal races, there arises a struggle among the males for
the possession of the females, in which struggle the most attractive
in beauty or in song, or the champions in fight, being the victors,
perpetuate the race and thus improve it. This law of the animal races
(“sexual selection”) works precisely in the same line with the law
called “natural selection.” It may serve therefore to provide a little
more of the same thing, but no new or different product whatever. Hence
it does not seem to call for a distinct refutation.
3. Homologous anatomical structure is found to obtain very extensively
among widely diverse races, _e. g._ in the arm of man, the fore-leg of
the monkey and indeed of all quadrupeds, in the wing of the bird and
the fin of the fish. This indicates a common parentage.
4. Some animals which, fully grown, differ from each other widely, are
scarcely distinguishable in the embryo. Hence he infers their common
origin.
5. The fact of rudimentary organs is assumed to be _historic_,
proving that some ancient progenitor used them, and that they have
gradually passed out of use. This is held to prove that great changes
of structure come of genealogical descent.
BRIEF REPLIES.
1. To Darwin’s first law, viz. that the offspring always vary though
slightly from the parent, and therefore, given indefinite time, he has
any desired amount of variation, I reply that this law of variation
becomes practically worthless for his theory, because these variations
from parent to offspring run in all conceivable directions and not in
the one definite direction required for his purpose, _i. e._ toward a
higher grade of perfection, or [which his argument requires] toward a
new form of animal life. For example, there is always some change in
the human countenance from parent to child. Yet who does not know that
those changes run in every possible direction and not in one uniform
line of progress or advance, as from monkey toward man and from man
toward angel? For another example we may take the shape of the skull
and of the brain――evermore differing slightly from parent to offspring
yet not by any means on one given line. The skulls of Egyptian mummies
entombed three thousand years ago do not differ appreciably from those
of the Copts (their lineal descendants) of to-day, _i. e._ are no more
pithecoid――ape-like. On Darwin’s theory three thousand years backward
ought surely to approximate toward the ape; otherwise these variations
are fruitless. This law of successive genealogical changes amounts
to nothing for his argument unless the changes consent to _come into
line_ so that their results shall actually _accumulate_ with the lapse
of ages. The fatal lack in the argument is――no husbandry of these
infinitesimal changes――not the least perceivable accumulation.
A second branch of my reply suggests that Mr. Darwin _misinterprets
this law of nature_, viz. perpetual variation from parent to offspring.
It is doubtless a law, but Darwin has quite missed its divinely
ordained purpose――which is to indicate the relationship between parent
and child on the one hand, and yet maintain individual identity on
the other. The resemblances answer the former purpose; the differences,
the latter. Beings constituted to bear personal responsibilities so
momentous as those of man must be so organized that every one can
identify his own individuality, lest one man be hung for some other
man’s crime.
2. His second argument comes from the law of “natural selection”――“the
survival of the fittest”――with which it is convenient to couple the
precisely similar law of “sexual selection”――the ascendency of the
smartest over their inferiors, to perpetuate the race. Here a specific
case will suffice both to illustrate and to refute. The principle of
“natural selection” has a fair chance for itself in the spawn of the
shad. It is no doubt true that none but the smartest out of the many
thousand spawned at once survive so as to become parents in their turn.
Yet who believes that these smartest shad are becoming sturgeon or
sharks or whales by this law of progress? Are they actually found to
be any thing but shad after never so many hundred generations? It may
seem superfluous to push the still more pertinent question――Are these
smartest and most ambitious shad really found to be working up out of
their watery element, I _i. e._ working up into ducks or geese, or into
blackbirds and crows? For just this is Mr. Darwin’s theory――the line
of ascent running up from fish to fowl; from fowl to mammal and so on
up to man. The questions here suggested are therefore only the fair
and scientific test and touchstone of his argument. A law which has
not made its results even perceptible since the birth of the first shad
known to human history must be regarded as scientifically worthless.
My second remark here is that Darwin errs not in finding these to
be laws of nature――“natural selection,” “sexual selection”――but in
interpreting them, I _i. e._ in detecting their divinely ordained
design and their actual working and product. I suggest that these
laws, apparently made for the improvement of races, may be requisite
to enable them to hold their own against the ever present tendency
to degeneracy. Life is a perpetual struggle against death. The
life-principle finds an antagonist force in chemical law which is
evermore hurrying organized matter back to its inorganic state. Still
further, be it considered, races excessively prolific would rapidly
lose vitality but for these laws of natural and sexual selection. We
may therefore rationally assume that these laws are simply forms of the
general principle of _self-preservation_, and not a purposed provision
for lifting a lower race up to the plane of a higher.
3. As to homologous anatomical structure, _e. g._ of the arm, fore-leg,
wing, fin, paddle――there are abundant reasons for its existence aside
from the assumption of Darwin that it proves a common ancestry for
man, monkey, calf, bull-dog, eagle, toad and whale. The ball and socket
joint at man’s shoulder is the perfect thing for use. Equally so is
the same kind of joint for the fore-leg of a horse, the wing of an
eagle or the fin of a fish. God made the anatomy of man’s arm perfect.
What forbids that he should make an equally perfect machinery for the
motions and various uses of other animals? The reason of this uniformly
perfect machinery is found in the wisdom and benevolence of the Great
Maker, and proves nothing in favor of a common descent from some one
parent, _i. e._ it proves nothing _unless_ you may assume that God
could not have made two kinds of animals with homologous anatomical
structures――two kinds, each with machinery perfect for its purposes.
4. As to the similar appearance of the embryo in very dissimilar races,
there may be differences in the embryo which no microscope and no human
test have yet discovered. The force of this argument seems to me to
come rather from ignorance than from knowledge.
5. As to rudimentary organs, their history is very obscure and their
design also. I suggest that Mr. Darwin begin with the history and the
reason for the rudimentary organs which appear on the bosom of the
male in the species man. When he shall have mastered this problem――the
history and the reason――we can afford to consider his argument
therefrom in proof that man has a common ancestry with whatsoever
other animal he may find having this male organ, not rudimentary but
in full activity. Probably he will prove that man must have come down
by descent from that class of animals which economically combine the
two sexes in one and the same individual!
* * * * *
_Some objections of a more general bearing upon Darwin’s scheme._
1. His system requires indefinite, almost infinite, ages of time back
of the Silurian strata, _i. e._ back of the oldest known remains of
life, vegetable or animal, on our globe.[11] That is, he requires for
the development of his system an almost infinite extension of time
back beyond the earliest traces or proofs of life, vegetable or animal,
on our globe. And this, he would have men believe, is the perfection
of modern Science!――a science which pushes its sphere _in time_ back
indefinitely beyond all known facts upon the bare evidence of theories
and assumed analogies!――――But even this gives not the full force of the
objection made by true Science to his system. It is not merely that he
builds upon assumed facts where no known facts are――which is building
upon nothing――but where no facts _can be_, which is building not merely
upon negatives but upon impossibilities. There is no room for his
assumed facts where he locates them. If Geology proves any thing it
proves that vegetable and animal life commenced on our planet as soon
as the planet was ready and _not sooner_, and that we have the remains
of the earliest living organisms in the oldest fossil-bearing rocks.
His scheme is therefore conditioned upon impossibilities and must be
false.
2. His system requires a close succession of animal races, differing
from parent to offspring by only the least possible amount, with no
leaps, no gaps whatever. Thus from monkey up to man the system calls
for at least a few scores not to say hundreds of intermediate links.
Where are they? His suffering theory cries out for their support: there
is no answer. The earth’s surface responds not to the call; even “the
depths say――They are not in me!” From the original monad up to man
all the way through at least the long line of the vertebrates――reptile,
fish, bird, mammal――that is to say, through the serpent tribe; the
fish kingdom; the swallow, blackbird and eagle, and especially through
the quadruped family――the horse and camel and particularly the monkey
household――through all this remarkable line of ancestry, Darwin’s
system demands a very gradual upward march by the shortest possible
stages of progress, so that the intermediate links must be barely
less than infinite. It certainly ought to be very easy to trace a
genealogical line so well represented. It is estimated that thirty
thousand fossil species have been recognized. How many of these
can be formed into this genealogical line from the aboriginal
vertebrate――supposed to be aquatic and Ascidian――up to man? Has
Mr. Darwin set himself to marshal this proof-line of witnesses to his
system? No. Not only has he not _done_ this very appropriate thing, but
he has _said_ little, quite too little on this most vital point, in the
way of showing what could be done. He reiterates that the geological
records are very imperfect. Doubtless they quite fail to come up
to meet the demands of his system. It is the fatal weakness of his
theory that just where it should find facts in animal history for its
support, they are not there! He himself admits that if you believe in
a tolerably full showing of animal history in the geological records of
our globe, you must disbelieve his system.[12] He needs quite another
geological record for his proofs.
3. His argument is essentially _materialistic_. In his reasonings and
assumptions, all there is of mind in man or any animal is _of the_
brain and the nervous organism. All animals have wants and are moved by
a sense of want to supply them. This begets self-originated activity,
and this activity involves thought――yet only as a function of the
material brain. Most of the animals are social by nature: hence another
member in this family of wants and enjoyments, begetting another class
of impulses and activities. But whether it be man or monkey, dog or
kitten, these activities and these plans and thoughts underlying them,
come of the nervous organism, of which the brain is the center. On
his theory and in his words (Origin of Species, pp. 93, 94) “the moral
sense is fundamentally identical with the social instinct.” Hence it
becomes the burden of his argument that the brain in man and in monkey
is homologous――almost perfectly the same in shape, in quality, and in
its bony incasement. He seems to be quite unaware that there may be
something in the human brain that a twelve-inch rule will not measure,
nor the nicest made scales weigh, nor the sharpest chemical tests
discern. It seems never to have occurred to him that even if the brain
of man and of monkey weighed in the same notch, fitted into the same
cast, responded alike to the same chemical tests (which, however, is
a good way from being the case), yet there might be material qualities
in the human brain too subtle and ethereal to be appreciable under any
known physical test; and much more still might be a spirit inhabiting
the human brain and working through it which the monkey has not.
“That the breath of the Almighty hath given to man understanding” is
a fact higher than the range of Darwin’s philosophy. The _prima facie_
probability thence arising that God would fit up a special material
organism for the one only mind made in his own image seems to have
entirely escaped Mr. Darwin’s notice. The record by Moses on this
point――that God created man by a special act, entirely independent of
all other forms of life, vegetable or animal, commends itself to the
good sense of most men as more than probable, as indeed supremely
rational and unquestionably true.
4. It is but a natural result of his materialistic system that he
should have no adequate conception of the pre-eminent glory of _man’s
intellectual and moral nature_. With great ingenuity he labors to make
it appear that Tray feels shame and guilt and even the moral sense of
oughtness――all the same in kind with those of man. He does not say in
definite words that the best developed dog is capable of knowing his
divine Creator and of rendering to Him the obedience, love, and homage
of an adoring heart――is capable of becoming consciously a trustful
child of God and a temple of the Holy Ghost. He does not quite say this;
indeed he does not seem to appreciate these exalted functions of a soul
made in God’s image, or to think them worthy of particular notice. It
is a capital fault in his reasoning that he ignores almost entirely
these highest, noblest activities of man’s nature. Thus ignoring these
most vital points which lift man so high above all the lower animals,
how can it be expected that his reasoning upon the material relations
of man and beast should be otherwise than lame and fallacious?
5. Scientifically it is a sufficient condemnation of this system that
it is compelled to fritter away the fundamental law of species which
God fixed, not upon its surface but deep in its nature, viz. that
hybrids shall be infertile――incapable of propagation. The crossing
and consequent interblending of distinct species, genera, families,
and orders, if by their nature possible, would long ages ago have
thrown the animal world into inextricable confusion, effacing every
line of distinction. Such a result must have been simply fatal to all
scientific classification. If Mr. Darwin’s theories had been taken as
the divine plan, the world would have had more grades and orders of
animal life than there have been days since the first monad came into
being.
6. The scheme is in many points revolting to the common sense and sober
convictions of men. Some of its assumptions lie close upon the border
of the ridiculous. Think of the stride upward from vegetable life to
animal――the plant pulling its roots out from the soil and beginning to
use them for legs! And of the very analogous aspirations and endeavors
of the fish to live out of water――to push out his fins into wings;
convert his superabundant fat into muscle; expand his lung and soar off
in mid-heaven――the very eagle himself! The effort to tone down these
absurdities within the limits of sober sense by simply taking it little
by little, spreading the change over a few thousands or millions of
years and subdividing the work among a vast number of generations may
help to confuse some minds and blunt the edge of its absurdity; but
soberly considered, the absurdity is still there. Hence we may note the
fact that most writers seem to find themselves quite unable to discuss
this theory to any extent without sliding, perhaps unconsciously, from
sober argument into ridicule and irony.
I am well aware that, to abate if not nullify the force of this
apparent absurdity, it will be said that along the actual line between
plant life and animal life, the vegetable and animal kingdoms are
actually brought closely side by side; that plant life shades off by
almost imperceptible stages till it comes so near to the lowest forms
of animal life that the dividing line is scarcely if at all perceptible.
This fact no scientist disputes. The real question turns upon its
purposed object or ultimate reason. Is it, as Mr. Darwin’s theory
assumes, to bridge over this dividing line and facilitate the march of
“genealogical descent with variations” across what else would be a bad
if not an impassable gulf?
This being the claim set up by Mr. Darwin, I answer――
(a.) The proper test of this theory is simple: Is there any “_march_”
here at all――_i. e._ any _progressive movement_ from one form of
vegetable life to another, from lower forms to higher, or as this case
seems to demand, from higher forms to lower, for along this dividing
line we have the lowest known forms of both vegetable life and animal?
Is this army of the lowest vegetable species and of animal life-forms,
down in this dark microscopic valley, really _on the march_, or is it
absolutely moveless and fixed? Are the flora on the vegetable side of
the line really, doffing their plant-life uniform and regalia, and
emerging on the other side of the line into fauna to swell the hosts
of animal-life forms? This it would seem must be the test for the proof
or disproof of Darwin’s theory.
(b.) But again, I would reply in this as in other points; Mr. Darwin
misses not so much the facts of nature as the ultimate reason of those
facts. What is the ultimate reason for the remarkable fact that the
plant kingdom crowds itself so closely upon the confines of the animal?
Not, I answer, to facilitate the transit of generations from the one
province to the other. Of such transit there is not the first shade
of evidence. But the reason is that the Great Author of nature out
of his infinite resources has _filled both kingdoms perfectly full
of life-forms_ so that no territory between their respective domains
lies unoccupied. It is simply a fecundity of life-forms or species,
analogous to the fecundity of living representatives under most of
these species――all alike traceable to the infinite resources of the
Creator’s wisdom and power.
7. Finally, this theory is reckless of the authority of revelation. It
makes no effort to reconcile its doctrines with the testimony of the
Scriptures. Especially on the great points of the creation of man――as
to his body, independent of all other animals; as to his spirit,
made in the very image of God; and as to woman, formed from man――this
system stands in absolute antagonism with God’s word.――――It should
not surprise us, therefore, that the common sense of mankind (with
rare exceptions) revolts from its absurdities. It should not surprise
us that Science――the true Science which builds, not on unsupported
assumptions but on ascertained and incontestable facts――should disown
these theories and speculations. True Science, here as elsewhere, now
and forever, is at one with Revelation; and these pillars of the great
temple of Truth are in not the least danger of being shaken.