Earth was accordingly commanded to bring forth the living creature after
his kind,--beast and cattle and creeping thing. Unlike that first
Creation which was of all things out of nothing, the work of the six
days was a creation of new things out of old.--To the Creation of Man,
His crowning work, GOD is declared to have come with deliberation; as
well as to have announced His purpose with significant solemnity of
allusion. "Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness; and let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over the cattle." "And the LORD GOD formed Man of the dust of
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man
became a living soul."--Transferred to the Garden of GOD'S planting in
Eden, to dress it and to keep it, (for inactivity is no part of
bliss!)--and brought into solemn covenant with GOD,--to Adam, GOD brings
the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, of set purpose that
GOD may "see _what he will call them_:" a wondrous tribute, truly, to
the perfection of understanding in which Man had been created!... "And
the LORD GOD caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He
took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the
rib which the LORD GOD had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought
her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh
of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of
man. Therefore shall a Man leave his Father and his Mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." ... Man's creation
was the crowning wonder, to which all else had, in a manner, tended....
Truly when we think of him,--newly made in GOD'S image,--surveying this
world, yet fresh with the dew of its birth, and beautiful as it came
from the Hands of its Maker,--it seems scarcely the language of poetry
that then "the morning stars sang together and all the sons of GOD
shouted for joy[292]."
I have preferred thus to complete the history of Man's Creation; which
presents us with the primal institution of all,--that, namely, of
Marriage.--"On the seventh Day, GOD rested from all His work which He
had made; and blessed the seventh Day, and sanctified it; because that
in it He had rested from all His work."--This then is the other great
primæval institution; more ancient than the Fall,--the Law of the
Sabbath;--which in the sacred record is brought into such august
prominence. And never do we ponder over that record, without
apprehension at what may be the possible results of relaxing the
stringency of enactments which would seem to be, to our nature, as the
very twin pillars of the Temple,--its establishment and its
strength[293].
Now, on a review of all this wondrous History, I profess myself at a
loss to see what special note of impracticability it presents that I
should hesitate to embrace it, in the plain natural sense of the words,
with both the arms of my heart. That it is not such an account of the
manner of the Creation as you or I should have ourselves invented, or
anticipated, or on questionable testimony have felt disposed to
accept,--is very little to the purpose. Apart from Revelation, we could
really have known nothing at all about the works of the Days of the
first Great Week. Ejaculations therefore concerning the strangeness of
the record, and cavils at the phraseology in which it is propounded, are
simply irrelevant.
There exists however a vague suspicion after all that the beginning of
Genesis is a vision, or an allegory, or a parable,--or anything you
please, except true History. It is hard to imagine _why_. If there be a
book in the whole Bible which purports to be a plain historical
narrative of actual events, _that_ book is the book of Genesis. In
nine-tenths of its details, it is as _human_, and as matter of fact, as
any book of Biography or History that ever was penned. _Why_ the first
page of it is to be torn out, treated as a myth or an allegory, and in
short explained away,--I am utterly at a loss to discover. There is no
difference in the style. Long since has the theory that Genesis is
composed of distinguishable fragments, been exploded[294]. There is no
pretence for calling this first chapter poetry, and treating it by a
distinct set of canons. It is a pure _Revelation_, I admit: but I have
yet to learn why the revelation of things intelligible, where the method
of speech is not such as to challenge a figurative interpretation, is
not to be taken literally: unless indeed it has been discovered that a
narrative must of necessity be fabulous if the transactions referred to
are unusually remote and extraordinary. The events recorded are unique
in their character,--true. But this happens from the very necessity of
the case. The creation of a world, to the inhabitants of that world is
an unique event.
But we are assured that some of the statements in this first chapter of
Genesis are palpably untrue;--as when it is said that the Sun, Moon, and
Stars were created on the fourth Day,--which, it is urged, is a physical
impossibility: for what forces else sustained, and kept this world a
sphere? The phenomena of Geology again prove to demonstration, it is
said, that the structure of the earth is infinitely more ancient than
the Mosaic record states: and also that there must have been Light, and
sunshine too, at that remote epoch,--which fostered each various form of
animal and vegetable life.--Further, we are assured that it is
unphilosophical to speak of the creation of Light before the creation of
the Sun.--Then, the simplicity of the language is objected to:--"the
greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the
night:"--"dividing the light from the darkness:"--"waters above the
firmament:" and so forth. The very ascription of speech to GOD, gives
offence.--Again, some raw conceit of the advanced state of the human
intellect rejects with scorn the notion of Adam oracularly bestowing
names on GOD'S creatures. Finally, the creation of Eve, moulded by GOD
from the side of the Protoplast, is declared to savour so plainly of the
mythical, allegorical, or figurative; that the narrative must be allowed
to be altogether unworthy of such wits as ours.
But we have seen that _the creation_ of Sun, Moon, and Stars is _not_
assigned to the fourth day--but to "_the beginning_"--The antiquity of
this Earth we affirm to be a circumstance left wholly untouched by the
Mosaic record: or, if touched, it is rather confirmed; for, before
beginning to describe the work of the first Day, Moses describes the
state of "the Earth" by two Hebrew words of most rare occurrence[295],
which denote that it had become waste and empty: while "the deep" is
spoken of as being already in existence.--There is nothing at all
unphilosophical in speaking of Light as existing apart from the Sun.
Rather would it be unphilosophical to speak of the Sun as the source and
centre of Light.--I see nothing more childish again in the mention of
"the greater and the lesser light," than in the talk of "sun-rise" and
"sun-set,"--which is to this hour the language of the Observatory.--As
for attributing speech to GOD, I am content to remind you of Hooker's
explanation of the design of Moses therein, throughout the present
Chapter. "Was this only his intent," (he asks,) "to signify the infinite
greatness of GOD'S power by the easiness of His accomplishing such
effects without travail, pain, or labour? Surely it seemeth that Moses
had herein besides this a further purpose; namely, first to teach that
GOD did not work as a necessary, but a voluntary agent, intending
beforehand and decreeing with Himself that which did outwardly proceed
from Him; secondly, to shew that GOD did then institute a Law natural to
be observed by Creatures, and therefore according to the manner of laws,
the institution thereof is described, as being established by solemn
injunction. His commanding those things to be which are, and to be in
such sort as they are, to keep that tenure and course which they do,
importeth _the establishment of Nature's Law_.... And as it cometh to
pass in a kingdom rightly ordered, that after a Law is once published,
it presently takes effect far and wide, all states framing themselves
thereunto; even so let us think that it fareth in the natural course of
the world. Since the time that GOD did first proclaim the edicts of His
Law upon it, Heaven and Earth have hearkened unto His voice, and their
labour hath been to do His will[296]."--"_He spake the word_, and they
were made: He commanded and they were created. He hath made them fast
for ever and ever. _He hath given them a law which shall not be
broken[297]._"
Whether or no South overestimated Adam's knowledge, I will not pretend
to decide: but I am _convinced_ the truth lies more with him than with
certain modern wits, when he says concerning our first Father:--"He came
into the world a philosopher; which sufficiently appeared by his writing
the nature of things upon their names.... His understanding could almost
pierce into future contingents; his conjectures improving even to
prophecy, or the certainties of prediction. Till his Fall, he was
ignorant of nothing but sin.... There was then no struggling with
memory, no straining for invention. His faculties were ready upon the
first summons.... We may collect the excellency of the understanding
_then_, by the glorious remainders of it now: and guess at the
stateliness of the building by the magnificence of its ruins.... And
certainly that must _needs_ have been very glorious, the decays of which
are so admirable. He that is comely when old and decrepit, surely was
_very_ beautiful when he was young! An Aristotle was but the rubbish of
an Adam; and Athens but the rudiments of Paradise[298]."
And lastly, as for so much of the Divine narrative as concerns the
Creation of the first human pair, I am content to remind you of a
circumstance which in addressing believers ought to be of overwhelming
weight: namely, that our SAVIOUR and His Apostles, again and again,
refer to the narrative before us in a manner which precludes the notion
of its being anything but severest History. Our SAVIOUR CHRIST even
resyllables the words spoken by the Protoplast in Paradise; and therein
finds a sanction for the indissoluble nature of the marriage bond[299].
I take leave to add that even the respectful attempt to make Genesis
accommodate itself to the supposed requirements of Geology, by boldly
assuming that the days of Creation were each a thousand years
long,--seems inadmissible. Even were such an hypothesis allowed, nothing
would be gained: for _Geology_ does not by any means require us to
believe that after a thousand years of misty light, there came a
thousand years of ocean deposit: and again, a thousand years of moist
and dry, during which vegetable life alone prevailed: and then a
thousand years of sun, moon, and stars. The very notion seems
absurd[300].--But, what is more to the purpose, such an interpretation
seems to stultify the whole narrative. A _week_ is described. _Days_ are
spoken of,--each made up of an evening and a morning. GOD'S cessation
from the work of Creation on the Seventh Day is emphatically adduced as
the reason of the Fourth Commandment,--the mysterious precedent for
_our_ observance of one day of rest at the end of every six days of
toil,--"_for_ in six days" (it is declared,) "the LORD made Heaven and
Earth[301]." You may not play tricks with language plain as this, and
elongate a week until it shall more than embrace the span of all
recorded Time.
Neither am I able to see what would be gained by proposing to prolong
the Days of Creation indefinitely, so as to consider them as
representing vast and unequal periods; (though I am far from presuming
to speak of _any_ pious conjecture with disrespect.) My inveterate
objection to this scheme is again twofold. (1) The best-ascertained
requirements of Geology are _not satisfied_ by a _sixfold_ division of
phenomena corresponding with what is recorded in Genesis of the Six Days
of Creation. (2) This method does even greater violence to the letter of
the inspired narrative than the scheme of reconcilement last hinted at.
I dare not believe that what has been spoken will altogether meet the
requirements of minds of a certain stamp. A gentleman, who certainly
has the advantage of appearing in good company, has lately favoured the
world with the information that the first chapter of Genesis is the
uninspired speculation of a Hebrew astronomer, who was bent on giving
"the best and most probable account that could be then given of GOD'S
universe[302]." The Hebrew writer asserts indeed "solemnly and
unhesitatingly that for which he must have known that he had no
authority[303];" but we need not therefore "attribute to him wilful
misrepresentation, or consciousness of asserting that which he knew not
to be true[304]." If this "early speculator" "asserted as facts what he
knew in reality only as probabilities," it was because he was not
harassed by the scruples which result "from our modern habits of
thought, and from the modesty of assertion which the spirit of true
science has taught us[305]." The history of this important discovery and
of others of a similar nature, (which, by the way, are one and all
announced with the same "modesty of assertion" as what goes before,)
would appear to be this.--Natural science has lately woke up from her
long slumber of well nigh sixty ages; and with that immodesty for which
youth and inexperience have ever been proverbial, she is impatient to
measure her crude theories against the sure revelation of GOD'S Word.
Where the two differ, she assumes that of course the inspired Oracles
are wrong, and her own wild guesses right. She is even indecent in her
eagerness to invalidate the testimony of that Book which has been the
confidence and stay of GOD'S Servants in all ages. On any evidence, or
on none, she is prepared to hurl to the winds the august record of
Creation. Inconveniently enough for the enemies of GOD'S Word, every
advance in Geological Science does but serve to corroborate the record
that the Creation _of Man_ is not to be referred to a remoter period
than some six thousand years ago. But of this important fact we hear but
little. On the other hand, no trumpet is thought loud enough to bruit
about _a suspicion_ that Man may be a creature of yet remoter date.
Thus, fragments of burnt brick found fifty feet below the surface of the
banks of the Nile, were hailed as establishing Man's existence in Egypt
more than 13,000 years; until it was unhappily remembered that _burnt_
brick in Egypt belongs to the period of the Roman dominion.--More
recently, implements of chipped flint found, with some bones, in a bed
of gravel, have been eagerly appealed to as a sufficient indication that
the Creation of Man is to be referred to a period at least 10,000 years
more remote than is fixed by the Chronology of the Bible.... Brick and
flint! a precious fulcrum, truly, for a theory which is to upset the
World!
But I shall be told,--with that patronizing air of conscious
intellectual superiority which a certain class of gentlemen habitually
assume on such occasions,--that I mistake the case completely: that no
wish is entertained in any quarter to invalidate the truth of
Revelation, or to shake Men's confidence in the Bible as the Word of
GOD: that it has been the way of narrow-minded bigots in all ages, and
is so in this, to raise an outcry of the Bible being in danger, and so
to rouse the prejudices of mankind: that the error lies in claiming for
the Bible an office which it nowhere claims for itself, and which it was
never meant to fulfil: that the harmony between the Bible and Nature is
complete, but that it is not _such_ a harmony as is sometimes imagined:
that the Bible is not a scientific book, and was never meant to teach
Natural Science: that it was designed to inculcate moral goodness, and
is clearly full of unscientific statements, which it is the office of
Science to correct; and, if need be, to remove. All this, and much
beside, I shall be told. Such fallacious platitudes have been put forth
by men who are neither Divines nor Philosophers, _ad nauseam_, within
the last forty or fifty years.
Now, in reply, we have a few words to say. The profession of
faithfulness we hail with pleasure: the imputation of imbecility we
accept with unconcern. But when gentlemen tell us that the Bible was
never meant to teach Science; and that wherever its statements are
opposed to the clear inductions of reason, they must give way; and so
forth: we take the liberty of retaliating their charge. We inform them
that _they_ really mistake the case entirely. When they go on to tell us
that they believe in the truth of the Bible as sincerely as ourselves:
that its harmonies are complete, but not such as we imagine; and so
forth;--we venture to add that they really know not what they assert. In
plain language, they talk nonsense. Of a simple unbeliever we know at
least what to think. But what is to be thought of persons who disbelieve
just whatever they dislike, and yet profess to be just as hearty
believers as you or I?
That the Mosaic record of Creation has been thought at variance with
certain deductions of modern observation, is not surprising: seeing that
the deductions of each fresh period have been at variance with the
deductions of that which went before; and seeing that the theory of one
existing school is inconsistent with the theory of another.--That the
Bible is not, in any sense, _a scientific treatise_ again, is simply a
truism: (who ever supposed that it was?). Moses writes "the history of
the Human Race as regards Sin and Salvation: not a cosmical survey of
all the successive phenomena of the globe[306]." Further, that he
employs popular phraseology when speaking of natural phenomena, is a
statement altogether undeniable. But such remarks are a gross fallacy,
and a mere deceit, if it be meant that the statements in the Bible
partake of the imperfection of knowledge incident to a rude and
primitive state of society. To revive an old illustration,--Is a
philosopher therefore a child, because, in addressing children, he uses
language adapted to their age and capacity? GOD speaks in the First
Chapter of Genesis,--_hath_ spoken for three and thirty hundred
years,--as unto children: but there is no risk therefore that in what He
saith, He either hath deceived, or will deceive mankind.
You are never to forget the great fundamental position, that the Bible
claims to be the Word of GOD; and that _GOD'S Word can never contradict
or be contradicted by GOD'S works_. We therefore reject, _in limine_,
all insinuations about the "unscientific" character of the Bible. A
scientific man does not cease to be scientific because he does not
choose always to express himself scientifically. Again. A man of
universal Science does not forfeit his scientific reputation, if, in the
course of a _moral_ or _religious_ argument, his allusions to _natural_
phenomena are expressed in the ordinary language of mankind. Even so,
Almighty God, "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge[307],"--speaking to us by the mouth of His holy Prophets,
never, that I am aware, teaches them to speak a strictly scientific
language,--_except when the Science of Theology is being discoursed of_.
On other occasions, He suffers their language to be like yours or mine.
"Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon[308]:"--"The clouds drop down the
dew[309]:"--"The wind bloweth where it listeth[310]."--Not so when
_Theology_ is the subject. _Then_ the language becomes scientific.
"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into
the Kingdom of GOD[311]:"--"Take, eat, This is My Body[312]:"--"Before
Abraham was, I am[313]:"--"I and the FATHER are One[314]."
But there is this great difference between the cases supposed. A man of
universal scientific attainment will be less strong in one subject than
another: and in the course of his _Geological_ allusions, if
_Mechanical_ Science be his forte,--in the course of his _Metaphysical_
allusions, if _Mathematical_ Science be his proper department,--he may
easily err. Above all, the limits of the knowledge of unassisted Man
must infallibly be those of the age in which he lives. But, with the
Ancient of Days, it is not so. _He_ at least _cannot_ err. Nothing that
man has ever discovered by laborious induction was not known to Him from
the beginning: nothing that _He_ hath ever commissioned His servants to
deliver, will be found inconsistent with the anterior facts of History.
"He that _made_ the eye, shall _He_ not see[315]?" The records of
Creation then _cannot_ be incorrect. The course of Man's history _must_
be that which, speaking by the mouth of His Prophets, GOD hath
described.
"I never said the contrary," is the reply. "All I say is that you
interpret the records of Creation wrongly: and that you are disposed to
lay greater stress on the historical accuracy of the Bible than the
narrative will bear."
O but, sir, whoever you may be who censure me thus, let me in all
kindness warn you of the pit, at the very edge whereof you stand!
Far be it from such an one as the preacher to assume that he so
apprehends the First Chapter of Genesis, that if an Angel were to turn
interpreter, he might not convince me of more than one misapprehension
in matters of detail. But of this, at least, I am _quite_ certain; that
when I find it recorded that GOD took counsel about Man's Creation: and
made him in "His own image," and "breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life," whereby man became "a living soul:" and further, when I find
it stated that Adam bestowed names upon all creatures: and spake
oracularly of his spouse:--I am _certain_, I say, when I read such
things, that GOD intended me to believe that Man was created with a
Godlike understanding, and with the perfect fruition of the primæval
speech. Further, I boldly assert that he who could prove the
contradictory, would make the Bible, even as a Theological Book, nothing
worth, to you and me.
The same must be said of the Bible chronology. And here I will adopt the
words of one who is justly entitled to be listened to in this place; and
who must at least be allowed to be a competent judge of the matter, for
he made Chronology his province. Mr. Clinton says:--"Those who imagine
themselves at liberty to enlarge the time [which elapsed from the
Creation to the Deluge, and from the Deluge to the Birth of Abraham,] to
an indefinite amount,--mistake the nature of the question. The
uncertainty here is not an uncertainty arising from want of testimony:
(like that which occurs in the early chronology of Greece, and of many
other countries; when the times are uncertain because no evidence is
preserved.) ... The uncertainty here is of a peculiar character,
belonging to this particular case. The evidence exists, but in a double
form; and we have to decide which is the authentic and genuine copy. But
if the one is rejected, the other is established:" the difference
between the two being exactly 1,250 years.--Men are free to _reject_ the
evidence, to be sure; but we defy them to _explain it away_. The
chronological details of the Bible are as emphatically set down as
anything can be; and,--(with the exception of a few particulars, chiefly
in the Book of Kings, which are to the record what misprints are to a
printed book,)--they are entirely consistent; and hang perfectly well
together. Let us not be told, then, that we entertain groundless
apprehensions for the authority of GOD'S Word when we hear it proposed
to refer the Creation of Man to a period of unheard-of antiquity.
Destroy my confidence in the Bible as an historical record, and you
destroy my confidence in it altogether; for by far the largest part of
the Bible _is_ an historical record. If the Creation of Man,--the
longevity of the Patriarchs,--the account of the Deluge;--if _these_ be
not true histories, what is to be said of the lives of Abraham, of
Jacob, of Joseph, of Moses, of Joshua, of David,--of our _Saviour
Christ_ Himself?